|
| HOME | SUBSCRIPTIONS | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | CARDIOSOURCE | SEARCH | HELP | FEEDBACK |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
J Am Coll Cardiol, 2004; 43:785-786, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2003.12.013 © 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation |
,*
Clinical Scholars Program, Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathy Center, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, New York, USA
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Jonathan D. Sackner-Bernstein, Division of Cardiology, 1st Floor Cohen, North Shore University Hospital, 300 Community Drive, Manhasset, New York 11030, USA.
jonathansb{at}yahoo.com
In this issue of the Journal, Deswal et al. (12) investigated the risks of death and hospitalization for African Americans with heart failure relative to whites, and by using the Veterans Affairs (VA) national database, minimized the confounding factor of differential access to care between races. Although the database relies on administrative rather than clinical data sources, it does provide a large population source to be queried. Using rigorous statistical methods, the data show that African Americans and whites in the VA system are at equal risk of hospital readmission, and because the total outpatient visits were similar between African Americans and whites, the authors conclude that providing equal access to care eliminated racial differences in care. The authors also reported a lower risk of death for African Americans with heart failure at both 30 days and one year after the index hospitalization. Both findings are statistically robust, unaffected by the introduction of appropriate covariates. However, a major limitation of any retrospective analyses, particularly those relying on an administrative database, is the inability to ensure that the two groups studied were at equal risk (13).
It is possible that the African-American cohort would have a higher rate of rehospitalization than a cohort of whites with identical baseline risk but that the risks instead appeared equal because the African Americans in the VA system had less advanced disease, a possibility supported by the lower mortality rates at 30 days and one year (12). This would not be surprising if there were inequalities in disease severity or access to ancillary services, information and counseling (i.e., diet, exercise), but an administrative database cannot address these possibilities. Hypothetically, consider a group of African Americans who were modestly sicker than this cohort, sufficient enough to increase their mortality rate higher but still significantly less than the mortality risk of the cohort of white patients. In this hypothetical model, the risk of hospitalization should increase as well. The equivalent rate of readmission then argues that African Americans are at higher risk than is suggested by their disease severity, where disease severity is measured by mortality rate. Because the findings of their study indicate that readmission rates and mortality may be affected differentially in the population studied, as has been previously reported (11), these disparities warrant further investigation (12). Therefore, a reader should not draw the conclusion that universal access to care equalizes the risk for African Americans and whites. Instead, these data further strengthen this perspective as a hypothesis.
The authors provide several explanations for the equal risk of hospitalization with a lower risk of death, but three others should be considered. First, by using the emergency department instead of the clinics, African Americans may be entering an environment where they are more likely to be admitted. Second, even though a previous heart failure hospitalization portends an increased risk of death (14), the perception that the risk of heart failure hospitalization is related to disease severity, particularly as reflected by functional limitation, has not been prospectively tested and may be wrong. Third, treatment differences could be due in part to biases that influence decision-making (15). Although Deswal et al. (12) do not directly address this possibility, the potential for racism in clinical investigation and clinical practice is difficult to control.
As has been reviewed elsewhere, the use of race to categorize people extends from anthropologists attempting to understand the geographic distribution of homo sapiens (16). In the mid 1700s, people were categorized by both physical and psychological characteristics, and by the end of that century, the terms race and Caucasian were introduced, the latter to describe the residents of the Caucasus region of Asia (16). (The most prominent group in the region today is the Chechens.)
In clinical investigation, categorizing people based on skin color is not an appropriate scientific approach because skin color is not a biologic characteristic. As Goldstein and Chikhi report (17), the genetic differences between groups account for only 15% of the genetic variation seen across our species. As an example, Wilson et al. (18) surveyed the genetic homology among eight ethnic groups, focusing on the CYP2D6 hepatic enzyme system. Three of the groups were of African origin; yet, 62% of the Ethiopians and 21% of the Afro-Caribbeans were similar to Western European groups of Norwegians and Ashkenazi Jews. In contrast 24% of Ethiopians and 73% of the Afro-Caribbeans were like the Bantu. Should Ethiopians be considered Norwegian and Afro-Caribbeans be considered African? Additional studies point out the disparities that can exist for women and men because in many geographic regions there was unidirectional mating, as male explorers inhabited new lands (19).
Race is an important surrogate, but it is only a surrogate. Health-related differences that exist between races are not caused by belonging to a particular race, but rather are likely due to associated differences in social, educational, religious, or economic factors (20), in addition to genetic differences (17,21,22). The clinical perspective must remain focused on the aggressive treatment of cardiovascular diseases, but because race is not a relevant biologic grouping, our perspectives about mechanisms of disease, access to care, and effects of therapeutics must shift from a phenomenological to a genomic paradigm (16,21,22). We need to become scientifically color blind even while our society is not. The Deswal et al. (12) data facilitate the social arguments for prospectively testing the role of universal access as a means to equalize care but should not be used an argument to prove that this has occurred.
We live in a rich, advanced society. Our medical care is arguably the best in the world, and providing equal access to all can reduce risks. But to have maximum impact, we need more than equal access. Identifying what we mean when we subgroup according to race is critical; altering treatments or access to care based on blanket characterizations of race in the absence of a biologic basis cannot be justified. Unless prospectively controlled studies focusing on specific ethnic groups prove the usefulness of different clinical approaches, care must be blind to race and instead focus on treatable risks, such as hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia. Eliminating biases in this context will improve the quality of health care one patient at a time.
 |
Footnotes |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  Race and Survival After a First Heart-Failure Hospitalization Journal Watch Cardiology, May 28, 2004; 2004(528): 5 - 5. [Full Text]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | SUBSCRIPTIONS | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | CARDIOSOURCE | SEARCH | HELP | FEEDBACK |
