Endothelial dysfunction has been associated with the development of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular diseases. Adult endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are derived from hematopoietic stem cells and are capable of forming new blood vessels through a process of vasculogenesis. There are studies which report correlations between circulating EPCs and cardiovascular risk factors. There are also studies on how pharmacotherapies may influence levels of circulating EPCs. In this review, we discuss the potential role of endothelial progenitor cells as both diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. In addition, we look at the interaction between cardiovascular pharmacotherapies and endothelial progenitor cells. We also discuss how EPCs can be used directly and indirectly as a therapeutic agent. Finally, we evaluate the challenges facing EPC research and how these may be overcome.

Background: Multimorbidity presents a key challenge to healthcare systems globally. However, heterogeneity in the definition of multimorbidity and design of epidemiological studies results in difficulty in comparing multimorbidity studies. This scoping review aimed to describe multimorbidity prevalence in studies using large datasets and report the differences in multimorbidity definition and study design. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases to identify large epidemiological studies on multimorbidity. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) protocol for reporting the results. Results: Twenty articles were identified. We found two key definitions of multimorbidity: at least two (MM2+) or at least three (MM3+) chronic conditions. The prevalence of multimorbidity MM2+ ranged from 15.3% to 93.1%, and 11.8% to 89.7% in MM3+. The number of chronic conditions used by the articles ranged from 15 to 147, which were organized into 21 body system categories. There were seventeen cross-sectional studies and three retrospective cohort studies, and four diagnosis coding systems were used. Conclusions: We found a wide range in reported prevalence, definition, and conduct of multimorbidity studies. Obtaining consensus in these areas will facilitate better understanding of the magnitude and epidemiology of multimorbidity.

Background The prevalence of multimorbidity varies widely due to the lack of consensus in defining multimorbidity. This study aimed to measure the prevalence of multimorbidity in a primary care setting using two definitions of multimorbidity with two different lists of chronic conditions. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of 787,446 patients, aged 0 to 99 years, who consulted a family physician between July 2015 to June 2016. Multimorbidity was defined as ‘two or more’ (MM2+) or ‘three or more’ (MM3+) chronic conditions using the Fortin list and Chronic Disease Management Program (CDMP) list of chronic conditions. Crude and standardised prevalence rates were reported, and the corresponding age, sex or ethnic-stratified standardised prevalence rates were adjusted to the local population census. Results The number of patients with multimorbidity increased with age. Age-sex-ethnicity standardised prevalence rates of multimorbidity using MM2+ and MM3+ for Fortin list (25.9, 17.2%) were higher than those for CDMP list (22.0%; 12.4%). Sex-stratified, age-ethnicity standardised prevalence rates for MM2+ and MM3+ were consistently higher in males compared to females for both lists. Chinese and Indians have the highest standardised prevalence rates among the four ethnicities using MM2+ and MM3+ respectively. Conclusions MM3+ was better at identifying a smaller number of patients with multimorbidity requiring higher needs compared to MM2+. Using the Fortin list seemed more appropriate than the CDMP list because the chronic conditions in Fortin’s list were more commonly seen in primary care. A consistent definition of multimorbidity will help researchers and clinicians to understand the epidemiology of multimorbidity better.

INTRODUCTION Single-disease clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are not designed to consider patients with multiple chronic conditions, or multimorbidity. Applying multiple CPGs to a single patient may create an overwhelming treatment burden resulting in poor adherence and clinical outcomes. No studies on the cumulative treatment burden from multiple CPGs have been done in Singapore. We described the treatment burden on a hypothetical patient with six chronic conditions when multiple CPGs were applied, and appraised each CPG with respect to the patient-centred care of older adults with multimorbidity.METHODS A treatment plan was developed for a hypothetical 72-year-old woman with asthma, depression, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidaemia, hypertension and osteoarthritis according to the latest CPG recommendations. Treatment burden was quantified in terms of time spent, cost, and the number of appointments and medications. Each CPG was appraised with respect to the care of older adults, patients with multimorbidity and patient-centred care. RESULTSFollowing the CPGs strictly, an average of about two hours was spent daily taking 14 different medications and following 21 non-pharmacological recommendations. Her out-of-pocket payment was SGD 104.42 monthly despite a near 90% subsidy on healthcare bills. Patient-centred care of older adults with multimorbidity was inadequately addressed in all six CPGs. CONCLUSION When six CPGs were cumulatively followed, the treatment burden was time-consuming, costly and disruptive. Patients' goals and preferences must guide prioritisation of care such that treatment burden remains minimally disruptive to their lives. Developing future CPGs to deliver patient-centred rather than disease-focused care will be crucial to the management of multimorbidity.