Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the UK and responsible for approximately 238,000 deaths annually, or 39% of total mortality [1]. Some UK ethnic groups have a higher cardiovascular disease burden, and this is particularly true for individuals of South-Asian origin [2]. The causes of higher disease burden among individuals of South-Asians origin are not fully understood, but may include excess exposure to known risk factors, excess exposure to as yet unknown risk factors, greater biological susceptibility to cardiovascular disease, or a lower risk of competing mortality and morbidity from other diseases (such as cancer) [2].

In the UK and over the past two decades, the mean population values of total cholesterol and blood pressure have been decreasing, and the same has been true for the prevalence of current smoking; however, mean values of body mass index (BMI) manifest an increasing trend [3]. Whilst cardiovascular risk factor levels for the UK population, including for ethnic groups [4], are relatively well described, there is a relative paucity of information about cardiovascular risk factor time trends in UK ethnic groups, particularly for the period before 1999. Evidence about recent trends in cardiovascular risk factors in UK individuals of South-Asian origin is therefore required [5].

Although a previous meta-analysis of primary studies reported between 1977 and 1996 has questioned the overall efficacy of multiple cardiovascular risk factor screening as a means of preventing the development of cardiovascular disease[6], one potentially important secondary use of population-based screening programmes is as public health surveillance tools, to monitor population risk factor trends. The importance of best using information from routine sources to help give a comprehensive picture of population health and its determinants has been highlighted recently by both the most recent "Wanless Report" [7], and the subsequent UK Department of Health White Paper on Public Health [8]. The Stockport Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factor Screening Programme, originally introduced in 1989, provides an example for the potential secondary use of routine data sources for public health surveillance purposes [9]. Further details about operating protocols and population coverage have been previously described [10, 11]. Briefly the Programme was introduced in 1989, and used a call-recall system operated by the Stockport Health Authority, where all Stockport residents aged between 35 and 60 were invited every five years to book a screening appointment at their GP surgery. Cardiovascular risk factors including blood pressure, total cholesterol, BMI and smoking status were assessed, usually by a practice nurse. Between 1989 and 1993, about 10.8% of all patients registered with a GP were excluded from the screening invitation, as they were already known to suffer from hypertension (3.9%), diabetes (1.2%) and conditions including history of any cardiovascular disease, and terminal illness (6.6%).10 Over the whole 11-year period 1989–1999, the population coverage for one (first) screening was about 72.2% for Stockport men aged 35–60 and about 78.4% for Stockport women (see Additional File 1). Individual data on risk factor levels were collated by the Health Authority and anonymised into a usable electronic dataset, which was used in the present study [10, 11]. We therefore conducted a study to examine recent risk factor levels and risk factor trends in cardiovascular risk factors among individuals of Caucasian and South Asian origin in a UK population using the Stockport Cardiovascular Risk Factor Screening Programme dataset 1989–1999.

Stockport is a borough of Northwest England. In recent years, general population health has been slightly better than the general UK population, with a Standardised Mortality Ratio from all causes (all ages) of 96 (95% CI 94–98)[12]. In the 1991 Census 1.12% of all Stockport residents were of South Asian origin, and this proportion rose to 2.1% in the 2001 Census [13].

Information on 34,122 men and 37,294 women who had a first screening episode during the 11-year period 1989–1999 was analysed.

There were 34,122 men and 37,294 women aged 35–60 with a first screening episode during 1989 and 1999. Following the steps described below 33,597 men and 36,890 women were assigned Caucasian and 499 men and 381 women were assigned South-Asian origin.

The study included UK individuals of middle age and with no previous diagnosis of hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The findings indicate that during the 1990s and in the study setting, individuals of South-Asian origin did not have an adverse risk factor profile compared with the Caucasian ethnic group. In fact for some risk factors the inverse is true (i.e. more favourable risk factor levels among South-Asians). The findings also appear to show a similar pattern of time trends in risk factor levels for the examined five risk factors between Caucasian and South Asian groups. Individuals of South Asian origin are at higher risk of impaired glycose tolerance and diabetes, in itself a strong independent risk factor of cardiovascular disease, but no data on diabetic status were available for analysis. Nevertheless, the findings would contrast with the hypothesis that increased cardiovascular disease burden in UK South-Asians is due to higher level of exposure to conventional cardiovascular risk factors (other than impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes). Other hypotheses, such as greater genetic susceptibility to cardiovascular disease, may be relevant. Further research should also continue to explore the likely importance of novel and as yet unknown risk factors, and the likely relevance of lower risk of competing morbidity.

The lower levels of total cholesterol and smoking prevalence levels observed in the South-Asian group are in general agreement with previous findings from UK cross-sectional surveys [20, 21], including the 1999 Health Survey for England (HSE) which focused on ethnic minority groups [4]. In particular, both the 1999 HSE and the present study indicate significantly lower prevalence of current smoking among South-Asian individuals particularly for women (although it should be noted that the 1999 HSE found higher smoking prevalence in one of the South-Asian ethnic subgroups – Bangladeshi men); similar or lower levels of cholesterol (particularly in relation to lower levels in South-Asian women); and higher levels of mean BMI in women. Conflictingly, a number of UK studies, previously expertly reviewed [22], have shown both higher (particularly in London) and lower levels of hypertension in South Asian compared to Caucasian populations -the present study being in broad agreement with the latter. In relation to BP, comparisons of the findings of the present study with the 1999 Health Survey for England area difficult, due to the variable findings in the latter survey, depending on South-Asian particular ethnic subgroup and sex.

The risk factor trends for total cholesterol, BMI and current smoking prevalence observed in this study are in agreement with those observed in UK population-based studies of the similar period (e.g. Health Survey for England (HSE) [3], Health Survey for Scotland [23]) i.e. reflecting downward trends for cholesterol and smoking status, and increasing trends for BMI. However, the lack of any considerable decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure for both men and women observed in the present study is in contrast to information from population-based epidemiological surveys [3, 23]. This difference raises the question whether the difference can be due to bias, a "real" effect or chance. Selection bias is theoretically possible, as patients with known diagnosis of hypertension and other cardiovascular conditions were excluded from the study, unlike population-based surveys such as the HSE that randomly include both individuals with and without known diagnosis of hypertension (or cardiovascular disease). This hypothesis would have meant that the downward population trends in mean BP observed in HSE surveys of the same period are largely due to strong treatment effects and secular improvement in BP control among known hypertensive participants, and this is judged unlikely. Artefactual explanations are also likely, for example systematic differences in measurement progressively taking place during the study period (e.g. timing allowed to achieve a resting state, body posture, observer technique and training, number of BP readings, calculation of mean values from more than one readings).

A crucial question in relation to the generalisability of the study findings is whether screening participants were representative of the Stockport population of 35–60 year olds who were free of hypertension, diabetes and other cardiovascular disorders. However, if the rigour and accuracy with which individuals were identified and excluded because of known hypertension, diabetes and other cardiovascular conditions was differential between the two ethnic groups, then this potentially could have biased the findings, and this possibility cannot be dismissed with the data that are available.

The study used a computerised package to ascribe ethnicity. Reliance on the same software for identification of ethnic names has been proven not fully reliable before, particularly for South-Asian populations residing outside Northern England [15]. Nevertheless the computerised process of ethnic group assignment was supplemented by visual inspection of both the positive and the negative cases by two independent researchers of diverse ethnic background, which has been shown to improve specificity and specificity [15]. Overall, 1.23% of all cases were assigned South-Asian origin, which corresponds with estimates of the Stockport population of South Asian origin (all ages) of 1.12% in the 1991 and 2.1% in the 2001 Census [13]. In any case, any misclassification errors in the ascertainment of ethnicity would tend to make the two ethnic groups similar, and hence would have made true differences between ethnic groups more difficult to detect is such differences truly existed. Therefore although there is a possibility of undetected differences, those ethnic differences that have been identified in this study are unlikely to be biased by the method used to assign ethnicity.

The fact that Stockport has a relatively small South-Asian community, in combination with the fact that a relatively greater proportion of South-Asian population are younger than 30, is reflected in the small proportion of South Asians included in the study. It is theoretically possible that because Stockport is neither affluent nor deprived, Stockport South Asians are not representative of the wider South Asian communities in the UK.

An important limitation of the study is that the South-Asian ethnic group category contains an important degree of heterogeneity in terms of ethnic group, religion, culture and country of origin. Previous research has showed considerable heterogeneity in relation to exposure to cardiovascular risk factors between UK South-Asian ethnic groups [24]. Nevertheless, aggregation of all South-Asian groups has helped increase the statistical precision of estimates. In the 1991 census, within Stockport South-Asian individuals aged over 30 years of age, the relative proportion of those categorised as of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin was 43.4 %, 49.5% and 7.1% respectively (data available from MIMAS, http://www.mimas.ac.uk). In the 2001 census a similar overall breakdown of South-Asian groups was observed (31.3%, 49.3% and 5.8%). It is therefore likely that the relative proportion of South-Asian subgroups in the dataset is a reflection of the proportions of subgroups of South-Asian origin in the community, but no further detailed study of such subgroups was possible. More importantly, it is unlikely that the observed time trends in risk reflect changes in the ethnic sub-group composition of the South-Asian group. Individuals belonging to ethnic subgroups are known to have an overall lower access rate to preventive interventions. We therefore acknowledge that it is possible that screening participants of South-Asian origin (and of some South-Asian subgroups in particular) may not be representative of the overall community. Unfortunately quantifying this potential problem is not possible with the available data.

In a UK district the exposure of individuals of South-Asian origin to conventional cardiovascular risk factors excluding diabetes status was found to be overall either favourable or similar to individuals of Caucasian origin. Recent time trends in risk factor levels in South-Asians appear to mirror those observed in the Caucasian population, with the exception of smoking.

We would wish to acknowledge the help, advice and practical support of the following individuals: Professor Deborah Baker, Dr Stephen Watkins, Ms Jane Jefferson, Ms Jane Pilkington, Dr Gill Greenhough, Ms Jane Bowdenleigh, Ms Bernadette Ryan-Wooley, Ms Barbara Shallaker, Mr Dan Byrne. Dr Umesh Chauhan, Dr Robert (Mark) Hann UC and MH were responsible for the attribution of ethnic group.