Associations between low HDL, sex and cardiovascular risk markers are substantially different in sub-Saharan Africa and the UK: analysis of four population studies.

INTRODUCTION: Low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) is widely used as a marker of cardiovascular disease risk, although this relationship is not causal and is likely mediated through associations with other risk factors. Low HDL is extremely common in sub-Saharan African populations, and this has often been interpreted to indicate that these populations will have increased cardiovascular risk. We aimed to determine whether the association between HDL and other cardiovascular risk factors differed between populations in sub-Saharan Africa and the UK. METHODS: We compared data from adults living in Uganda and Malawi (n=26 216) and in the UK (n=8747). We examined unadjusted and adjusted levels of HDL and applied the WHO recommended cut-offs for prevalence estimates. We used spline and linear regression to assess the relationship between HDL and other cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: HDL was substantially lower in the African than in the European studies (geometric mean 0.9-1.2 mmol/L vs 1.3-1.8 mmol/L), with African prevalence of low HDL as high as 77%. Total cholesterol was also substantially lower (geometric mean 3.3-3.9 mmol/L vs 4.6-5.4 mmol/L). In comparison with European studies the relationship between HDL and adiposity (body mass index, waist to hip ratio) was greatly attenuated in African studies and the relationship with non-HDL cholesterol reversed: in African studies low HDL was associated with lower non-HDL cholesterol. The association between sex and HDL was also different; using the WHO sex-specific definitions, low HDL was substantially more common among women (69%-77%) than men (41%-59%) in Uganda/Malawi. CONCLUSION: The relationship between HDL and sex, adiposity and non-HDL cholesterol in sub-Saharan Africa is different from European populations. In sub-Saharan Africans low HDL is a marker of low overall cholesterol and sex differences are markedly attenuated. Therefore low HDL in isolation is unlikely to indicate raised cardiovascular risk and the WHO sex-based cut-offs are inappropriate.

HbA1c performs well in monitoring glucose control even in populations with high prevalence of medical conditions that may alter its reliability: the OPTIMAL observational multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: The utility of HbA1c (glycosylated hemoglobin) to estimate glycemic control in populations of African and other low-resource countries has been questioned because of high prevalence of other medical conditions that may affect its reliability. Using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), we aimed to determine the comparative performance of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (within 5 hours of a meal) and random non-fasting glucose (RPG) in assessing glycemic burden. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We assessed the performance of HbA1c, FPG and RPG in comparison to CGM mean glucose in 192 Ugandan participants with type 2 diabetes. Analysis was undertaken in all participants, and in subgroups with and without medical conditions reported to affect HbA1c reliability. We then assessed the performance of FPG and RPG, and optimal thresholds, in comparison to HbA1c in participants without medical conditions thought to alter HbA1c reliability. RESULTS: 32.8% (63/192) of participants had medical conditions that may affect HbA1c reliability: anemia 9.4% (18/192), sickle cell trait and/or hemoglobin C (HbC) 22.4% (43/192), or renal impairment 6.3% (12/192). Despite high prevalence of medical conditions thought to affect HbA1c reliability, HbA1c had the strongest correlation with CGM measured glucose in day-to-day living (0.88, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.91), followed by FPG (0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86) and RPG (0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.81). Among participants without conditions thought to affect HbA1c reliability, FPG and RPG had a similar diagnostic performance in identifying poor glycemic control defined by a range of HbA1c thresholds. FPG of ≥7.1 mmol/L and RPG of ≥10.5 mmol/L correctly identified 78.2% and 78.8%, respectively, of patients with an HbA1c of ≥7.0%. CONCLUSIONS: HbA1c is the optimal test for monitoring glucose control even in low-income and middle-income countries where medical conditions that may alter its reliability are prevalent; FPG and RPG are valuable alternatives where HbA1c is not available.