Is there really a beauty premium or an ugliness penalty on earnings?

Purpose Economists have widely documented the “beauty premium” and “ugliness penalty” on earnings. Explanations based on employer and client discrimination would predict a monotonic association between physical attractiveness and earnings; explanations based on occupational self-selection would explain the beauty premium as a function of workers’ occupations; and explanations based on individual differences would predict that the beauty premium would disappear once appropriate individual differences are controlled. In this paper, we empirically tested the three competing hypotheses about the “beauty premium”. Design/Methodology/Approach We analyzed a nationally representative and prospectively longitudinal sample from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (Add Health). Findings Findings The results contradicted the discrimination and self-selection explanations and strongly supported the individual differences explanation. Very unattractive respondents always earned significantly more than unattractive respondents, sometimes more than average-looking or attractive respondents. Multiple regression analyses showed that there was very weak evidence for the beauty premium, and it disappeared completely once individual differences, such as health, intelligence, and Big Five personality factors, were statistically controlled. Implications Past findings of beauty premium and ugliness penalty may possibly be due to the fact that: 1) “very unattractive” and “unattractive” categories are usually collapsed into “below average” category; and 2) health, intelligence (as opposed to education) and Big Five personality factors are not controlled. It appears that more beautiful workers earn more, not because they are beautiful, but because they are healthier, more intelligent, and have better (more Conscientious and Extraverted, and less Neurotic) personality. Originality/Value This is the first study to show that: 1) very unattractive workers have extremely high earnings and earn more than physically more attractive workers, suggesting evidence for the potential ugliness premium; and 2) the apparent beauty premium and ugliness penalty may be a function of unmeasured traits correlated with physical attractiveness, such as health, intelligence, and personality

The genetic correlation between height and IQ: shared genes or assortative mating?

Traits that are attractive to the opposite sex are often positively correlated when scaled such that scores increase with attractiveness, and this correlation typically has a genetic component. Such traits can be genetically correlated due to genes that affect both traits ("pleiotropy") and/or because assortative mating causes statistical correlations to develop between selected alleles across the traits ("gametic phase disequilibrium"). In this study, we modeled the covariation between monozygotic and dizygotic twins, their siblings, and their parents (total N = 7,905) to elucidate the nature of the correlation between two potentially sexually selected traits in humans: height and IQ. Unlike previous designs used to investigate the nature of the height-IQ correlation, the present design accounts for the effects of assortative mating and provides much less biased estimates of additive genetic, non-additive genetic, and shared environmental influences. Both traits were highly heritable, although there was greater evidence for non-additive genetic effects in males. After accounting for assortative mating, the correlation between height and IQ was found to be almost entirely genetic in nature. Model fits indicate that both pleiotropy and assortative mating contribute significantly and about equally to this genetic correlation

Effect of Alirocumab on Mortality After Acute Coronary Syndromes An Analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Randomized Clinical Trial

10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038840CIRCULATION1402103-11

Risk Categorization Using New American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for Cholesterol Management and Its Relation to Alirocumab Treatment Following Acute Coronary Syndromes

10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042551CIRCULATION140191578-158

Effects of alirocumab on cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes after acute coronary syndrome in patients with or without diabetes: a prespecified analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES randomised controlled trial

Background After acute coronary syndrome, diabetes conveys an excess risk of ischaemic cardiovascular events. A reduction in mean LDL cholesterol to 1.4-1.8 mmol/L with ezetimibe or statins reduces cardiovascular events in patients with an acute coronary syndrome and diabetes. However, the efficacy and safety of further reduction in LDL cholesterol with an inhibitor of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) after acute coronary syndrome is unknown. We aimed to explore this issue in a prespecified analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial of the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab, assessing its effects on cardiovascular outcomes by baseline glycaemic status, while also assessing its effects on glycaemic measures including risk of new-onset diabetes

Apolipoprotein B, Residual Cardiovascular Risk After Acute Coronary Syndrome, and Effects of Alirocumab.

Background: Apolipoprotein B (apoB) provides an integrated measure of atherogenic risk. Whether apoB levels and apoB lowering hold incremental predictive information on residual risk after acute coronary syndrome beyond that provided by low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is uncertain. Methods: The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) compared the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor alirocumab with placebo in 18 924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome and elevated atherogenic lipoproteins despite optimized statin therapy. Primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; coronary heart disease death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal/nonfatal ischemic stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina). Associations between baseline apoB or apoB at 4 months and MACE were assessed in adjusted Cox proportional hazards and propensity score–matched models. Results: Median follow-up was 2.8 years. In proportional hazards analysis in the placebo group, MACE incidence increased across increasing baseline apoB strata (3.2 [95% CI, 2.9–3.6], 4.0 [95% CI, 3.6–4.5], and 5.5 [95% CI, 5.0–6.1] events per 100 patient-years in strata 35–<50, and ≤35 mg/dL, respectively). Compared with propensity score–matched patients from the placebo group, treatment hazard ratios for alirocumab also decreased monotonically across achieved apoB strata. Achieved apoB was predictive of MACE after adjustment for achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol but not vice versa. Conclusions: In patients with recent acute coronary syndrome and elevated atherogenic lipoproteins, MACE increased across baseline apoB strata. Alirocumab reduced MACE across all strata of baseline apoB, with larger absolute reductions in patients with higher baseline levels. Lower achieved apoB was associated with lower risk of MACE, even after accounting for achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, indicating that apoB provides incremental information. Achievement of apoB levels as low as ≤35 mg/dL may reduce lipoprotein-attributable residual risk after acute coronary syndrome. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01663402.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01663402.URL: https://www