No abstract

Background: Prior research has revealed large differences in health and mortality across countries, socioeconomic groups, and individuals. Russia experiences one of the world's highest levels of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, great mortality differences within the population, and a heavy burden of ill health. Psychological stress has been suggested as a likely explanation of health loss and premature death in Russia and Eastern Europe. However, physiological mechanisms connecting stress with health in Russia remain unclear since existing epidemiological data are scarce and limited to conventional risk factors.

The goal of this study is to estimate the prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome (MetS), together with its components and correlates, among elderly Russians. Our population-based sample included randomly selected residents of Moscow aged 55 and older: 955 women with an average age of 67.6, and 833 men with an average age of 68.9. MetS was defined according to NCEP-ATPIII. The prevalence of MetS was found to be 41.7% in women and 26.8% in men. It tended to decrease with age in men, but not in women. MetS was inversely related to education in women, but not in men. The most prevalent individual components of MetS were as follows: hypertension (64.4%), abdominal obesity (55%), and decreased HDL C (46%) for women; and hypertension (71%) and fasting hyperglycemia (35.2%) for men. An elevated level of TG was the rarest MetS component, affecting 23.5% of women and 22.1% of men. The higher female prevalence of MetS was attributable to abdominal obesity. MetS was found to be associated with markers of insulin resistance, low-grade inflammation, and insufficient fibrinolysis. Although the metabolic burden is an important contributor to high levels of ill-health and cardiovascular mortality among elderly Russians (especially women), it does not explain why cardiovascular mortality is much higher in Russia than in other industrialized countries.

Previous studies have shown significant differences in the health status of the population depending on the place of residence. Despite the ongoing preventive measures, there is no improvement in the epidemiological situation in relation to noncommunicable diseases, including due to unfavorable living conditions. This study is a continuation of the following earlier studies: Epidemiology of Cardiovascular Diseases in Regions of Russian Federation (ESSE-RF) and ESSE-RF-2.Aim. To assess the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases, various risk factors (RFs) of these diseases and their association in Russian regions with different economic, climate and geographic characteristics to determine the risk profile of the region and develop approaches to targeted prevention programs specific to the regions.Material and methods. The study selected 30 regions representing each federal district of the Russian Federation. The survey of participants is carried out in three stages as follows: survey using an original modular questionnaire; measurements, including anthropometry, hand grip strength test, blood pressure and heart rate assessment; blood sampling, followed by biobanking and laboratory tests.Conclusion. The results obtained will allow deepening knowledge about the RF profile specific to a particular region, evaluating the effectiveness of preventive programs, and planning new ones taking into account regional and socio-demographic characteristics. This will become the basis for a better understanding of the socio-economic burden of noncommunicable diseases and the economic damage of RFs.

The Russian population continues to face political and economic challenges, has experienced poor general health and high mortality for decades, and has exhibited widening health disparities. The physiological factors underlying links between health and socioeconomic position in the Russian population are therefore an important topic to investigate. We used data from a population-based survey of Moscow residents aged 55 and older (n=1495), fielded between December 2006 and June 2009, to address two questions. First, are social disparities evident across different clusters of biomarkers? Second, does biological risk mediate the link between socioeconomic status and health? Health outcomes included subscales for general health, physical function, and bodily pain. Socioeconomic status was represented by education and an index of material resources. Biological risk was measured by 20 biomarkers including cardiovascular, inflammatory, and neuroendocrine markers as well as heart rate parameters from 24-hour ECG monitoring. For both sexes, the age-adjusted educational disparity in standard cardiovascular risk factors was substantial (men: standardized β= −0.16, 95% CI = −0.23 to −0.09; women: β= −0.25, CI = −0.32 to −0.18). Education differences in inflammation were also evident in both men ( β= −0.17, CI = −0.25 to −0.09) and women (β= −0.09, CI = −0.17 to −0.01). Heart rate parameters differed by education only in men (β= −0.10, CI = −0.18 to −0.02). The associations between material resources and biological risk scores were generally weaker than those for education. Social disparities in neuroendocrine markers were negligible for men and women. In terms of mediating effects, biological risk accounted for more of the education gap in general health and physical function (19–36%) than in bodily pain (12–18%). Inclusion of inflammatory markers and heart rate parameters—which were important predictors of health outcomes—may explain how we accounted for more of the social disparities than previous studies.