Socially disadvantaged city districts show a higher incidence of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarctions with elevated cardiovascular risk factors and worse prognosis.

BACKGROUND: The importance of socioeconomic status (SES) for coronary heart disease (CHD)-morbidity is subject of ongoing scientific investigations. This study was to explore the association between SES in different city-districts of Bremen/Germany and incidence, severity, treatment modalities and prognosis for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMI). METHODS: Since 2006 all STEMI-patients from the metropolitan area of Bremen are documented in the Bremen STEMI-registry. Utilizing postal codes of their home address they were assigned to four groups in accordance to the Bremen social deprivation-index (G1: high, G2: intermediate high, G3: intermediate low, G4: low socioeconomic status). RESULTS: Three thousand four hundred sixty-two consecutive patients with STEMI admitted between 2006 and 2015 entered analysis. City areas with low SES showed higher adjusted STEMI-incidence-rates (IR-ratio 1.56, G4 vs. G1). This elevation could be observed in both sexes (women IRR 1.63, men IRR 1.54) and was most prominent in inhabitants <50 yrs. of age (women IRR 2.18, men IRR 2.17). Smoking (OR 1.7, 95%CI 1.3-2.4) and obesity (1.6, 95%CI 1.1-2.2) was more prevalent in pts. from low SES city-areas. While treatment-modalities did not differ, low SES was associated with more extensive STEMIs (creatine kinase > 3000 U/l, OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.4-2.8) and severe impairment of LV-function post-STEMI (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2-3.4). Long term follow-up revealed that lower SES was associated with higher major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACCE)-rates after 5 years: G1 30.8%, G2 35.7%, G3 36.0%, G4 41.1%, p (for trend) = 0.02. This worse prognosis could especially be shown for young STEMI-patients (<50 yrs. of age) 5-yr. mortality-rates(G4 vs. G1) 18.4 vs. 3.1%, p = 0.03 and 5-year-MACCE-rates (G4 vs. G1) 32 vs. 6.3%, p = 0.02. CONCLUSIONS: This registry-data confirms the negative association of low socioeconomic status and STEMI-incidence, with higher rates of smoking and obesity, more extensive infarctions and worse prognosis for the socio-economically deprived.

Amyloidogenicity of recombinant human pro-islet amyloid polypeptide (ProIAPP).

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic amyloid has been associated with type II diabetes. The major constituent of pancreatic amyloid is the 37-residue peptide islet amyloid polypeptide (IAPP). IAPP is expressed as a 67-residue pro-peptide called ProIAPP which is processed to IAPP following stimulation. While the molecular events underlying IAPP amyloid formation in vitro have been studied, little is known about the role of ProIAPP in the formation of pancreatic amyloid. This has been due in part to the limited availability of purified ProIAPP for conformational and biochemical studies. RESULTS: We present a method for efficient recombinant expression and purification of ProIAPP and a processing site mutant, mutProIAPP, as thioredoxin (Trx) fusion proteins. Conformation and amyloidogenicity of cleaved ProIAPP and mutProIAPP and the fusion proteins were assessed by circular dichroism, electron microscopy and Congo red staining. We find that ProIAPP and mutProIAPP exhibit strong self-association potentials and are capable of forming amyloid. However, the conformational transitions of ProIAPP and mutProIAPP during aging and amyloidogenesis are distinct from the random coil-to-beta-sheet transition of IAPP. Both proteins are found to be less amyloidogenic than IAPP and besides fibrils a number of non-fibrillar but ordered aggregates form during aging of ProIAPP. ProIAPP aggregates are cytotoxic on pancreatic cells but less cytotoxic than IAPP while mutProIAPP aggregates essentially lack cytotoxicity. The Trx fusion proteins are neither amyloidogenic nor cytotoxic. CONCLUSIONS: Our studies suggest that ProIAPP has typical properties of an amyloidogenic polypeptide but also indicate that the pro-region suppresses the amyloidogenic and cytotoxic potentials of IAPP.

Smoking ban in public areas is associated with a reduced incidence of hospital admissions due to ST-elevation myocardial infarctions in non-smokers. Results from the Bremen STEMI Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Laws banning tobacco smoking from public areas have been passed in several countries, including the region of Bremen, Germany at the end of 2007. The present study analyses the incidence of hospital admissions due to ST-elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs) before and after such a smoking ban was implemented, focusing on differences between smokers and non-smokers. In this respect, data of the Bremen STEMI Registry (BSR) give a complete epidemiological overview of a region in northwest Germany with approximately 800,000 inhabitants since all STEMIs are admitted to one central heart centre. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between January 2006 and December 2010, data from the BSR was analysed focusing on date of admission, age, gender, and prior nicotine consumption. A total of 3545 patients with STEMI were admitted in the Bremen Heart Centre during this time period. Comparing 2006-2007 vs. 2008-2010, hence before and after the smoking ban, a 16% decrease of the number of STEMIs was observed: from a mean of 65 STEMI/month in 2006-2007 to 55/month in 2008-2010 (p < 0.01). The group of smokers showed a constant number of STEMIs: 25/month in 2006-2007 to 26/month in 2008-2010 (+4%, p = 0.8). However, in non-smokers, a significant reduction of STEMIs over time was found: 39/month in 2006-2007 to 29/month in 2008-2010 (-26%, p < 0.01). The decline of STEMIs in non-smokers was consistently observed in all age groups and both sexes. Adjusting for potentially confounding factors like hypertension, obesity, and diabetes mellitus did not explain the observed decline. CONCLUSIONS: In the BSR, a significant decline of hospital admissions due to STEMIs in non-smokers was observed after the smoking ban in public areas came into force. No reduction of STEMI-related admissions was found in smokers. These results may be explained by the protection of non-smokers from passive smoking and the absence of such an effect in smokers by the dominant effect of active smoking.