Latino Risk-adjusted Mortality in the Men Screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial

Avis J. Thomas1, Lynn E. Eberly1, James D. Neaton1, George Davey Smith2 for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group

1 Coordinating Centers for Biometric Research, Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
2 Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR, United Kingdom

Correspondence to Avis Thomas, University of Minnesota, 2221 University Avenue, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (e-mail: avist{at}ccbr.umn.edu).

Received for publication January 26, 2005. Accepted for publication April 20, 2005.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
Latinos are now the largest minority in the United States, but their distinctive health needs and mortality patterns remain poorly understood. Proportional hazards regressions were used to compare Latino versus White risk- and income-adjusted mortality over 25 years' follow-up from 5,846 Latino and 300,647 White men screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Men were aged 35–57 years and residing in 14 states when screened in 1973–1975. Data on coronary heart disease risk factors, self-reported race/ethnicity, and home addresses were obtained at baseline; income was estimated by linking addresses to census data. Mortality follow-up through 1999 was obtained using the National Death Index. The fully adjusted Latino/White hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77, 0.87), based on 1,085 Latino and 73,807 White deaths; this pattern prevailed over time and across states (thus, likely across Latino subgroups). Hazard ratios were significantly greater than one for stroke (hazard ratio = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.68), liver cancer (hazard ratio = 2.02, 95% CI: 1.21, 3.37), and infection (hazard ratio = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.24, 2.32). A substudy found only minor racial/ethnic differences in the quality of Social Security numbers, birth dates, soundex-adjusted names, and National Death Index searches. Results were not likely an artifact of return migration or incomplete mortality data.

cardiovascular diseases; cerebrovascular accident; diabetes mellitus, type 2; emigration and immigration; ethnology; Hispanic Americans; liver neoplasms; social class


Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; MRFIT, Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
The Latino-American population is growing rapidly and has emerged as America's largest minority (12.5 percent of the US population in 2000, up from 9.0 percent in 1990) (1Go, 2Go). It is thus an important subgroup for analysis. However, there is conflicting information about mortality differences between Latino Americans and other Americans. Various studies have compared Latino-American mortality and morbidity with those of non-Latino White Americans (hereafter called "Latinos" and "Whites"). Few Latino/White mortality studies, however, have also had access to health information. Some, based on national data registries, provide evidence for the "Hispanic paradox," in which Latinos have significantly lower mortality statistics than do Whites despite financial disadvantages and greater cultural and linguistic barriers to health care (3Go–8Go). Others, based on community studies, provide evidence against this Hispanic paradox (9Go, 10Go). The inconsistency has not been resolved. The current study sheds light on the issues by evaluating 25-year mortality outcomes for a large US cohort of Latinos and Whites with baseline health and estimated income data.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial screening
Between 1973 and 1975, the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT) screened 361,662 men aged 35–57 years for coronary heart disease risk factors. Screening was carried out by 22 clinical centers in 18 cities (14 states) across the continental United States. The types of populations screened varied considerably from center to center, and no attempt was made to make the recruits representative of the general population. Clinical centers that screened a large number of Latinos relied heavily on recruitment within industrial or governmental work settings and/or union halls and also on door-to-door recruitment within census tracts or geographic locales (M. Sexton, University of Maryland, unpublished manuscript) (11Go). Work sites used for recruitment were chosen from industries with a stable work force. Most clinical centers used multiple recruitment methods that also included area-wide methods, such as recruiting in shopping malls or at street fairs or recruiting through affinity groups such as churches or civic clubs.

All men signed a brief consent form giving investigators explicit permission to use all the data collected. Men had every opportunity to decline the screening. Undocumented aliens or men planning to move away from the area may have thus been implicitly discouraged.

Data collection at screening is described in detail elsewhere (12Go). At the first screening visit, blood pressure was taken three times with a standard mercury sphygmomanometer; this study used the average of the second and third readings. Serum total cholesterol was measured from a nonfasting blood sample. Men were asked how many cigarettes a day they currently smoked, if they were presently taking medicine for diabetes, and whether or not they had ever been hospitalized for a heart attack for 2 weeks or longer. Current home address, Social Security number, and date of birth were collected. Men were asked: "Which of the following best describes the group to which you belong: White, Black, Oriental, Spanish American, American Indian, or other?" Men in the top 10–15 percent group for coronary heart disease, but without history of heart attack or present use of medicine for diabetes, were invited to return for additional screening and possible inclusion in the randomized trial.

Home address ZIP codes were matched to 1980 US Census data to obtain ZIP code-based median household income and percentage Latino. White versus Latino race/ethnicity-specific median incomes were compared. Latino-specific data were not publicly available for some ZIP codes; to include as many men as possible, we chose to use ZIP code-based median income for Whites to estimate income for both Whites and Latinos.

To investigate the merits of adjusting for ZIP code-based median household income versus census tract-based median family income, we obtained census tracts for as many screenees as possible. Home addresses were geocoded using ArcView 8.2 and ArcGIS StreetMap USA (both by ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California) software and matched with 1980 US Census tract boundary files from the National Historical Geographic Information System.

Study participants
Men were included in this study if they self-identified as "White" or "Spanish American," they had complete baseline health data, and the median income for Whites in their ZIP code was known. Of the 361,662 men screened, there were 6,647 Latinos and 325,384 Whites. Of these, the 5,846 (88 percent) Latinos and 300,647 (92 percent) Whites with complete baseline data are the focus of this report. Among the 801 Latinos and 24,737 Whites who were excluded, 25.2 percent and 29.8 percent died during follow-up, respectively.

Mortality data
Participants' dates of birth, Social Security numbers (if available), and names were used to obtain mortality data from the Social Security Death Index and the National Death Index through 1999. National Death Index matching was based on a probabilistic scoring system developed by the National Center for Health Statistics; a match with slightly incorrect or missing Social Security numbers was still possible if the name and date of birth matched exactly, where names could be matched on the basis of either exact spelling or the New York State Identification and Intelligence System phonetic codes (13Go). For deaths through 1990, the Social Security Death Index, National Death Index, and MRFIT clinic records were used to determine dates of death; two or three nosologists then read each death certificate and coded the underlying cause of death. For deaths in 1991–1999, the cause and date of death were obtained from the National Death Index Plus service. Both the Social Security Death Index and the National Death Index capture deaths that occurred in Puerto Rico (14Go).

The National Death Index matching criteria have been shown to have 97 percent specificity and 97 percent sensitivity for the general population (15Go), and National Death Index searches have been shown to produce high-quality results, even with incomplete or incorrect data (13Go). A National Death Index search correctly identified 98.4 percent of the 191 known 1979–1980 deaths among men randomized into the MRFIT; 93.2 percent were found in a Social Security Death Index search (16Go). However, it has not been clear whether matching results for Latinos are of the same high quality as for Whites. National Death Index documentation reports lower matching rates among non-Whites due to lower reports of Social Security numbers and incorrect spelling/recording of ethnic names (17Go). To address this question, we randomly selected 500 Whites and 500 Latinos with a Social Security number available and searched for death records in the Social Security Death Index through January 2004. The results were used to evaluate the relative reliability of Latino and White Social Security numbers, names, and dates of birth, as well as the overall number of Latino and White deaths found.

Statistical methods
Baseline data were tabulated using percentages or means and standard deviations. Age-adjusted p values for Latino/White differences were calculated using linear or logistic regression.

Proportional hazards regressions were used to examine Latino/White mortality differences. Regressions were stratified by clinical center unless they involved state-by-state analysis. Regressions were adjusted first by age; then by age and risk factors (smoker (yes/no), cigarettes per day, serum cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, current treatment for diabetes, and prior heart attack); and finally by age, risk factors, and income. The proportional hazards assumption was checked for all-cause mortality by examining the hazard ratios for sequential 10-year time segments.

Similar analyses were repeated for specific medical and demographic subgroups. Among the subgroups considered were Latinos living in a ZIP code with a high versus a low percentage of Latinos. Those men in a ZIP code with a high percentage of Latinos could have lower mortality rates due to being less acculturated to mainstream US culture, on average, or due to greater availability of Spanish-speaking and/or culturally appropriate medical facilities or better quality social networks.

A separate analysis was also carried out for the subset of men for whom both ZIP code-based and census tract-based median incomes were available. We compared Latino/White hazard ratios for risk and income-adjusted models using each of the two income measures.

The state in which they were screened was used as an approximate proxy for Latinos' country of origin. To test the robustness of Latino/White hazard ratios across state and across other variables, we performed fully adjusted proportional hazards regressions separately by state, demographic variables, and risk factors. We tested for linear or categorical interaction between race/ethnicity and these variables by adding interaction terms to the regressions.

All analyses were conducted using SAS, version 8.2 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina), software. All p values were two sided.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
Baseline characteristics
Latino men were younger at screening than were White men (mean age: 44.7 vs. 46.0 years), more likely to report taking medicine for diabetes (1.8 percent vs. 1.4 percent), less likely to report a prior heart attack (1.0 percent vs. 1.5 percent), and slightly more likely to smoke cigarettes (39.0 percent vs. 35.2 percent), but those who did smoke consumed fewer cigarettes per day (18.4 vs. 26.7) (table 1). Their 1980 ZIP code-based median household income was much less ($20,577 vs. $25,028), and 3.8 percent of Latinos and 1.3 percent of Whites failed to provide a Social Security number. A National Death Index match was 0.7 percent (among Latinos) or 3.6 percent (among Whites) less likely for men without a Social Security number.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Baseline characteristics of Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Latinos and Whites screened between 1973 and 1975

 
Though the MRFIT clinical centers were located in 14 states, 93 percent of the Latino men were concentrated in five key states. Latinos in California and Illinois were predominantly of Mexican origin (79 percent and 50 percent, respectively); in New York, New Jersey, and Florida, 67–70 percent of the Latinos were either Puerto Rican or Cuban.

Latino/White mortality by cause for all men combined
During the 25-year follow-up period, 1,085 (18.6 percent) Latinos and 73,807 (24.6 percent) Whites died. Table 2 summarizes Latino/White hazard ratios for several causes of death, before and after risk and income adjustments. The age-adjusted Latino/White hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.84 (95 percent confidence interval (CI): 0.79, 0.90); it was 0.86 (95 percent CI: 0.81, 0.92) after further adjustment for risk factors and 0.82 (95 percent CI: 0.77, 0.87) after adjustment for age, risk factors, and income. The age- and income-adjusted, but not risk factor-adjusted, Latino/White hazard ratio was 0.77 (95 percent CI: 0.73, 0.82). Separate regressions for Latinos and Whites showed that they had similar associations of major risk factors and income with all-cause mortality (not shown).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for Latinos versus Whites as a predictor of mortality, Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, 1973–1999

 
After adjustment for age, risk factors, and income, Latino mortality was significantly less than White mortality for cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, all cancers combined, lung cancer, miscellaneous digestive cancers (excluding colorectal, liver, and stomach), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Latino mortality was significantly greater than that for Whites for stroke, liver cancer, and infection. Estimated Latino/White hazard ratios for colon cancer, prostate cancer, and respiratory failure were less than unity while hazard ratios for stomach cancer and diabetes were greater than unity, but the small number of Latino deaths led to only tentative results for these causes. The fully adjusted hazard ratio for injury and other violent deaths was 1.00 (95 percent CI: 0.78, 1.27).

Mortality by cause for subgroups defined by state, demographic characteristics, risk factor levels, and income
Latino/White hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were also estimated for selected subgroups (table 3). Differences in Latino/White hazard ratios by state, percent Latino in ZIP code, income level, age at screening, diabetic status, smoking status, cholesterol level, blood pressure level, overall coronary heart disease risk level, availability of Social Security number, and presence at the second screening visit were small and in most cases not significant at conventional levels (p = 0.01 for overall coronary heart disease risk level; p = 0.06 for smoking; p > 0.13 for each of the others).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 3. Analysis of Latino and White all-cause mortality by subgroups, Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, 1973–1999

 
The subgroup of men randomized into the MRFIT, including 159 Latinos (43 deaths) and 10,683 Whites (3,854 deaths) with complete data, was considered separately because personally reported income was collected for these men. The fully adjusted Latino/White hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.80 (95 percent CI: 0.59, 1.09) using ZIP code-based income and 0.75 (95 percent CI: 0.55, 1.02) using personally reported family income.

Robustness of results
Latino/White differences in all-cause mortality remained constant over the 25 years of follow-up time. The fully adjusted Latino/White hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were 0.86 (95 percent CI: 0.75, 0.99) during years 1–10, 0.78 (95 percent CI: 0.71, 0.86) during years 11–20, and 0.84 (95 percent CI: 0.76, 0.93) in years 21 and after.

To investigate the use of different census-based income estimates, we considered census tract-based and White-only ZIP code-based median income, both of which were available for 5,367 (92 percent) Latinos and 261,539 (87 percent) Whites. The age-, risk-, and income-adjusted Latino/White all-cause mortality hazard ratio was 0.82 (95 percent CI: 0.77, 0.88) when using ZIP code-based income and 0.81 (95 percent CI: 0.76, 0.87) when using census tract-based income. To include as many men as possible, we selected White-only, ZIP code-based median income as the income estimate in all the other analyses.

Quality of reported birth date and vital status ascertainment
To evaluate the quality of the National Death Index search for Latinos compared with Whites, we randomly selected 500 Latinos and 500 Whites with Social Security numbers from the study population and searched the Social Security Death Index database through January 2004 for information about them. The average age at screening was 44.7 years for Latinos and 46.2 years for Whites. Matches were sought using only the Social Security number and alternately using only the last name with soundex code (for more information: http://www.archives.gov/research_room/genealogy/census/soundex.html), first name (exact spelling), and year of birth. The National Death Index search had identified 82 Latino and 111 White deaths for this group through 1999; the Social Security Death Index search found four additional deaths for this time period, all of them for Whites. Incorporating these four additional deaths reduced the unadjusted Latino/White all-cause mortality ratio from 0.78 to 0.75.

The Social Security Death Index database contained information on 123 Latino deaths and 155 White deaths through January 2004; among them, ten Whites (6.5 percent) and four Latinos (3.3 percent) had single-digit discrepancies in Social Security number when compared with the MRFIT database (table 4). None had larger discrepancies. By this criterion alone, the Social Security numbers for Latino MRFIT screenees were 3.2 percent more consistent than those for the Whites. Additionally, one Latino and six Whites had Social Security numbers in the MRFIT database that were assigned to someone else in the Social Security Death Index database. Soundex-adjusted surnames and dates of birth were 1.9 percent and 10–15 percent less consistent for Latinos, respectively; investigations of first name yielded ambiguous results.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 4. Discrepancies in identifying information between MRFIT* and the Social Security Death Index, based on randomly selected MRFIT records matched to the Social Security Death Index through January 2004

 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
In the large, 14-state MRFIT study, 25-year mortality follow-up lends support to the Hispanic paradox, with an age-, risk factor-, and income-adjusted Latino/White hazard ratio for all-cause mortality of 0.82 (95 percent CI: 0.77, 0.87). Mortality hazard ratios were significantly less than one for cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, all cancers combined, and some site-specific cancers. They were significantly greater than one for stroke, liver cancer, and infection. The diabetes and stomach cancer hazard ratios were markedly elevated, but the small number of Latino deaths (n = 38 and 23, respectively) limited our ability to estimate these hazard ratios reliably.

In 1973–1975, most Latino Americans were foreign born; it is thus likely that a majority of MRFIT Latino screenees were also first generation immigrants. The low Latino/White all-cause mortality hazard ratio could thus reflect a healthy immigrant phenomenon. In this view, the immigrants' self-selection process favors individuals with above-average health, intelligence, and self-motivation. These characteristics would have favorably influenced immigrants' mortality across their life span (3Go). Studies have found more favorable self-reported health statuses for first generation immigrants (Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, and non-Hispanic Black) than for native-born Americans, particularly in the early years after immigration (18Go, 19Go). Other authors have suggested that first generation immigrants may be healthier because of lesser past exposure to pollutants, sedentary lifestyles, tobacco, and so on, in their country of origin (18Go, 20Go) or because they partially retain advantageous cultural characteristics and health behaviors (e.g., dietary differences, stronger social networks, and family cohesion) (21Go, 22Go). Possible genetic factors, including a propensity for obesity and diabetes, would work against this (23Go).

Alternately, Latino/White mortality hazard ratios less than one have often been attributed to the "salmon hypothesis" (24Go), in which first generation Latino immigrants are disproportionately likely to return to their country of origin before death, thus skewing reported mortality rates. Three aspects of the current study mitigate against that possibility. First, several factors would have reduced the likelihood that undocumented aliens or those planning to leave the country would have chosen to participate. The men screened for the MRFIT were recruited from stable populations and gave researchers written permission to use their Social Security number and other confidential data. An overwhelming majority of both Latinos (96 percent) and Whites (98 percent) provided researchers with a plausible Social Security number, indicative of a long-term interest in US residency.

Second, had Latinos left the country at a significant rate, the Latino/White all-cause mortality hazard ratio would have decreased over time. However, the observed Latino/White differences in mortality rates remained constant over 25 years of follow-up.

Third, the salmon hypothesis applies only to immigrants from Mexico, Central America, and South America and not to those from Puerto Rico (because deaths in Puerto Rico are included in the National Death Index and Social Security Death Index databases) or Cuba (who have tended to remain in the United States for political reasons). It would thus predict lower observed Latino/White hazard ratios in California or Illinois, where most Latinos were Mexican American, versus New York, New Jersey, and Florida, where Cubans and Puerto Ricans predominate. However, no such pattern existed.

There has been considerable discussion in the literature regarding incomplete ascertainment of Latino deaths (8Go, 9Go, 17Go, 25Go), which led us to more carefully examine the quality of the MRFIT data and the National Death Index search. Based on the analysis of a random sample of screenees (500 Latinos and 500 Whites), the Latinos in this study had Social Security numbers that were 3 percent more consistent than did Whites; soundex-adjusted surnames were 2 percent less consistent. Because of the preeminence of the Social Security number in the National Death Index's search algorithm, we conclude that the National Death Index results are approximately as complete for Latinos as for Whites, and that the low Latino/White hazard ratios are not an artifact of inconsistent or incomplete identifying information. In order for the underlying crude death rates among the White and Latino screenees to be equal, an additional 351 (6.0 percent) of the Latinos would have to have died but been missed by the National Death Index search, which is a much greater error rate than that found in the random sample.

We found significantly lower coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease mortality among Latinos than Whites but significantly higher stroke mortality. Stroke has been shown to be particularly dependent on deprivation in early life (26Go–28Go), which may be more common for first generation Latino immigrants than for the general population. The lower risk-adjusted coronary heart disease mortality could reflect the fact that risk factors were measured only in middle age. It is becoming clear that lifetime exposure to cigarette smoking, elevated cholesterol, and elevated blood pressure is associated with coronary heart disease risk and that adulthood measures alone underestimate their importance (29Go). Thus, while the Latinos have a higher prevalence of smoking (although fewer cigarettes per day) in the early 1970s, they may have started smoking at a later age than Whites and, thus, had a shorter and lower level of lifetime exposure to cigarette smoke; for diseases with long latency periods, this would be related to lower risk. Support for this comes from the lower lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality among Latinos, which is unchanged by adjustment for measures of smoking in middle age. Similarly, blood pressure-level and cholesterol-level profiles across the lifetime of Latinos may have been more favorable than those of the Whites in a way that is not captured by the relative similarity of measures taken in middle age.

Combining cardiovascular disease and diabetes deaths resulted in a fully adjusted combined hazard ratio of 0.80, nearly the same as for cardiovascular disease alone. The favorable cardiovascular disease result is, thus, not due to such misclassification of cause of death.

The fully adjusted Latino/White hazard ratio for all cancers combined was 0.69; similar hazard ratios were found for most site-specific cancers. In contrast, the Latino/White hazard ratios of 2.02 and 1.46 for liver cancer and stomach cancer, respectively, were markedly elevated. The hazard ratios for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and infection were 0.62 and 1.69. Each of these hazard ratios was consistent with hazard ratios found in studies based on regional cancer registries and census population counts (6Go, 7Go) and based on the National Longitudinal Mortality Study (4Go).

Marmot et al. (30Go) showed that, for several causes of death in various English immigrant populations, mortality rates for first generation immigrants were between those of England and their country of origin; their work underscored the long-term influence of culture and environment on health. Additionally, studies of men of Japanese birth or descent living in Japan, Hawaii, and California have shown that coronary heart disease risk factors and mortality grade between those of Japanese living in Japan and White Americans, with Japanese Americans living in Hawaii having intermediate values. The risk factors and mortality of Japanese-American immigrant communities approached those of White Americans only after a few generations (31Go–37Go). For first generation Latino immigrants, the lower overall cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality rates seen in this study may likewise reflect the long-term effects of a healthier environment and lifestyle in their country of origin. Likewise, a higher rate of liver cancer, consistent with the higher rates found in Latin America, may be partially explained by the greater incidence of hepatitis B and hepatitis C in Latin American populations. Latin American countries also have more humid climates and consequently greater contamination of foods with fungus-based aflatoxins and mycotoxins, known liver carcinogens (6Go). A higher rate of stomach cancer may be attributed to greater rates of Helicobacter pylori infection (38Go, 39Go) or dietary salt. H. pylori and hepatitis B are often acquired in childhood, through horizontal transmission, and have been taken as indicators of inadequate resources for maintaining hygiene. This evidence of exposures consequent on greater early life deprivation among Latinos is also congruent with the elevated risk of stroke. Ecologic studies have demonstrated how early life deprivation and/or greater dietary salt intake may underlie the international correlation between stroke and stomach cancer risk (40Go–42Go).

There were no significant state-by-state variations in Latino/White mortality ratios. This supports the thesis that Latino/White differences are due to either a healthy immigrant phenomenon or pan-Latino social, cultural, and behavioral factors. Latino/White hazard ratios also did not have any statistically significant material variations by age, risk factor levels, income, or percentage of Latinos in the ZIP code of residence.

Adjustment for ZIP code-based and census tract-based median incomes had a similar effect on Latino/White hazard ratios. Among the MRFIT randomized men, adjustment for personally reported family income rather than neighborhood income produced a similar effect.

Palloni and Arias (25Go) speculate that migrant Mexican populations living farther from California or Texas would be more heavily preselected for vigorous health, and they observe that Mexicans living outside those two states enjoy an 8 percent lower mortality rate. The all-cause mortality hazard ratios reported here are 0.84 (95 percent CI: 0.76, 0.93) in California and 0.74 (95 percent CI: 0.61, 0.90) in Illinois, with no clinical centers in Texas; these data weakly support their hypothesis.

Limitations of this MRFIT study include a selection process that would have tended to exclude men who were undocumented aliens. In addition, the MRFIT Latinos probably included few US-born men. The MRFIT Latinos, who were recruited in 1973–1975, may not be representative of the current Latino-American population. The study is also limited by its exclusion of women.

In conclusion, with 25-year follow-up on 5,846 Latinos and 300,647 Whites, Latinos had substantially lower risk- and income-adjusted all-cause mortality than did Whites, particularly for coronary heart disease and most cancers. Risk factor- and income-adjusted stroke, liver cancer, and infection mortality rates were significantly higher among Latinos, as was risk factor-adjusted diabetes, and point to the need for culturally appropriate targeted interventions. The mortality results, both by cause and overall, did not vary significantly over time or by state and did not appear to be an artifact of return migration or poor data. These pan-Latino results may reflect a healthy immigrant phenomenon, as well as possible genetic, cultural, and environmental differences. Understanding the mechanisms behind the differences may provide insights that can be used to improve the health of all.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This work was supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grants R01-HL-43232 and R01-HL-68140.

The authors thank Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez for her assistance in compiling the US census data. They also thank Dr. Karl Eschbach for sharing his insights into Latino immigration patterns and National Death Index matching issues.

Conflict of interest: none declared.


    References
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 

  1. Bureau of the Census. People QuickFacts. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, 2005. (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html). (Accessed January 10, 2005).
  2. Bureau of the Census. We the American ... Hispanics. Washington, DC: Ethnic and Hispanic Statistics Branch, Population Division, Bureau of the Census, US Department of Commerce, 1993:4. (http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-2r.pdf). (Accessed June 29, 2005).
  3. Rosenwaike I. Mortality differentials among persons born in Cuba, Mexico, and Puerto Rico residing in the United States, 1979–81. Am J Public Health 1987;77:603–6.[Abstract]
  4. Sorlie PD, Backlund E, Johnson NJ, et al. Mortality by Hispanic status in the United States. JAMA 1993;270:2464–8.[Abstract]
  5. Liao Y, Cooper R, Cao G, et al. Mortality from coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease among adult U.S. Hispanics: findings from the National Health Interview Study (1986 to 1994). J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:1200–5.[Abstract]
  6. Trapido EJ, Chen F, Davis K, et al. Cancer among Hispanic males in south Florida. Arch Intern Med 1994;154:177–85.[Abstract]
  7. Canto MT, Chu KC. Annual cancer incidence rates for Hispanics in the United States: surveillance, epidemiology, and end results, 1992–1996. Cancer 2000;88:2642–52.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  8. Rosenberg HM, Maurer JD, Sorlie PD, et al. Quality of death rates by race and Hispanic origin: a summary of current research, 1999. Vital Health Stat 2 1999;128:1–13.
  9. Hunt KJ, Resendez RG, Williams K, et al. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality among Mexican-American and non-Hispanic White older participants in the San Antonio Heart Study—evidence against the "Hispanic paradox." Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:1048–57.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Swenson CJ, Trepka MJ, Rewars MJ, et al. Cardiovascular disease mortality in Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. Am J Epidemiol 2002;156:919–28.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Neaton JD, Grimm RH, Cutler JA, et al. Recruitment of participants for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT). Control Clin Trials 1987;8(suppl):41S–53S.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. MRFIT Research Group. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: risk factor changes and mortality results. JAMA 1982;248:1465–77.[Abstract]
  13. National Center for Health Statistics. National Death Index. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1999. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/r&d/ndi/ndi.htm). (Accessed October 2, 2003).
  14. National Center for Health Statistics. Obtaining state death certificates, 2000: state requirements for the release of death certificates to National Death Index users. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2000:iii. (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 00-1149).
  15. Liao Y, Cooper RS, Cao G, et al. Mortality patterns among adult Hispanics: findings from the NHIS, 1986 to 1990. Am J Public Health 1998;8:227–32.[CrossRef]
  16. Wentworth DN, Neaton JD, Rasmussen WL. An evaluation of the Social Security Administration master beneficiary record file and the National Death Index in the ascertainment of vital status. Am J Public Health 1983;73:1270–4.[Abstract]
  17. Horm J. Assignment of probabilistic scores to National Death Index record matches. In: Supplement to the National Death Index user's manual. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1999:A1–13.
  18. Choe Y, Frisbie WP, Hummer RA, et al. Nativity, duration of residence, and the health of Hispanic adults in the United States. Int Migration Rev 2004;38:184–211.[ISI]
  19. Stephen EH, Foote K, Hendershot GE, et al. Health of the foreign-born population: United States, 1989–90. Adv Data 1994;241:1–12.[Medline]
  20. Stern MP, Wei M. Do Mexican Americans really have low rates of cardiovascular disease? Prev Med 1999;29:590–5.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  21. Franzini L, Ribble JC, Keddie A. Understanding the Hispanic paradox. Ethn Dis 2001;11:496–518.[Medline]
  22. Pandey DK, Labarthe DR, Goff DC, et al. Community-wide coronary heart disease mortality in Mexican Americans equals or exceeds that in non-Hispanic whites: the Corpus Christi Heart Project. Am J Med 2001;110:81–7.[ISI][Medline]
  23. Hanis CL, Hewett-Emmett D, Bertin TK, et al. Origins of U.S. Hispanics: implications for diabetes. Diabetes Care 1991;14:618–27.[Abstract]
  24. Abriado-Lanza AF, Dohrenwend BP, Ng-Mak DS, et al. The Latino mortality paradox: a test of the "salmon bias" and healthy migrant hypotheses. Am J Public Health 1999;89:1543–8.[Abstract]
  25. Palloni A, Arias E. Paradox lost: explaining the Hispanic adult mortality advantage. Demography 2004;41:385–415.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  26. Galobardes B, Lynch JW, Davey Smith G. Childhood socioeconomic circumstances and cause-specific mortality in adulthood: systematic review and interpretation. Epidemiol Rev 2004;26:7–21.[Free Full Text]
  27. Hart CL, Davey Smith G. Relation between number of siblings and adult mortality and stroke risk: 25 year follow up of men in the Collaborative study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:385–91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Davey Smith G, Hart C, Blane D, et al. Adverse socioeconomic conditions in childhood and cause specific adult mortality: prospective observational study. BMJ 1998;316:1631–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Davey Smith G, Lynch J. Lifecourse influences on coronary heart disease. In: Marmot MG, Elliot P, eds. Coronary heart disease: from epidemiology to prevention. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2005.
  30. Marmot MG, Adelstein AM, Bulusu L. Lessons from the study of immigrant mortality. Lancet 1984;1:1455–7.[Medline]
  31. Gordon T. Mortality experience among the Japanese in the United States, Hawaii, and Japan. Public Health Rep 1957;76:543–53.
  32. Keys A, Kimura N, Kusukawa A, et al. Lessons from serum cholesterol studies in Japan, Hawaii and Los Angeles. Ann Intern Med 1958;48:83–94.[ISI][Medline]
  33. Gordon T, Garcia-Palmieri MR, Kagan A, et al. Differences in coronary heart disease in Framingham, Honolulu and Puerto Rico. J Chronic Dis 1974;27:329–44.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  34. Worth RM, Kato H, Rhoads GG, et al. Epidemiologic studies of coronary heart disease and stroke in Japanese men living in Japan, Hawaii and California: mortality. Am J Epidemiol 1975;102:481–90.[Abstract]
  35. Nichaman MZ, Hamilton HB, Kagan A, et al. Epidemiologic studies of coronary heart disease and stroke in Japanese men living in Japan, Hawaii and California: distribution of biochemical risk factors. Am J Epidemiol 1975;102:491–501.[Abstract]
  36. Marmot MG, Syme SL, Kagan A, et al. Epidemiologic studies of coronary heart disease and stroke in Japanese men living in Japan, Hawaii and California: prevalence of coronary and hypertensive heart disease and associated risk factors. Am J Epidemiol 1975;102:514–25.[Abstract]
  37. Robertson TL, Kato H, Rhoads GG, et al. Epidemiologic studies of coronary heart disease and stroke in Japanese men living in Japan, Hawaii and California. Incidence of myocardial infarction and death from coronary heart disease. Am J Cardiol 1977;39:239–43.[ISI][Medline]
  38. Goodman KJ, O'Rourke K, Day RS, et al. Helicobacter pylori infection in pregnant women from a U.S.–Mexico border population. J Immigr Health 2003;5:99–107.[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Brenner H, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, et al. Is Heliobacter pylori infection a necessary condition of noncardia gastric cancer? Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:252–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Leon D, Davey Smith G. Infant mortality, stomach cancer, stroke, and coronary heart disease: ecological analysis. BMJ 2000;320:1705–6.[Free Full Text]
  41. Tsubono Y, Takahashi T, Iwase Y, et al. Nutrient consumption and gastric cancer mortality in five regions of Japan. Nutr Cancer 1997;27:310–15.[ISI][Medline]
  42. Joossens JV, Hill MJ, Elliott P, et al. Dietary salt, nitrate and stomach cancer mortality in 24 countries. European Cancer Prevention (ECP) and the INTERSALT Cooperative Research Group. Int J Epidemiol 1996;25:494–504.[Abstract]
  43. JNC VII. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2004. (NIH publication no. 04-5230) (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/hypertension/jnc7full.pdf).
  44. Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Executive summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA 2001;285:2486–97.[Free Full Text]




This Article
Abstract
Full Text (PDF)
All Versions of this Article:
162/6/569    most recent
kwi220v1
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Thomas, A. J.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Thomas, A. J.