MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective descriptive study. We identified 1041 patients (810 Chinese, 139 Malays, 92 Indians) without previous history of cardiovascular disease who underwent cardiac computed tomography for atypical chest pain evaluation. A cardiologist, who was blinded to the patients' clinical demographics, reviewed all scans. We retrospectively analysed all their case records.
RESULTS: Overall, Malays were most likely to be active smokers (P = 0.02), Indians had the highest prevalence of diabetes mellitus (P = 0.01) and Chinese had the highest mean age (P <0.0001). The overall prevalence of patients with non-calcified plaques as the only manifestation of sub-clinical coronary artery disease was 2.1%. There was no significant difference in the prevalence of CAC, mean CAC score or prevalence of non-calcified plaques among the 3 ethnic groups. Active smoking, age and hypertension were independent predictors of CAC. Non-calcified plaques were positively associated with male gender, age, dyslipidaemia and diabetes mellitus.
CONCLUSION: The higher MI rates in Malays and Indians in Singapore cannot be explained by any difference in CAC or non-calcified plaque. More research with prospective follow-up of larger patient populations is necessary to establish if ethnic-specific calibration of CAC measures is needed to adjust for differences among ethnic groups.
AIMS: To characterize variability of rtPA price, its availability, and its association with and impact on each country's health expenditure (HE) resources.
METHODS: We conducted a global survey to obtain information on rtPA price (50 mg vial, 2020 US Dollars) and availability. Country-specific data, including low, lower middle (LMIC), upper middle (UMIC), and high-income country (HIC) classifications, and gross domestic product (GDP) and HE, both nominally and adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), were obtained from World Bank Open Data. To assess the impact of rtPA cost, we computed the rtPA price as percentage of per capita GDP and HE and examined its association with the country income classification.
RESULTS: rtPA is approved and available in 109 countries. We received surveys from 59 countries: 27 (46%) HIC, 20 (34%) UMIC, and 12 (20%) LMIC. Although HIC have significantly higher per capita GDP and HE compared to UMIC and LMIC (p < 0.0001), the median price of rtPA is non-significantly higher in LMICs (USD 755, interquartile range, IQR (575-1300)) compared to UMICs (USD 544, IQR (400-815)) and HICs (USD 600, IQR (526-1000)). In LMIC, rtPA cost accounts for 217.4% (IQR, 27.1-340.6%) of PPP-adjusted per capita HE, compared to 17.6% (IQR (11.2-28.7%), p < 0.0001) for HICs.
CONCLUSION: We documented significant variability in rtPA availability and price among countries. Relative costs are higher in lower income countries, exceeding the available HE. Concerted efforts to improve rtPA affordability in low-income settings are necessary.