Revisiting sex as a biological variable in hypertension research

Half of adults in the United States have hypertension as defined by clinical practice guidelines. Interestingly, women are generally more likely to be aware of their hypertension and have their blood pressure controlled with treatment compared with men, yet hypertension-related mortality is greater in women. This may reflect the fact that the female sex remains underrepresented in clinical and basic science studies investigating the effectiveness of therapies and the mechanisms controlling blood pressure. This Review provides an overview of the impact of the way hypertension research has explored sex as a biological variable (SABV). Emphasis is placed on epidemiological studies, hypertension clinical trials, the genetics of hypertension, sex differences in immunology and gut microbiota in hypertension, and the effect of sex on the central control of blood pressure. The goal is to offer historical perspective on SABV in hypertension, highlight recent studies that include SABV, and identify key gaps in SABV inclusion and questions that remain in the field. Through continued awareness campaigns and engagement/education at the level of funding agencies, individual investigators, and in the editorial peer review system, investigation of SABV in the field of hypertension research will ultimately lead to improved clinical outcomes.

Nearly half of adults in the US have hypertension, defined as a BP of at least 130 mmHg systolic blood pressure (SBP) or at least 80 mmHg diastolic blood pressure (DBP). High BP is an important modifiable risk factor for heart disease, accounting for 120,000 deaths in the US annually (14). Sex differences in the development and progression of hypertension are well documented, with women having a lower prevalence of hypertension at younger ages compared with men but a higher prevalence later in life. Specifically, the prevalence of hypertension in women aged 20–34 years is approximately half (15%) that of age-matched men (28%). Although National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data change with each survey, it is clear that the prevalence of hypertension rapidly increases in women older than 60 years, ultimately matching or exceeding the prevalence in men (14). While the prevalence of hypertension is greater in men overall (50.4% vs. 43%, age ≥20 years), hypertension-related mortality overall is higher in women (51.3%) compared with men (48.7%) (14). Table 1 summarizes the prevalence and mortality of hypertension and hypertension-related diseases in men and women.

Table 1

Summary of sex differences reported in CVD and renal disease in women versus men

Postmenopausal mechanisms, and comorbidities such as obesity, are commonly proposed to underly the increased prevalence of hypertension in postmenopausal women. Being overweight accounts for approximately 60% of hypertensive cases in women, compared with 34% in men (15). Racial and ethnic differences likely also exist within the two sexes. African American individuals tend to have a higher prevalence of obesity than White Americans, which may contribute to the greater hypertension burden among African Americans. The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study followed young normotensive individuals for up to 30 years to examine predictors of hypertension. While White women had a lower incidence of hypertension before age 55 (40%) than White men (55%), African American men and women had a higher incidence of hypertension (76%) (16). Others reported a similar overall prevalence when adjusted for age: White women had the lowest prevalence of hypertension (40%), followed by White men (47%), with African American men and women having the highest prevalence (~57%) (17). There is a continued need to characterize the interactions of sex, obesity, and race in hypertension and CVD (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Increased CVD risk in women is driven by many factors, including age, menopause, and obesity.

Chronic kidney disease. Hypertension is a major risk factor for chronic kidney disease (CKD). While more women are diagnosed with CKD than men, men with CKD have worse outcomes (18), including a more rapid decline in renal function, greater proteinuria, and quicker progression to end-stage renal disease (19). Men with CKD also have a higher risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality than women with CKD (20). Women are less likely to be diagnosed with CKD than men, which could delay treatment and decrease quality of life (19). This is especially true for women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), who have a 37% greater risk of developing CKD compared with males with diabetes (21). Women with CKD are also less likely to receive hemodialysis or renal transplant than men (22). Understanding the underlying causes of differences in CKD between men and women continues to be an important area of investigation.

Several medications are being evaluated for the treatment of CKD; however, women are often underrepresented in these clinical trials. This is concerning considering CKD’s greater prevalence in women (23). Additionally, there is uncertainty about cardiovascular outcomes for women in ongoing trials. SGLT2 inhibitors are reported to improve renal outcomes in CKD patients (24). While these trials suggest equal efficacy in diabetic men and women, most SGLT2 inhibitor trials enroll more men than women, and women appear to experience more frequent adverse events than men (25). It is noteworthy that SGLT2 inhibitor trials have not examined sex differences in nondiabetic populations (25, 26). Therefore, drawing conclusions about the efficacy of these drugs for treating disease in women should be questioned. Another compound under investigation for the treatment of CKD is the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI). ARNI treatment in CKD patients may confer additional benefit over ARB therapy. However, in studies of ARNI, 70% to more than 90% of the enrolled subjects were men, and data were not analyzed by sex (27, 28). Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) agonists and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) also show promise to slow CKD progression in T2D, but sex-specific responses to MRAs require further examination (29, 30). Ultimately, future clinical trials need to be designed and powered to fully assess safety and efficacy in both sexes.

Key questions. Despite efforts to improve the inclusion of women in clinical studies, women remain inadequately represented. BP target goals, specific antihypertensive regimens, and therapies have not been designed with sex-specific guidelines or recognition of key differences between men and women. Notably, many of the newer approaches to controlling BP have variable effects in men and women (SGLT2 inhibitors, ARNI, GLP1 agonists, nonsteroidal MRAs, and renal denervation). If studies are not powered to allow sex-specific conclusions, women will remain at a disadvantage. A more refined approach to treatment goals will be useful to inform the design of clinical trials testing novel antihypertensive therapies. Indeed, modeling approaches using NHANES data suggest that properly controlling pressure in hypertensive women has a greater impact on CVD mortality than it does in men, yet hypertension remains defined and treated as a one-size-fits-all disease (31).

Traditionally, representation of women in CVD trials is proportionally lower than the prevalence of the disease in women. In an analysis of 740 cardiovascular clinical trials completed between 2010 and 2017, only 38% of the participants were women (32). The participation to prevalence ratio (PPR) for the cardiovascular condition studied was assessed, with 1 representing trial representation to disease prevalence parity, and less than 0.8 defining underrepresentation. For hypertension trials, female PPR approached the definition of underrepresentation (ratio 0.82). The authors noted the importance of properly powering trials to draw meaningful conclusions about sex-specific interactions and outcomes. Given the common occurrence of hypertension in the population, this is a necessary step for obtaining valuable subgroup information from completed trials.

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention (SPRINT) trial included more than 9,000 hypertensive, nondiabetic individuals but did not stratify for sex at enrollment. The study compared the effectiveness of intensive BP control (SBP <120 mmHg) and standard treatment (SBP <140 mmHg). A significant benefit was reported in the intensive trial arm, with a 27% reduction in the primary outcome (fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular end points) (33). Foy et al. reanalyzed the SPRINT data to examine sex differences. At baseline, women took more total BP medications, and baseline SBP was 3 mmHg higher than in male participants (141 vs. 139 mmHg, respectively, P <0.001) (34). This aligns with observational data demonstrating higher routine BP readings among postmenopausal women (aged 60–69 years) and higher prevalence of hypertension than in men after the age of 60 (35). This subgroup analysis ultimately determined that the SBP control achieved was similar in men and women at the 3-year follow-up. Additionally, no significant interactions for the primary outcome, subcomponents, renal outcomes, or any of the recorded adverse events were reported (34). Although the authors suggested a possible heterogeneity of treatment effect for stroke (lack of benefit of intensive SBP lowering for women), the interaction terms were not statistically different in the overall effect. Wenger et al. (36), however, advised caution when interpreting SPRINT subgroup data, given the study’s failure to reach target recruitment rates for women, shorter follow-up intervals, and lower event rates among enrolled women.

Unlike SPRINT, the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, which was focused on T2D patients, stratified for sex at enrollment (37). The BP substudy randomized 4,733 of the 10,251 participants to an intensive (SBP <120 mmHg) or standard (SBP <140 mmHg) BP treatment strategy (38). The confidence interval for the primary outcome (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes) was greater than 1, indicating no benefit. While the heterogeneity analysis showed no difference between men and women with diabetes for the primary outcome, diabetes reportedly reverses the cardiovascular protection in young women: women with diabetes have poorer cardiovascular outcomes (39) and are more likely to be hypertensive than diabetic men (40, 41). This needs to be considered when analyzing the results of the ACCORD trial.

While the inclusion of women in recent hypertension trials is improving, device-based intervention trials continue to lag. An exciting development in treating resistant hypertension is the use of catheter-based (radiofrequency- or ultrasound-mediated) renal sympathetic innervation ablation, or renal nerve denervation (RND). In the long-term, 3-year follow up of the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 (RND in Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension) trial, RND utilizing the Symplicity radiofrequency-based system (Medtronic) significantly reduced SBP compared with sham control treatment (42). While a heterogeneity analysis was not provided, the trial population included 39% women; yet few analyses have examined sex differences with this technology. Zweiker et al. reported that the likelihood of SBP reduction is 5-fold higher in women with RND compared with men (P < 0.006) (43). Whether the renal nerves play a more important role in women with resistant hypertension must be evaluated in larger clinical trials.

Guidelines for the treatment of hypertension in female-specific (i.e., pregnancy, postmenopause) or female-biased conditions (autoimmune diseases) are lacking. Studies such as the Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial may begin to address questions surrounding female disease–specific BP control. The project randomized 2,419 pregnant women with treated or untreated chronic hypertension (present prior to 20 weeks of gestation) to two groups, one receiving therapy targeting a BP of less than 140 mmHg/90 mmHg, and the other receiving therapy with the same target only if “severe hypertension” (defined as SBP >160 mmHg, DBP >105 mmHg) developed”. Active treatment of chronic hypertension reduced the primary outcome risk by 18% (preeclampsia, medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks’ gestation, placental abruption, or fetal death) (44).

Key questions. Important questions remain regarding the effects of BP targets on key cardiovascular and renal outcomes, including stroke and CKD, that occur with higher prevalence in women. The effect of hypertension in older individuals also needs careful study, especially considering that women constitute a greater proportion (~55%) of the population older than 65 years as of the last US Census report. Studies of novel therapeutics, including device therapies, need to enroll women in proportion to disease prevalence to make conclusive decisions regarding safety and efficacy. The reasons for low enrollment of women may extend beyond experimental design. A recent meta-analysis concluded that older age and procedure invasiveness are likely barriers to women enrolling in trials (9). These barriers may be particularly relevant to hypertension trials given the high prevalence of hypertension in postmenopausal women and may partially explain the low participation of women in RND trials. Safety monitoring will also continue to be important in terms of fertility and pregnancy given the increasing number of women of childbearing years with hypertension (45).

Human clinical evidence. Hypertension risk is heritable (46), and an understanding of the genetic contribution to the development of hypertension and renal disease is evolving. Data from large hypertension study cohorts suggest that differences in hypertension prevalence cannot be explained exclusively by sex hormones (reviewed in refs. 47, 48).

The contribution of sex chromosomes to BP is imbalanced, with the coding capacity of the X chromosome far exceeding that of the Y chromosome. Although the Y chromosome largely encodes male gonadal development, Y chromosome genes are expressed in nongonadal tissues (49). Variations in the HindIII restriction site and expression of Y chromosome haplogroup I are associated with elevated BP in men (50). While limited data support a direct Y chromosome–mediated role for BP regulation, loss of the Y chromosome in blood cells is associated with reduced prevalence of hypertension, but a significant increase in cardiovascular events in a cohort of atherosclerotic men (51). In contrast, evidence suggests that X chromosomes influence hypertension susceptibility. Hypertension-related gene loci have been identified on the X chromosome (52, 53) which may explain the greater heritability of hypertension from the maternal side (46). X chromosome gene “dosing” occurs in both males and females (54, 55). Dysfunctional X inactivation in females, including upregulated long noncoding RNA X-inactive specific transcript (XIST) expression, promotes pulmonary arterial hypertension (56), increased cardiac events, endothelial dysfunction, and atherosclerosis (reviewed in ref. 57). Moreover, many genes “escape” X inactivation in females. Modeling approaches can help discern X inactivation effects using publicly available RNA sequencing data (58), thus positioning the field to better understand the contribution of this process to hypertension.

Salt sensitivity of BP may account for more than 50% of hypertension cases (59) and has an apparent genetic basis (60). Several large-scale clinical studies, including INTERSALT (61), Hypertensive Pathotype (HyperPath) (62), and GenSalt (63), report a higher prevalence of salt-sensitive hypertension in women than men. Salt-sensitive hypertension is also more prevalent in African American men and women compared with White Americans (64). One mechanism that may underly the greater salt sensitivity in women is enhanced aldosterone production in response to stimuli (e.g., angiotensin II [Ang II], low-salt diet, K⁺) than in men (62, 65, 66). Additionally, mutations in the KCNJ5 gene, encoding an inward rectifying K⁺ channel, are more common in women than in men, and associate with inappropriate aldosterone production (67–69). Consistent with a greater role for aldosterone, MRA treatment lowers BP and improves all-cause mortality more effectively in women, supporting the hypothesis that there is a genetic basis for sex differences in aldosterone regulation and salt-sensitive hypertension.

Preclinical studies. In general, BP responses to hypertensive stimuli are more pronounced in male rodents than females (70), including in the Dahl salt-sensitive rat model, spontaneously hypertensive rats, Ang II–infused mice/rats, FVB/N mice, and 129Sv mice. Experimental models can be useful for exploring the mechanistic basis of hypertension. For example, BALB/c mice exhibit a female-specific elevation in BP in response to a high-salt diet, whereas neither female nor male C57BL/6 mice develop salt-sensitive hypertension (71). Strain differences can be exploited to understand the mechanisms of salt sensitivity. In this case, strain differences may arise from greater aldosterone production and aldosterone synthase expression in response to sodium restriction in female BALB/c compared with C57BL/6 mice (72–74). An acute sodium load is also reported to be more efficiently excreted in female mice (71) and rats (75) than in males, likely due to sex differences in the expression of electrolyte transporters across the nephron that are consistent with heightened sodium excretion in females. This demonstrates the importance of both sex and genetic background in rodent studies in the examination of BP control.

Unique preclinical models allow for the independent study of hormone and sex chromosome effects. The four-core genotype (FCG) mouse model (76) has been used for approximately 20 years, and the rat model is in development (77). The FCG model includes gonadal males and females with an XY or XX chromosome complement (78) allowing to assess the effects of sex chromosome complement, gonadal hormones, or their interaction. If chromosomes are found to mediate an effect, genetic crosses with the XY* model can then be employed to assess the contribution of X dose, X imprint or indirect effects of X inactivation, or the Y chromosome (79). This approach can be used to dissociate the complex interplay between hormones, chromosomes, and pathways central to the control of BP.

Key questions. Continued exploration of sex chromosome complement and hormonal control of BP is required. Experimental models such as the FCG, XY*, and genetic knockout models offer opportunities to dissect these mechanisms. In a world that is moving away from binary definitions of gender, gaining greater insight into how hormones and chromosomes work together to determine BP is critical (80, 81). Technological advances such as single-cell RNA sequencing can provide more mechanistic insight in preclinical and clinical studies, and tools such as CRISPR can rapidly generate novel models to allow further understanding of sex differences in hypertension.

Clinical data first linked hypertension with alterations in the immune system more than 60 years ago, when autoantibodies to vascular antigens were found in arterial samples of hypertensive cadaver specimens (82). Subsequent studies identified elevated levels of circulating IgG in hypertensive patients (83–85), and data from clinical and preclinical studies definitively link immune system dysfunction to hypertension.

Human clinical evidence. Immune cell population differences exist between men and women. Men have higher basal circulating immunoglobulin levels and greater numbers of B cells (85, 86) and CD4⁺ T cells (85). As a result, women typically respond better to vaccination and have less severe outcomes in infection than men. However, women are more likely to experience autoimmune disease or transplant rejection (87). In the context of hypertension, few studies have been designed to examine sex differences in immune parameters. Clinical studies found that cell populations from hypertensive subjects display a unique inflammatory phenotype compared with those from normotensive subjects, including monocytes (88), CD8⁺ T cells (89), and memory T cells (90), but none reported sex differences. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was measured in a large Taiwanese cohort to monitor its association with incident hypertension over 9 years. This study, stratified by sex, found that increased NLR associates with hypertension in older men (>60 years old), but not in women of any age (91). Another study assessing immune cell subsets in more than 4,000 women from Sister Study blood samples reported that those who developed hypertension had altered leukocyte populations prior to clinical diagnosis, specifically increased B cells and decreased naive CD4⁺ T cells (92), suggesting an immunological basis for hypertension in women. A large-scale Mendelian randomization study using UK Biobank population data found that increased circulating lymphocytes, monocytes, and neutrophils positively correlate with BP, but associations with sex, age, BMI, smoking, or alcohol intake were not detected (93). The authors acknowledged potential errors in the detection of confounding variables due to study design. Regardless, the potential to harness the immune system for improved BP control in men and women is intriguing.

Hormonal contributions to immune system function. Sex hormones influence immune cell differentiation, survival, and function (antibody production, cytokine secretion, phagocytic capacity) through estrogen and androgen receptors. Generally, endogenous estrogen enhances immune responses, while testosterone is immunosuppressive (94). The data on the interplay among sex hormones, immunomodulation, and BP in clinical research are primarily from studies involving hormone therapy. E2 binds to estrogen receptor α on T cells and inhibits proinflammatory cell expansion (95), resulting in protection from immune-mediated hypertension that is lost following menopause. Women receiving estrogen therapy have lower levels of soluble inflammatory markers including TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-8 and monocyte chemoattractant protein 1; but in general, estrogen therapy does not appear to significantly decrease BP in women (96–98). Data from the NHANES study show that men with testosterone deficiency have increased levels of circulating C-reactive protein (CRP), a marker of inflammation. Testosterone therapy reportedly lowers BP and decreases CRP (99) while reducing cardiovascular risk (99, 100). In contrast, other studies suggest that testosterone therapy in men may be detrimental to cardiovascular health (reviewed in ref. 101), although markers of immunomodulation were not widely reported. As hormone levels fluctuate over time and with age in men and women, understanding their impact on the immune system could be critically important to improving BP control.

Preclinical studies. Despite the extensive use of animal models, the impact of SABV on innate immune cells and their role in the development of hypertension remain poorly understood. Most studies examining the link between innate immune cells and hypertension include only male animals in the experimental design. Data suggest that male mice lacking macrophages have a blunted hypertensive response to Ang II infusion and DOCA-salt (deoxycorticosterone acetate–salt) hypertension (102, 103). While males accumulate more macrophages than females in several animal models of hypertension (104, 105), a role for macrophages in hypertension in females has not been examined. DCs are also pivotal for the development of hypertension in male mice. Salt and other hypertensive stimuli activate DCs, promoting oxidative stress, the formation of neoantigens, and T cell activation to promote hypertension (106, 107). Whether this mechanism is the same in female mice is unclear; however, plasmacytoid DCs from females produce more type I interferons, and estrogen drives DC differentiation from bone marrow precursors (108, 109), suggesting that DCs may have a similar role.

The association between the adaptive immune system and hypertension was definitively demonstrated in a study showing that male Rag1^–/– mice, which lack mature B and T lymphocytes, have a blunted BP response to Ang II that is restored with adoptive transfer of T cells (110). Subsequent studies showed that Ang II increased BP when male, but not female, T cells were transferred into male Rag1^–/– mice (111), demonstrating an important role for sex. The T cell subtype is also important in the development of hypertension, and sex differences in the T cell profile of males and females are notable. Males have more total T cells, CD4⁺ T cells, and renal Th17 cells, while females have more Tregs (112, 113). The increased percentage of renal Tregs in females may be compensatory to prevent further BP increases (114). Tregs also protect against DOCA-salt hypertension only in females (115), and restoration of Tregs in autoimmune-associated hypertension lowers BP in females (116). B cells also contribute to the development of Ang II hypertension in male mice. Mice with depleted or deficient B cells have an attenuated hypertensive response to Ang II (117). The role of B cells in hypertension has not been compared between the sexes; however, circulating B cells are altered with the development of hypertension in women (92), and B cells and immunoglobulin-secreting plasma cells have a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of autoimmune-mediated hypertension in females (118, 119).

Key questions. Preclinical models are instrumental for advancing our understanding of SABV in immune-mediated mechanisms of hypertension. However, research with large study populations is needed to understand the interplay among BP, sex hormones, and immunological changes, especially in populations not treated with hormonal interventions. Figure 2 summarizes major immunological changes known in human hypertension and preclinical models. Studies on the impact of antiinflammatory and immunomodulatory drugs on BP, including an analysis of the impact of SABV, are needed. In a secondary analysis of the Canakinumab Anti-inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS) study, IL-1β inhibition did not reduce BP or incident hypertension; however, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and MI were reduced in the hypertensive patients. This study did not stratify based on sex, and the population was largely (~75%) male (120). It is possible that antiinflammatory treatments work differently in males and females with respect to hypertension, particularly in pathologies that predominantly or exclusively affect women, such as autoimmunity or hypertension in pregnancy.

Figure 2

Summary of known immunological factors contributing to hypertension in men and women.

Studies in humans and experimental animal models implicate the gut microbiota in the development of hypertension, and the relationship among gut microbiota, sex differences, and hypertension has been extensively reviewed (121–124). However, few studies have specifically addressed SABV. Based on the potential of the gut microbiota to modulate BP, this is an active area of investigation (Table 2).

Table 2

Examinations of SABV in the study of the gut microbiota in hypertension

Human clinical evidence. Studies examining the human gut microbiota in men and women report differences in gut bacterial composition, with greater microbial diversity occurring in women. A multisite cross-sectional study was the first to report sex differences in the gut microbiome (125), with higher levels of the Bacteriodes-Prevotella phylogenetic group in men than women across the total study population. Others report differences in gut bacterial diversity between women and men, with many occurring in age- and hormone-dependent manners (126–129). Recently, a large-scale analysis of adults reported greater diversity in young adult women than age-matched men from the US, United Kingdom, and Columbia; this difference was not observed in middle-aged women (130).

It is increasingly evident that gut dysbiosis is common in both men and women with hypertension (131). Virwani et al. examined the association of sex and the gut microbiota with 24-hour ambulatory BP in 284 participants from Hong Kong, and found that gut microbiota dysregulation and beta diversity associated with hypertension in women but not men (132). In a study of nearly 2,000 individuals of African descent from five countries, the gut microbiota accurately predicted diabetes, glucose state, hypertension, obesity, and sex (133). The few human studies on hypertension and the gut microbiota clearly support an interwoven relationship between SABV and the gut microbiota.

Hormonal contributions. Sex steroids may contribute to the observed sexual dimorphism in the gut microbiota. Differences in gut bacterial groups and in predicted microbiota function, including the production of short-chain fatty acids, are observed in pre- and postmenopausal women (134). This supports the concept that hormone status regulates the gut microbiota in women. In women, bilateral ovariectomy and use of oral contraceptives associate with changes to specific bacteria (128). Further studies confirm that sex hormone levels correlate with gut microbial diversity and composition, uncovering both testosterone- and E2-responsive bacteria (135). While sex-specific gut microbiota function characterizes young adult men and premenopausal women, menopause and obesity appear to eliminate sex differences (136). Additional work is required to understand the complex mechanisms by which sex differences in the gut microbiota regulate BP.

Preclinical studies. Preclinical studies in rodents suggest that sex differences in gut microbiota composition do not occur until sexual maturation (137–139), supporting a key role for sex hormones. Sex hormone manipulation via gonadectomy induces microbial dysbiosis (140, 141) and eliminates sex differences in microbiota composition (138), with hormone administration reversing these effects (138, 140, 141). This is consistent with data from the literature on humans suggesting that sex-specific gut microbiome differences are reduced for postmenopausal women and age-matched men (136). Sex is a critical determinant of gut microbiota composition in hypertensive Dahl salt-sensitive rats and correlates with the degree of disease severity, independent of age, diet, or salt consumption (141). A comparison of germ-free versus conventionalized mice revealed that the gut microbiota modulates renal gene expression in a sex-specific manner (142). These differences likely affect BP regulation and potentially the efficacy of various therapeutics, as it was shown that fenbendazole treatment can sex-specifically change the gut microbiota in BPH/5 hypertensive/obese mice (143). Exciting work also explores the prospect of utilizing bioengineered, recombinant bacteria as treatment for hypertension: a recent study reported that Lactobacillus modified to express human ACE2 (hACE2) lowers BP in female, but not male, hypertensive Ace2^–/– Dahl salt-sensitive rats (144).

Key questions. Research on the gut microbiota in health and disease is still in its infancy, and many unanswered questions remain. First, the impact of gonadal versus hormonal sex on microbiota composition in hypertension is unknown. The link between sex steroids, gonadal sex, and the gut microbiota, where estrogen-responsive bacteria have recently been identified, is being studied with the FCG model (145). However, FCG has yet to be used to understand the gut microbiota in hypertensive models. Second, while the microbiota–immune system interplay is evident in hypertension (141, 146–148), relevant sex differences are understudied. Finally, dietary components, including fat, salt, and protein, reportedly have sex-specific effects on hypertension and the immune system (141, 149, 150), and women are more susceptible to obesity and salt-induced increases in BP. Therefore, understanding the gut microbiota has the potential to provide novel insights into BP control in women.

The autonomic nervous system (ANS), through the integration of the parasympathetic and sympathetic branches, regulates essential physiological processes, including BP. ANS dysregulation leads to greater sympathetic outflow, blunted baroreflexes, and reduced cardiac vagal drive, resulting in hypertension (151, 152). Neural control of BP consists of a complex network that extends from the cerebral cortex to the spinal cord (153, 154). Thus, it is not surprising that there are multiple levels of sex-specific regulation in the neural control of BP. Sex differences are reported in adrenergic receptor function, subcellular distribution of neurotransmitter receptors, cellular responses to neurotransmitter release, and activation of baroreceptor circuits in response to external stimuli (153, 155). Consequently, ANS regulation of BP is fundamentally different between the sexes.

Human clinical evidence. Evidence of sex differences in human ANS regulation largely stems from measurements of muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) taken using microneurographic techniques. Sympathetic activity is higher in young men compared with age-matched women, with resting MSNA levels in men positively correlating with total peripheral resistance and inversely associating with cardiac output and α-adrenergic sensitivity (156–159). Relationships between resting MSNA and total peripheral resistance or MSNA are not detected in women, with arterial BP relying instead on β-adrenergic–mediated vasodilation to offset α-adrenergic vasoconstriction (158). Moreover, men appear to rely on MSNA bursts for BP maintenance, while women maintain BP throughout quiescent sympathetic periods (160), possibly due to a reduction in β-adrenergic sensitivity. These sex differences diminish in aged populations, as postmenopausal women are characterized by larger age-related increases in MSNA levels that essentially equal those of aged men (161). MSNA, BP, and total peripheral resistance are positively associated in both postmenopausal women and age-matched men (162), suggesting that women lose the compensatory effect of β-adrenergic vasodilation with age. These data highlight important differences in ANS regulation of BP that change over the lifespan.

Hormonal contributions. Sex hormones contribute to ANS regulation of BP, although in females they are more cyclically variable due to the estrous cycle. Sex hormone receptors have widespread, but sexually dimorphic, distributions in the brain (155). Notably, female risk for hypertension increases dramatically following menopause, when circulating E2 levels decline. In general, E2 binds estrogen receptors in ANS regulatory regions, leading to sympathoinhibitory effects. Estrogen receptor activation on both neurons and microglia in ANS regulatory brain regions contribute to a protective effect from hypertension in women (163). The effects of E2, however, are complex and context dependent, as E2 is necessary for the pathological cardiovascular effects observed in women exposed to psychosocial witness stress (164). While androgens are studied less and the findings are often mixed (165), they are often reported as exacerbating hypertension risk in males (166).

Preclinical studies. The use of rodent models has allowed for multiple genetic approaches to dissect circuits involved in hypertension, revealing important sex differences. Ang II administration to young male mice causes a slow progression toward hypertension not evident in age-matched female mice (167–169). This functional difference is likely due, in part, to sex differences in hypothalamic plasticity. Males and females exhibit opposing subcellular distribution patterns of the NMDA receptor GluN1 subunit, which alters localization in response to increased sympathetic outflow (170–173). Structural sex differences in the locus coeruleus, a brain region that is larger in females due to a greater number of norepinephrine-containing neurons (174), can also drive differences in ANS regulation of BP. Finally, there are sex differences in cortical regulatory centers such as the infralimbic (IL) region of the prefrontal cortex. Activation of IL projections in male and female rats reveals opposing sex-specific regulatory mechanisms, with stimulation lowering cardiac sympathetic drive and preventing chronic stress–induced cardiac remodeling in males (175–177). However, stimulation of the same projections in female rats facilitates sympathetic responses to stress, resulting in tachycardia and increased cardiac contractility after stress exposure (175).

Key questions. Our understanding of the interplay among stress, sex hormones, and neural circuits regulating BP is incomplete. The mechanisms underlying sex hormone mediation of ANS circuits remain unclear, particularly related to the effects of androgens and progesterone. Moreover, understanding of the regulation of the female endocrine system during and after chronic stress and across the lifespan is incomplete. Adolescence, pregnancy, postpartum, and menopause are understudied sexually dimorphic periods, particularly in neurophysiology, that can have lasting effects on cardiovascular health (13). Future studies that examine neural ANS regulatory circuits across critical periods are needed to understand female hypertension risk.

Concerted efforts continue to be made toward increasing SABV in experimental design, analysis, and reporting of clinical and basic science data. Evidence suggests that these efforts have improved inclusion of women in hypertension clinical trials since 2005 (178), although there remains work to be done, particularly with regard to device-based therapies (RND). Given that women were significantly underrepresented in clinical trials for the most widely used antihypertensive therapies, it is critically important to continue posing the question of the need for sex-specific guidelines in the treatment of hypertension.

Both preclinical and clinical studies show a profound effect of sex steroids on organs and systems that control blood pressure (Figure 3), while progress is now being made toward improved understanding of sex chromosomes. Still, preclinical studies related to understanding BP control continue to lack the appropriate inclusion of SABV in experimental design, analysis, and reporting. Rectifying this is central to improving BP control in both men and women as we learn new information about the role of the immune system, the gut microbiota, and central mechanisms of BP control. Preclinical experimental models including the FCG mouse model and improved tools to understand the cellular and genetic basis of hypertension will be valuable for advancing the field. Through continued awareness campaigns and engagement/education at the level of funding agencies, individual investigators, and in the editorial peer review system, investigation of SABV in the field of hypertension research will ultimately lead to improved clinical outcomes. The collaboration of clinicians and preclinical researchers will further enhance the field, as clinical observations can inform questions in the laboratory, where mechanisms can be directly tested.

Figure 3

Summary of effects of estrogens and androgens on the immune system, central nervous system, kidneys, and gut microbiota that may affect blood pressure and the development of hypertension. HTN, hypertension; RAAS, renin angiotensin aldosterone system.

We gratefully acknowledge the support of Kelly Sullivan for editorial work on this manuscript. This work was supported in part by NIH awards U54HL169191 (JCS, MJR, JSC, ROM, JLF, EBT, JMAB, FH), R00 MD014738 (JSC), R01HL169576 and R00HL146948 (JLF), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) R00 HL146888, National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) P20GM104357 and P30GM149404 (EBT), NIH HL166458 (JMAB), 5P20GM109091 (FH); the American Heart Association (CDA34660184 to JMAB); and the Department of Veterans Affairs (BX002604 to MJR).

Address correspondence to: Michael J. Ryan, 6439 Garners Ferry Road, Columbia, South Carolina 29209, USA. Phone: 803.776.4000; Email: Michael.Ryan1@va.gov. Or to: Jennifer C. Sullivan, 1459 Laney Walker Blvd, Augusta, Georgia 30912, USA. Phone: 706.721.1167; Email: jensullivan@augusta.edu.

Conflict of interest: The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

Copyright: © 2024, Ryan et al. This is an open access article published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Reference information: J Clin Invest. 2024;134(17):e180078. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI180078.

1. Moser M. Historical perspectives on the management of hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2006;8(8 suppl 2):15–20.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
2. Moser M. Evolution of the treatment of hypertension from the 1940s to JNC V. Am J Hypertens. 1997;10(3):2S–8S.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
3. Carey RM, et al. Resistant hypertension: detection, evaluation, and management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2018;72(5):e53–e90.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
4. Brown MJ. Aliskiren. Circulation. 2008;118(7):773–784.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
5. Guber K, Kirtane AJ. Renal sympathetic denervation for hypertension. Kidney Int Rep. 2022;7(10):2129–2140.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
6. Brett AS. Aprocitentan, a newly approved drug for resistant hypertension [published online April 11, 2024]. NEJM Journal Watch. https://www.jwatch.org/na57341/2024/04/11/aprocitentan-newly-approved-drug-resistant-hypertension.
7. Muntner P, et al. Trends in blood pressure control among US adults with hypertension, 1999-2000 to 2017-2018. JAMA. 2020;324(12):1190–1200.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
8. Dannenberg AL, et al. Incidence of hypertension in the Framingham Study. Am J Public Health. 1988;78(6):676–679.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
9. Daitch V, et al. Underrepresentation of women in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trials. 2022;23(1):1038.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
10. Beery AK, Zucker I. Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35(3):565–572.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
11. Woitowich NC, et al. A 10-year follow-up study of sex inclusion in the biological sciences. Elife. 2020;9:e56344.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
12. Bager JE, et al. Hypertension: sex-related differences in drug treatment, prevalence and blood pressure control in primary care. J Hum Hypertens. 2023;37(8):662–670.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
13. Galea LA, Parekh RS. Ending the neglect of women’s health in research. BMJ. 2023;381:1303.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
14. Tsao CW, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2023 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2023;147(8):e93–e621.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
15. Wilson PW, et al. Overweight and obesity as determinants of cardiovascular risk: the Framingham experience. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(16):1867–1872.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
16. Thomas SJ, et al. Cumulative incidence of hypertension by 55 years of age in Blacks and Whites: the CARDIA study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(14):e007988.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
17. Stierman B, et al. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017–March 2020 Prepandemic Data Files—Development of Files and Prevalence Estimates for Selected Health Outcomes. National Health Statistics Reports. June 14, 2021;158. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr158-508.pdf.
18. Carrero JJ, et al. Sex and gender disparities in the epidemiology and outcomes of chronic kidney disease. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2018;14(3):151–164.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
19. Chesnaye NC, et al. Differences in the epidemiology, management and outcomes of kidney disease in men and women. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2024;20(1):7–20.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
20. Swartling O, et al. CKD progression and mortality among men and women: a nationwide study in Sweden. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;78(2):190–199.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
21. Yu MK, et al. Associations between sex and incident chronic kidney disease in a prospective diabetic cohort. Nephrology (Carlton). 2015;20(7):451–458.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
22. Hecking M, et al. Sex-specific differences in mortality and incident dialysis in the chronic kidney disease outcomes and practice patterns study. Kidney Int Rep. 2022;7(3):410–423.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
23. Vinson AJ, et al. Underrepresentation of women in recent landmark kidney trials: the gender gap prevails. Kidney Int Rep. 2022;7(11):2526–2529.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
24. Neal B, et al. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(7):644–657.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
25. Bhatt DL, et al. Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(2):129–139.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
26. Heerspink HJL, et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(15):1436–1446.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
27. Haynes R, et al. Effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus irbesartan in patients with chronic kidney disease. Circulation. 2018;138(15):1505–1514.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
28. Mathew RO, et al. Patterns of use and clinical outcomes with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in acute heart failure and changes in kidney function: an analysis of the Veterans’ Health Administrative Database. Cardiorenal Med. 2021;11(5–6):226–236.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
29. Bakris GL, et al. Effect of finerenone on chronic kidney disease outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(23):2219–2229.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
30. Shaman AM, et al. Effect of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide on kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: pooled analysis of SUSTAIN 6 and LEADER. Circulation. 2022;145(8):575–585.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
31. Patel SA, et al. Cardiovascular mortality associated with 5 leading risk factors: national and state preventable fractions estimated from survey data. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(4):245–253.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
32. Jin X, et al. Women’s participation in cardiovascular clinical trials from 2010 to 2017. Circulation. 2020;141(7):540–548.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
33. SPRINT Resarch Group, et al. Final report of a trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(20):1921–1930.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
34. Foy CG, et al. Gender, blood pressure, and cardiovascular and renal outcomes in adults with hypertension from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. J Hypertens. 2018;36(4):904–915.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
35. Reckelhoff JF. Gender differences in the regulation of blood pressure. Hypertension. 2001;37(5):1199–1208.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
36. Wenger NK, et al. Women, hypertension, and the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. Am J Med. 2016;129(10):1030–1036.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
37. ACCORD Study Group, et al. Action to control cardiovascular risk in diabetes (ACCORD) trial: design and methods. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99(12A):21i–33i.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
38. ACCORD Study Group, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(17):1575–1585.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
39. Regensteiner JG, Reusch JEB. Sex differences in cardiovascular consequences of hypertension, obesity, and diabetes: JACC Focus Seminar 4/7. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79(15):1492–1505.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
40. Naseri MW, et al. Prevalence of hypertension in type-2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;78:103758.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
41. Wright AK, et al. Age-, sex- and ethnicity-related differences in body weight, blood pressure, HbA_1c and lipid levels at the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes relative to people without diabetes. Diabetologia. 2020;63(8):1542–1553.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
42. Bhatt DL, et al. Long-term outcomes after catheter-based renal artery denervation for resistant hypertension: final follow-up of the randomised SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Lancet. 2022;400(10361):1405–1416.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
43. Zweiker D, et al. Blood pressure changes after renal denervation are more pronounced in women and nondiabetic patients: findings from the Austrian Transcatheter Renal Denervation Registry. J Hypertens. 2019;37(11):2290–2297.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
44. Tita AT, et al. Treatment for mild chronic hypertension during pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(19):1781–1792.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
45. Bateman BT, et al. Hypertension in women of reproductive age in the United States: NHANES 1999-2008. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e36171.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
46. Ciccarelli M, et al. The possible role of chromosome X variability in hypertensive familiarity. J Hum Hypertens. 2017;31(1):37–42.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
47. Connelly PJ, et al. Sex steroids receptors, hypertension, and vascular ageing. J Hum Hypertens. 2022;36(2):120–125.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
48. Sabbatini AR, Kararigas G. Estrogen-related mechanisms in sex differences of hypertension and target organ damage. Biol Sex Differ. 2020;11(1):31.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
49. Turner ME, et al. Sry, more than testis determination? Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2011;301(3):R561–R571.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
50. Khan SI, et al. Y chromosome, hypertension and cardiovascular disease: is inflammation the answer? Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(12):2892.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
51. Haitjema S, et al. Loss of Y chromosome in blood is associated with major cardiovascular events during follow-up in men after carotid endarterectomy. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2017;10(4):e001544.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
52. Li J, et al. The relationship between three X-linked genes and the risk for hypertension among northeastern Han Chinese. J Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone Syst. 2015;16(4):1321–1328.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
53. Predescu DN, et al. The impact of sex chromosomes in the sexual dimorphism of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Am J Pathol. 2022;192(4):582–594.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
54. Disteche CM. Dosage compensation of the sex chromosomes and autosomes. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2016;56:9–18.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
55. Snell DM, Turner JMA. Sex chromosome effects on male-female differences in mammals. Curr Biol. 2018;28(22):R1313–R1324.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
56. Li J, et al. Long noncoding RNA XIST: mechanisms for X chromosome inactivation, roles in sex-biased diseases, and therapeutic opportunities. Genes Dis. 2022;9(6):1478–1492.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
57. Kelley K, Musialowski D. Repeated exposure to sexually explicit stimuli: novelty, sex, and sexual attitudes. Arch Sex Behav. 1986;15(6):487–498.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
58. Sauteraud R, et al. Inferring genes that escape X-Chromosome inactivation reveals important contribution of variable escape genes to sex-biased diseases. Genome Res. 2021;31(9):1629–1637.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
59. Iatrino R, et al. Salt sensitivity: challenging and controversial phenotype of primary hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2016;18(9):70.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
60. Maaliki D, et al. Pathophysiology and genetics of salt-sensitive hypertension. Front Physiol. 2022;13:1001434.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
61. Stamler J. The INTERSALT Study: background, methods, findings, and implications. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997;65(2 suppl):626S–642S.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
62. Shukri MZ, et al. Biological sex modulates the adrenal and blood pressure responses to angiotensin II. Hypertension. 2018;71(6):1083–1090.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
63. He J, et al. Gender difference in blood pressure responses to dietary sodium intervention in the GenSalt study. J Hypertens. 2009;27(1):48–54.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
64. Sahinoz M, et al. Salt sensitivity of blood pressure in Blacks and women: a role of inflammation, oxidative stress, and epithelial Na⁺ channel. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2021;35(18):1477–1493.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
65. Faulkner JL, et al. Selective deletion of endothelial mineralocorticoid receptor protects from vascular dysfunction in sodium-restricted female mice. Biol Sex Differ. 2020;11(1):64.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
66. Toering TJ, et al. Sex differences in renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system affect extracellular volume in healthy subjects. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2018;314(5):F873–F878.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
67. Williams TA, et al. KCNJ5 mutations are the most frequent genetic alteration in primary aldosteronism. Hypertension. 2015;65(3):507–509.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
68. Beuschlein F, et al. Somatic mutations in ATP1A1 and ATP2B3 lead to aldosterone-producing adenomas and secondary hypertension. Nat Genet. 2013;45(4):440–444.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
69. Nanba K, Rainey WE. Genetics in endocrinology: impact of race and sex on genetic causes of aldosterone-producing adenomas. Eur J Endocrinol. 2021;185(1):R1–R11.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
70. Drury ER, et al. Sex differences in blood pressure regulation and hypertension: renal, hemodynamic, and hormonal mechanisms. Physiol Rev. 2024;104(1):199–251.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
71. Faulkner JL, et al. Lack of suppression of aldosterone production leads to salt-sensitive hypertension in female but not male Balb/C mice. Hypertension. 2018;72(6):1397–1406.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
72. Faulkner JL, et al. Dietary sodium restriction sex specifically impairs endothelial function via mineralocorticoid receptor-dependent reduction in NO bioavailability in Balb/C mice. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2021;320(1):H211–H220.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
73. Suzuki Y, et al. [Surgical treatment of double outlet left atrium, report of a case]. Nihon Kyobu Geka Gakkai Zasshi. 1987;35(12):2195–2199.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
74. Boyer HG, et al. Dysregulation of aldosterone secretion in mast cell-deficient mice. Hypertension. 2017;70(6):1256–1263.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
75. Gohar EY, et al. Acclimation to a high-salt diet is sex dependent. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11(5):e020450.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
76. De Vries GJ, et al. A model system for study of sex chromosome effects on sexually dimorphic neural and behavioral traits. J Neurosci. 2002;22(20):9005–9014.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
77. Arnold AP, et al. A “Four Core Genotypes” rat model to distinguish mechanisms underlying sex-biased phenotypes and diseases [preprint]. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.09.527738 Posted on bioRxiv February 10, 2023.
78. Arnold AP. Four Core Genotypes and XY* mouse models: update on impact on SABV research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020;119:1–8.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
79. Burgoyne PS, Arnold AP. A primer on the use of mouse models for identifying direct sex chromosome effects that cause sex differences in non-gonadal tissues. Biol Sex Differ. 2016;7:68.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
80. Satoh M. Blood pressure changes with gender-affirming hormone therapy in transgender people. Hypertens Res. 2023;46(3):792–793.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
81. Eicher EM, et al. The mouse Y* chromosome involves a complex rearrangement, including interstitial positioning of the pseudoautosomal region. Cytogenet Cell Genet. 1991;57(4):221–230.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
82. Koroskenyi K, et al. Human vascular antigen complement consumption test of hypertensive patients (preliminary report). Experientia. 1961;17:91–92.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
83. Ebringer A, Doyle AE. Raised serum IgG levels in hypertension. Br Med J. 1970;2(5702):146–148.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
84. Hilme E, et al. Increased secretion of immunoglobulins in malignant hypertension. J Hypertens. 1989;7(2):91–95.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
85. Abdullah M, et al. Gender effect on in vitro lymphocyte subset levels of healthy individuals. Cell Immunol. 2012;272(2):214–219.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
86. Furman D, et al. Systems analysis of sex differences reveals an immunosuppressive role for testosterone in the response to influenza vaccination. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(2):869–874.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
87. Dunn SE, et al. Mechanisms and consequences of sex differences in immune responses. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2024;20(1):37–55.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
88. Dorffel Y, et al. Preactivated peripheral blood monocytes in patients with essential hypertension. Hypertension. 1999;34(1):113–117.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
89. Youn JC, et al. Immunosenescent CD8⁺ T cells and C-X-C chemokine receptor type 3 chemokines are increased in human hypertension. Hypertension. 2013;62(1):126–133.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
90. Itani HA, et al. Activation of human T cells in hypertension: studies of humanized mice and hypertensive humans. Hypertension. 2016;68(1):123–132.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
91. Jhuang YH, et al. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as predictor for incident hypertension: a 9-year cohort study in Taiwan. Hypertens Res. 2019;42(8):1209–1214.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
92. Kresovich JK, et al. Peripheral immune cell composition is altered in women before and after a hypertension diagnosis. Hypertension. 2023;80(1):43–53.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
93. Siedlinski M, et al. White blood cells and blood pressure: a Mendelian randomization study. Circulation. 2020;141(16):1307–1317.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
94. Taneja V. Sex hormones determine immune response. Front Immunol. 2018;9:1931.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
95. Lelu K, et al. Estrogen receptor α signaling in T lymphocytes is required for estradiol-mediated inhibition of Th1 and Th17 cell differentiation and protection against experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. J Immunol. 2011;187(5):2386–2393.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
96. Miller AP, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and inflammation: interactions in cardiovascular disease. Hypertension. 2003;42(4):657–663.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
97. Jee D, et al. Effects of hormone replacement therapy on lens opacity, serum inflammatory cytokines, and antioxidant levels. Ann Med. 2021;53(1):707–714.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
98. Yanes LL, Reckelhoff JF. Postmenopausal hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2011;24(7):740–749.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
99. Zhang X, et al. Testosterone deficiency, long-term testosterone therapy, and inflammation. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2021;26(6):638–647.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
100. Cheetham TC, et al. Association of testosterone replacement with cardiovascular outcomes among men with androgen deficiency. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(4):491–499.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
101. Comeau KD, et al. Sex differences in the immune system in relation to hypertension and vascular disease. Can J Cardiol. 2022;38(12):1828–1843.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
102. De Ciuceis C, et al. Reduced vascular remodeling, endothelial dysfunction, and oxidative stress in resistance arteries of angiotensin II-infused macrophage colony-stimulating factor-deficient mice: evidence for a role in inflammation in angiotensin-induced vascular injury. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2005;25(10):2106–2113.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
103. Ko EA, et al. Resistance artery remodeling in deoxycorticosterone acetate-salt hypertension is dependent on vascular inflammation: evidence from m-CSF-deficient mice. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2007;292(4):H1789–H1795.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
104. Sullivan JC, et al. Sex and sex hormones influence the development of albuminuria and renal macrophage infiltration in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2007;293(4):R1573–R1579.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
105. Fernandes R, et al. Sex differences in renal inflammation and injury in high-fat diet-fed Dahl salt-sensitive rats. Hypertension. 2018;72(5):e43–e52.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
106. Kirabo A, et al. DC isoketal-modified proteins activate T cells and promote hypertension. J Clin Invest. 2014;124(10):4642–4656.
     View this article via: JCI CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
107. Van Beusecum JP, et al. High salt activates CD11c⁺ antigen-presenting cells via SGK (Serum Glucocorticoid Kinase) 1 to promote renal inflammation and salt-sensitive hypertension. Hypertension. 2019;74(3):555–563.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
108. Paharkova-Vatchkova V, et al. Estrogen preferentially promotes the differentiation of CD11c⁺ CD11b(intermediate) dendritic cells from bone marrow precursors. J Immunol. 2004;172(3):1426–1436.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
109. Wilkinson NM, et al. Sex differences in immunity. Annu Rev Immunol. 2022;40:75–94.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
110. Guzik TJ, et al. Role of the T cell in the genesis of angiotensin II induced hypertension and vascular dysfunction. J Exp Med. 2007;204(10):2449–2460.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
111. Ji H, et al. Sex-specific T-cell regulation of angiotensin II-dependent hypertension. Hypertension. 2014;64(3):573–582.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
112. Elmarakby AA, Sullivan JC. Sex differences in hypertension: lessons from spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR). Clin Sci (Lond). 2021;135(15):1791–1804.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
113. Sullivan JC, Gillis EE. Sex and gender differences in hypertensive kidney injury. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2017;313(4):F1009–F1017.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
114. Tipton AJ, et al. Female spontaneously hypertensive rats have a compensatory increase in renal regulatory T cells in response to elevations in blood pressure. Hypertension. 2014;64(3):557–564.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
115. Belanger KM, et al. Greater T regulatory cells in females attenuate DOCA-salt-induced increases in blood pressure versus males. Hypertension. 2020;75(6):1615–1623.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
116. Taylor EB, et al. Expansion of regulatory T cells using low-dose interleukin-2 attenuates hypertension in an experimental model of systemic lupus erythematosus. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2019;317(5):F1274–F1284.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
117. Chan CT, et al. Obligatory role for B cells in the development of angiotensin II-dependent hypertension. Hypertension. 2015;66(5):1023–1033.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
118. Mathis KW, et al. Preventing autoimmunity protects against the development of hypertension and renal injury. Hypertension. 2014;64(4):792–800.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
119. Taylor EB, et al. Plasma cell depletion attenuates hypertension in an experimental model of autoimmune disease. Hypertension. 2018;71(4):719–728.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
120. Rothman AM, et al. Effects of interleukin-1β inhibition on blood pressure, incident hypertension, and residual inflammatory risk: a secondary analysis of CANTOS. Hypertension. 2020;75(2):477–482.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
121. Dasinger JH, et al. Microbiota-associated mechanisms underlying sexual dimorphism in hypertension. Microbiota Host. 2023;1(1):e230016.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
122. Beale AL, et al. The role of the gut microbiome in sex differences in arterial pressure. Biol Sex Differ. 2019;10(1):22.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
123. Razavi AC, et al. Sex, gut microbiome, and cardiovascular disease risk. Biol Sex Differ. 2019;10(1):29.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
124. Bardhan P, Yang T. Sexual dimorphic interplays between gut microbiota and antihypertensive drugs. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2023;25(8):163–172.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
125. Mueller S, et al. Differences in fecal microbiota in different European study populations in relation to age, gender, and country: a cross-sectional study. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(2):1027–1033.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
126. Dominianni C, et al. Sex, body mass index, and dietary fiber intake influence the human gut microbiome. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0124599.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
127. Haro C, et al. Intestinal microbiota is influenced by gender and body mass index. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154090.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
128. Sinha T, et al. Analysis of 1135 gut metagenomes identifies sex-specific resistome profiles. Gut Microbes. 2019;10(3):358–366.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
129. Mahnic A, Rupnik M. Different host factors are associated with patterns in bacterial and fungal gut microbiota in Slovenian healthy cohort. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0209209.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
130. de la Cuesta-Zuluaga J, et al. Age- and sex-dependent patterns of gut microbial diversity in human adults. mSystems. 2019;4(4):e00261-19.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
131. Lv J, et al. Alterations of gut microbiota are associated with blood pressure: a cross-sectional clinical trial in Northwestern China. J Transl Med. 2023;21(1):429.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
132. Virwani PD, et al. Sex differences in association between gut microbiome and essential hypertension based on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Hypertension. 2023;80(6):1331–1342.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
133. Ecklu-Mensah G, et al. Gut microbiota and fecal short chain fatty acids differ with adiposity and country of origin: the METS-microbiome study. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):5160.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
134. Santos-Marcos JA, et al. Influence of gender and menopausal status on gut microbiota. Maturitas. 2018;116:43–53.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
135. Shin JH, et al. Serum level of sex steroid hormone is associated with diversity and profiles of human gut microbiome. Res Microbiol. 2019;170(4–5):192–201.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
136. Mayneris-Perxachs J, et al. Gut microbiota steroid sexual dimorphism and its impact on gonadal steroids: influences of obesity and menopausal status. Microbiome. 2020;8(1):136.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
137. Markle JG, et al. Sex differences in the gut microbiome drive hormone-dependent regulation of autoimmunity. Science. 2013;339(6123):1084–1088.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
138. Yurkovetskiy L, et al. Gender bias in autoimmunity is influenced by microbiota. Immunity. 2013;39(2):400–412.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
139. Mei X, et al. Beyond the gastrointestinal tract: oral and sex-specific skin microbiota are associated with hypertension in rats with genetic disparities. Physiol Genomics. 2022;54(7):242–250.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
140. Cox-York KA, et al. Ovariectomy results in differential shifts in gut microbiota in low versus high aerobic capacity rats. Physiol Rep. 2015;3(8):e12488.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
141. Abais-Battad JM, et al. Dietary influences on the Dahl SS rat gut microbiota and its effects on salt-sensitive hypertension and renal damage. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2021;232(4):e13662.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
142. Moore BN, Pluznick JL. Commensal microbiota regulate renal gene expression in a sex-specific manner. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2023;324(6):F511–F520.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
143. Beckers KF, et al. Effects of fenbendazole on fecal microbiome in BPH/5 mice, a model of hypertension and obesity, a brief report. PLoS One. 2023;18(6):e0287145.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
144. Mei X, et al. Genetically engineered Lactobacillus paracasei rescues colonic angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and attenuates hypertension in female Ace2 knock out rats. Pharmacol Res. 2023;196:106920.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
145. Sakamuri A, et al. Sex hormones, sex chromosomes, and microbiota: identification of Akkermansia muciniphila as an estrogen-responsive microbiota. Microbiota Host. 2023;1(1):e230010.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
146. Wilck N, et al. Salt-responsive gut commensal modulates T_H17 axis and disease. Nature. 2017;551(7682):585–589.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
147. Ferguson JF, et al. High dietary salt-induced dendritic cell activation underlies microbial dysbiosis-associated hypertension. JCI Insight. 2019;5(13):e126241.
     View this article via: JCI Insight CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
148. Bartolomaeus H, et al. Short-chain fatty acid propionate protects from hypertensive cardiovascular damage. Circulation. 2019;139(11):1407–1421.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
149. Taylor LE, et al. High-fat diet-induced hypertension is associated with a proinflammatory T cell profile in male and female Dahl salt-sensitive rats. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2018;315(6):H1713–H1723.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
150. Fehrenbach DJ, et al. Sexual dimorphic role of CD14 (cluster of differentiation 14) in salt-sensitive hypertension and renal injury. Hypertension. 2021;77(1):228–240.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
151. Mancia G, Grassi G. The autonomic nervous system and hypertension. Circ Res. 2014;114(11):1804–1814.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
152. Guyenet PG, et al. Neuronal networks in hypertension: recent advances. Hypertension. 2020;76(2):300–311.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
153. Szczepanska-Sadowska E, et al. Brain and cardiovascular diseases: common neurogenic background of cardiovascular, metabolic and inflammatory diseases. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2010;61(5):509–521.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
154. Myers B. Corticolimbic regulation of cardiovascular responses to stress. Physiol Behav. 2017;172:49–59.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
155. Dearing C, et al. Sex differences in autonomic responses to stress: implications for cardiometabolic physiology. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2022;323(3):E281–E289.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
156. Hart EC, et al. Sex differences in sympathetic neural-hemodynamic balance: implications for human blood pressure regulation. Hypertension. 2009;53(3):571–576.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
157. Joyner MJ, et al. Neural control of the circulation: how sex and age differences interact in humans. Compr Physiol. 2015;5(1):193–215.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
158. Joyner MJ, et al. Sex differences and blood pressure regulation in humans. Exp Physiol. 2016;101(3):349–355.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
159. Klassen SA, et al. The impact of ageing and sex on sympathetic neurocirculatory regulation. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2021;116:72–81.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
160. Coovadia Y, et al. Sex differences in dynamic blood pressure regulation: beat-by-beat responses to muscle sympathetic nerve activity. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2020;319(3):H531–H538.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
161. Hart EC, et al. Age-related differences in the sympathetic-hemodynamic balance in men. Hypertension. 2009;54(1):127–133.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
162. Hart EC, et al. Sex and ageing differences in resting arterial pressure regulation: the role of the β-adrenergic receptors. J Physiol. 2011;589(pt 21):5285–5297.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
163. Sandberg K, et al. Sex-specific immune modulation of primary hypertension. Cell Immunol. 2015;294(2):95–101.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
164. Finnell JE, et al. Essential role of ovarian hormones in susceptibility to the consequences of witnessing social defeat in female rats. Biol Psychiatry. 2018;84(5):372–382.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
165. Ikeda Y, et al. Androgen-androgen receptor system protects against angiotensin II-induced vascular remodeling. Endocrinology. 2009;150(6):2857–2864.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
166. Mishra JS, et al. Testosterone plays a permissive role in angiotensin II-induced hypertension and cardiac hypertrophy in male rats. Biol Reprod. 2019;100(1):139–148.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
167. Kawada N, et al. A mouse model of angiotensin II slow pressor response: role of oxidative stress. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002;13(12):2860–2868.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
168. Reckelhoff JF, Romero JC. Role of oxidative stress in angiotensin-induced hypertension. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2003;284(4):R893–R912.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
169. Zimmerman MC, et al. Hypertension caused by angiotensin II infusion involves increased superoxide production in the central nervous system. Circ Res. 2004;95(2):210–216.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
170. Coleman CG, et al. Chronic intermittent hypoxia induces NMDA receptor-dependent plasticity and suppresses nitric oxide signaling in the mouse hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus. J Neurosci. 2010;30(36):12103–12112.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
171. Wang G, et al. Angiotensin II slow-pressor hypertension enhances NMDA currents and NOX2-dependent superoxide production in hypothalamic paraventricular neurons. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2013;304(12):R1096–R1106.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
172. Marques-Lopes J, et al. Slow-pressor angiotensin II hypertension and concomitant dendritic NMDA receptor trafficking in estrogen receptor β-containing neurons of the mouse hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus are sex and age dependent. J Comp Neurol. 2014;522(13):3075–3090.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
173. Glass MJ, et al. NMDA receptor plasticity in the hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus contributes to the elevated blood pressure produced by angiotensin II. J Neurosci. 2015;35(26):9558–9567.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
174. Pinos H, et al. The development of sex differences in the locus coeruleus of the rat. Brain Res Bull. 2001;56(1):73–78.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
175. Wallace T, et al. Sexually divergent cortical control of affective-autonomic integration. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2021;129:105238.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
176. Pace SA, Myers B. Hindbrain adrenergic/noradrenergic control of integrated endocrine and autonomic stress responses. Endocrinology. 2023;165(1):bqad178.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
177. Schaeuble D, Myers B. Cortical-hypothalamic integration of autonomic and endocrine stress responses. Front Physiol. 2022;13:820398.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
178. Scott PE, et al. Participation of women in clinical trials supporting FDA approval of cardiovascular drugs. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(18):1960–1969.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
179. Ji H, et al. Sex differences in blood pressure trajectories over the life course. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5(3):19–26.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
180. Connelly PJ, et al. The importance of gender to understand sex differences in cardiovascular disease. Can J Cardiol. 2021;37(5):699–710.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
181. Peters SAE, et al. Sex differences in the prevalence of, and trends in, cardiovascular risk factors, treatment, and control in the United States, 2001 to 2016. Circulation. 2019;139(8):1025–1035.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
182. Cifkova R, et al. Longitudinal trends in blood pressure, prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the Czech population. Are there any sex differences? Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:1033606.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
183. Yu MK, et al. Risk factor, age and sex differences in chronic kidney disease prevalence in a diabetic cohort: the pathways study. Am J Nephrol. 2012;36(3):245–251.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
184. Ricardo AC, et al. Sex-related disparities in CKD progression. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(1):137–146.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
185. Gracia Gutierrez A, et al. Sex differences in comorbidity, therapy, and health services’ use of heart failure in Spain: evidence from real-world data. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(6):2136.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
186. Regitz-Zagrosek V. Sex and gender differences in heart failure. Int J Heart Fail. 2020;2(3):157–181.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
187. Bots SH, et al. Sex differences in coronary heart disease and stroke mortality: a global assessment of the effect of ageing between 1980 and 2010. BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2(2):e000298.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
188. Lichtman JH, et al. Sex differences in the presentation and perception of symptoms among young patients with myocardial infarction: evidence from the VIRGO study (Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI Patients). Circulation. 2018;137(8):781–790.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
189. Lu Y, et al. Sex differences in lipid profiles and treatment utilization among young adults with acute myocardial infarction: results from the VIRGO study. Am Heart J. 2017;183:74–84.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar