No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveTo estimate out-of-pocket costs and the incidence of catastrophic health expenditure in people admitted to hospital with acute coronary syndromes in Asia.MethodsParticipants were enrolled between June 2011 and May 2012 into this observational study in China, India, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam. Sites were required to enrol a minimum of 10 consecutive participants who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome. Catastrophic health expenditure was defined as out-of-pocket costs of initial hospitalization > 30% of annual baseline household income, and it was assessed six weeks after discharge. We assessed associations between health expenditure and age, sex, diagnosis of the index coronary event and health insurance status of the participant, using logistic regression models.FindingsOf 12 922 participants, 9370 (73%) had complete data on expenditure. The mean out-of-pocket cost was 3237 United States dollars. Catastrophic health expenditure was reported by 66% (1984/3007) of those without insurance versus 52% (3296/6366) of those with health insurance (P < 0.05). The occurrence of catastrophic expenditure ranged from 80% (1055/1327) in uninsured and 56% (3212/5692) of insured participants in China, to 0% (0/41) in Malaysia.ConclusionLarge variation exists across Asia in catastrophic health expenditure resulting from hospitalization for acute coronary syndromes. While insurance offers some protection, substantial numbers of people with health insurance still incur financial catastrophe.

BACKGROUND Guidelines recommend nonstatin lipid-lowering agents in patients at very high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains ≥70 mg/dL on maximum tolerated statin treatment. It is uncertain if this approach benefits patients with LDL-C near 70 mg/dL. Lipoprotein(a) levels may influence residual risk. OBJECTIVES In a post hoc analysis of the ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) trial, the authors evaluated the benefit of adding the proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor alirocumab to optimized statin treatment in patients with LDL-C levels near 70 mg/dL. Effects were evaluated according to concurrent lipoprotein(a) levels. METHODS ODYSSEY Outcomes compared alirocumab with placebo in 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndromes receiving optimized statin treatment. In 4,351 patients (23.0%), screening or randomization LDL-C was <70 mg/dL (median 69.4 mg/dL; interquartile range: 64.3–74.0 mg/dL); in 14,573 patients (77.0%), both determinations were ≥70 mg/dL (median 94.0 mg/dL; interquartile range: 83.2–111.0 mg/dL). RESULTS In the lower LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.2 and 3.1 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with baseline lipoprotein(a) greater than or less than or equal to the median (13.7 mg/dL). Corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [Cl]: 0.52–0.90) and 1.11 (95% Cl: 0.83–1.49), with treatment-lipoprotein(a) interaction on MACE ( P interaction = 0.017). In the higher LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.7 and 3.8 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with lipoprotein(a) >13.7 mg/dL or ≤13.7 mg/dL; corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.82 (95% Cl: 0.72–0.92) and 0.89 (95% Cl: 0.75–1.06), with P interaction = 0.43. CONCLUSIONS In patients with recent acute coronary syndromes and LDL-C near 70 mg/dL on optimized statin therapy, proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition provides incremental clinical benefit only when lipoprotein(a) concentration is at least mildly elevated. (ODYSSEY Outcomes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab; NCT01663402 )

Being one of the most widely prevalent diseases throughout the world, hypertension has emerged as one of the leading causes of global premature morbidity and mortality. Hence, blood pressure (BP) measurements are essential for physicians in the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines recommend initiating antihypertensive medications on the basis of office BP readings. However, office BP readings provide a snapshot evaluation of the patient's BP, which might not reflect patient's true BP, with the possibility of being falsely elevated or falsely low. Recently, there is ample evidence to show that ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a better predictor of major cardiovascular events than BP measurements at clinic settings. ABPM helps in reducing the number of possible false readings, along with the added benefit of understanding the dynamic variability of BP. This article will focus on the significance of ambulatory BP, its advantages and limitations compared with the standard office BP measurement and a brief outlook on its use and interpretation to diagnose and treat hypertension.