In this worldwide ecological study, we assessed the association of countries’ World Bank income group, health-expenditure, and prevalence of conventional cardiometabolic risk factors with their cardiometabolic mortality. While the lowest cardiometabolic mortality was recorded in high-income countries in both genders, the highest rates were recorded in the low-income category for women and in lower-middle income ones for men. Countries had lower cardiometabolic mortality for women compared to men; however, such a difference was not shown in low-income countries. Moreover, income category of countries played a significant role in explaining their cardiometabolic mortality only in lower-middle-income countries for men and low-income and lower-middle-income countries for women. Health-expenditure had a protective association with cardiometabolic mortality in different countries. Furthermore, the prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and smoking, as well as energy-consumption among countries, was associated with higher cardiometabolic mortality in men whereas, in women, the risk of the prevalence of diabetes and smoking was lower. Last but not least, according to the models, the more the health-expenditure, the weaker the association between the prevalence of hypertension and cardiometabolic mortality.
We showed that in both genders, low- and middle-income countries had higher cardiometabolic mortality compared to high-income countries and one-third of the gap between countries can be explained by their income-group. Therefore, one can interpret that World Bank categories can be relatively a useful tool for explaining the gap between countries in their cardiometabolic mortality. However, the strong association between income-groups and cardiac mortality reduced noticeably when we adjusted our model for health-expenditure. This may be explained by the fact that wealthier countries are more likely to expend more on their health section, effecting more-expensive medications, interventions, and surgeries (
13). Furthermore, wealthier countries spend more on health education and health policies, which have been shown to have significant effects on health outcomes (
14-
16).
After controlling for countries’ health-expenditure, women in low- and middle-income countries and men in middle-income countries had higher cardiometabolic mortality compared to high-income countries. This finding indicated that although funding of health-care systems is quite important, by no means is the entire problem. In other words, even if the countries spend equally on health, low and middle-income countries would have higher cardiometabolic mortality in comparison with their high-income counterparts. Similarly, in a systematic review of 30 population-based studies, Luciano et al. found that lower gross domestic product per capita adjusted for purchasing-power-parity and lower total health-expenditures-per-capita at purchasing-power-parity were associated with higher incidence risk of stroke, higher case-fatality, and lower age at stroke onset (
17). Gwatkin et al. (
18) made the point that the health of the poor populations has more to do with their social and environmental circumstances than with their lack of healthcare.
In line with several studies, we found that except for hypertension, the prevalence of risk factors was the lowest in low-income countries. This may be because an increase in wealth influences the population’s lifestyle, leading to increased consumption of tobacco, fat, prepared foods, and decreased physical activity (
13). However, the higher prevalence of cardiometabolic risk factors in the current study was not coupled with higher cardiometabolic mortality in high- or upper-middle-income countries, whereas the opposite correlation was expected (
13). Such a discrepancy can be explained by the important role of income groups and health-expenditure as important confounders. Not surprisingly, after adjustment for gender, income groups, and health-expenditure, we found positive associations between the prevalence of smoking, diabetes, and hypertension as well as energy consumption and cardiometabolic mortality. The prominent role of risk factors such as smoking, diabetes, hypertension, and overeating in cardiometabolic mortality has been reported previously at global scales (
19). However, it should be noted that our results are in the level of countries. After adjustment for cardiometabolic risk factors, we observed a noticeable rise in the proportion of variability in cardiometabolic mortality that could be explained by our model from 37% to 54%. We also found that the more nations spend on the health, the weaker the association between the prevalence of hypertension and cardiometabolic mortality, which may highlight the importance of secondary prevention of cardiometabolic risk factors such as hypertension in controlling the burden of cardiometabolic mortality by reducing their case-fatality. Likewise, the result of IMPACT, a study conducted to explore the contributions of risk factors and treatments in over 15 countries where mortality rates have been declining, showed that in different populations, about 40% to 75% of the coronary heart disease mortality decline could be attributed to risk factor changes and the remaining 25% to 55% to treatments (
20). Similarly, in the MONICA analysis, approximately three-quarters of the fall observed could be attributed to the decline in event rates (mainly reflecting risk factor improvements) while approximately one-quarter could be attributed to a decrease in case of death (mainly reflecting medical treatments) (
21).
According to our models, generally, women had lower cardiometabolic mortality compared to men. However, the prominent difference was disappeared in low-income countries. Moreover, according to the data, 33 countries had higher mortality rates for their women than for men, mostly in low- (18 countries) and lower-middle- (8 countries) income groups (only Qatar and Kuwait from the high-income group). Higher cardiovascular mortality rates for women, which cannot be explained by conventional risk factors, were also reported in previous studies in low-income countries (
22). This finding might be explained by a widespread neglect of health, nutrition, and other interests of women that could affect their survival (
22-
24).
5.1. Strength and Limitations of This Study
Several limitations should be considered when assessing the results of the current study. First, every ecological study is apt to suffer from inherent biases. However, our study aimed to investigate the relationships and associations between countries rather than individuals; therefore, some limitations of ecological studies such as ecological fallacy do not count for the current study. Second, regarding cardiometabolic mortality among countries, there might be differences in reporting patterns between countries as they were collected in distinct settings, despite the existence of the statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (ICD), which try to standardize the cause of death coding. To minimize such biases, we used cardiometabolic mortality as the sum of death rates related to cardiovascular disease and diabetes instead of using only one of them. Third, the reliability and validity of the prevalence of risk factors may vary from a country to another. Fourth, the relatively low number of subjects in our models (172 countries) might result in low statistical power. By using data for both genders in each country and running mixed-effect analyses, we included 172 × 2 records in the analysis and improved the power. Some might see the gross national income (GNI) per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) a better indicator of the economic status of a country; however, it should be considered that GNI per capita at PPP is highly skewed and cannot be used in models without advanced transformations. Interpretation of transformed GNI per capita at PPP is very hard if not impossible for readers. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, the WHO has not yet used GNI per capita at PPP for classification of countries. The main strengths of our study are using age-standardized mortality rates and prevalence of cardiometabolic risk factors in each gender, which allowed us to compare countries, regardless of their age structure and population size. We assessed the association of independent variables of income, health-expenditure, and risk factors of countries derived in 2008 with their cardiometabolic mortality of 2012, which minimized biases related to cross-sectional analyses.
5.2. Conclusion
In this study, the World Bank income group, health-expenditure, and prevalence of cardiometabolic risk factors all had remarkable power to explain the gap in cardiometabolic mortality between countries. Therefore, classification of countries by adding their health-expenditure and/or prevalence of cardiometabolic risk factors to their income might lead to better classification. In addition, as a post hoc finding, we detected a higher cardiovascular mortality for women in low-income countries, which cannot be explained by income groups, health-expenditure, and prevalence of cardiometabolic risk factors. Further research is needed to investigate the potential explanations for such a finding.