Women with type 2 diabetes have LDL cholesterol levels higher than those of men, regardless of their treatment and their cardiovascular risk level.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several works have shown that control of the principal cardiovascular risk factors, especially LDL-C, is poorer among women with type 2 diabetes than men with this disease. Our objectives were to compare the statin treatments and LDL-C levels between men and women with type 2 diabetes, according to the potency of the statin they take, while taking their cardiovascular risk level into account. METHOD AND RESULTS: This is a descriptive cross-sectional study within the French CONSTANCES cohort. At inclusion, each individual completed several self-administered questionnaires. Data were then matched to their health insurance fund reimbursement data. The study population comprises cohort members with pharmacologically treated type 2 diabetes. We identified 2541 individuals with type 2 diabetes; 2214 had an available LDL-C value. In the total sample, treatment by statins did not differ between men and women, while the women had a higher mean LCL-C level than men. The analyses stratified by cardiovascular risk showed that women at very high cardiovascular risk received significantly less frequent statin delivery than men (OR = 0.72 [0.56-0.92]; p = 0.01). At the same time, women received the same rate of high-potency statins as men. Women taking equivalently potent statins had significantly higher LDL-C levels than men did. CONCLUSION: For the same cardiovascular risk level and the same statin treatment, women had an LDL-C level higher than that of men. They thus present a residual cardiovascular risk that justifies intensification of their statin treatment if tolerance allows.

Social inequalities in participation in cancer screening: does the mode of data collection matter? The CONSTANCES cohort.

BACKGROUND: Self-reported data are prone to item non-response and misreporting. We investigated to what extent the use of self-reported data for participation in breast (BCS) and cervical cancer screening (CCS) impacted socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation. METHODS: We used data from a large population-based survey including information on cancer screening from self-reported questionnaire and administrative records (n = 14 122 for BCS, n = 27 120 CCS). For educational level, occupation class and household income per capita, we assessed the accuracy of self-reporting using sensitivity, specificity and both positive and negative predictive value. In addition, we estimated to what extent the use of self-reported data modified the magnitude of socioeconomic differences in BCS and CCS participation with age-adjusted non-screening rate difference, odds ratios and relative indices of inequality. RESULTS: Although women with a high socioeconomic position were more prone to report a date for BCS and CCS in questionnaires, they were also more prone to over-declare their participation in CCS if they had not undergone a screening test within the recommended time frame. The use of self-reported cancer screening data, when compared with administrative records, did not impact the magnitude of social differences in BCS participation but led to an overestimation of the social differences in CCS participation. This was due to misreporting rather than to item non-response. CONCLUSIONS: Women's socioeconomic position is associated with missingness and the accuracy of self-reported BCS and CCS participation. Social inequalities in cancer screening participation based on self-reports are likely to be overestimated for CCS.

Combined influence of immigration status and income on cervical cancer screening uptake.

The regular performance of Pap tests for cervical cancer screening reduces this disease's incidence and mortality. Income inequalities have been reported for this screening, partly because in some countries women must advance or even pay out-of-pocket costs. Because immigrant status is also associated with low Pap test uptake, we aimed to analyze the combined impact of immigrant status and low income on cervical cancer underscreening. This study, based on the French CONSTANCES cohort, uses data from the cohort questionnaires and linked health insurance fund data about Pap test reimbursement. To measure income inequalities in screening, we calculated a Slope Index of Inequality (SII) by linear regression, taking into account the migration status of participants. The majority of the 70,614 women included in the analysis were not immigrants (80.2%), while 12.9% were second-generation immigrants, and 6.9% first-generation immigrants. The proportion of underscreening increased with immigrant status, from 19.5% among nonimmigrants to 23.6% among the second generation, and 26.5% among the first (P < 0.01). The proportion of underscreening also increased as income level decreased. The income gradient rose significantly from 14% among nonimmigrants to 21% in second-generation immigrants and 19% in the first generation (P < 0.01). Among first-generation migrants, the shorter the duration of residence, the higher the SII. Women who are first- or second-generation immigrants are simultaneously underscreened and subject to a more unfavorable economic gradient than native French women born to native French parents. The accumulation of several negative factors could be particularly unfavorable to screening uptake.

Patterns of gynaecological check-up and their association with body mass index within the CONSTANCES cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between patterns of gynaecological check-up and body mass index while accounting for various determinants of health care use. METHODS: Sequence analysis and clustering were used to highlight patterns of gynaecological check-up, which included the regularity of breast and cervical cancer screening and visits to the gynaecologist over four years, among 6182 women aged 54-65 included in the CONSTANCES cohort between 2013 and 2015 in France. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to study the association between these patterns and women's body mass index. RESULTS: We identified four patterns of gynaecological check-up, from (A) no or inappropriate check-up (20%) to (D) almost one visit to the gynaecologist every year, overscreening for cervical cancer and frequent use of opportunistic breast cancer screening (12%). From patterns A to D, the proportion of obese women decreased and that of women with normal body mass index increased. Obese and overweight women underwent more breast than cervical cancer screening and were less often overscreened than normal weight women. These differences were only partly explained by the lower socioeconomic situation of overweight and obese women. Beyond the financial barrier, the screening modality and the type of exam may play a role. Among women who were screened for cervical cancer, obese and overweight women were less often screened by a gynaecologist. CONCLUSION: Further efforts should be made to enhance the take-up of screening among obese women who are deterred by the healthcare system.

Women with obesity in cervical cancer screening. The double penalty: Underscreening and income inequalities.

The regular performance of Pap tests reduces the mortality of cervical cancer. Obesity is associated with low Pap test rates. We analyze the combined role of obesity and low income. We calculated a Slope Index of Inequality. Among the 28,905 women included, 23.1% were underscreened. The rate of underscreening increased with BMI. The income gradient increased significantly from 0.17 among normal-weight women to 0.19 in overweight and 0.23 in obese women (p = 0.047). Women who are obese are subject to a double penalty in cervical cancer screening: they are underscreened and subject to a more unfavorable economic gradient than normalweight women.