Cooperate! A paradigm shift for health equity.

The role of competition and cooperation in relation to the goal of health equity is examined in this paper. The authors explain why the win-lose mentality associated with avoidable competition is ethically questionable and less effective than cooperation in achieving positive outcomes, particularly as it relates to health and health equity. Competition, which differentiates winners from losers, often with the winner-takes-all reward system, inevitably leads to a few winners and many losers, resulting in social inequality, which, in turn, engenders and perpetuates health inequity.Competitive market-driven approaches to healthcare-brought about by capitalism, neo-liberalization, and globalization, based primarily on a competitive framework-are shown to have contributed to growing inequities with respect to the social determinants of health, and have undermined equal opportunity to access health care and achieve health equity. It is possible to redistribute income and wealth to reduce social inequality, but globalization poses increasing challenges to policy makers. John Stuart Mill provided a passionate, philosophical defense of cooperatives, followed by Karl Polanyi who offered an insightful critique of both state socialism and especially the self-regulating market, thereby opening up the cooperative way of shaping the future. We cite Hannah Arendt's "the banality of evil" to characterize the tragic concept of "ethical fading" witnessed in business and everyday life all over the world, often committed (without thinking and reflecting) by ordinary people under competitive pressures.To promote equity in health for all, we recommend the adoption of a radically new cooperation paradigm, applied whenever possible, to everything in our daily lives.

Effects of socioeconomic status on mortality after acute myocardial infarction.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of socioeconomic status on mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied a retrospective cohort of 5622 patients who presented to a hospital emergency department with an initial episode of acute myocardial infarction between April 1998 and March 2002 in the Province of Alberta, Canada. Our main outcome measure was 1-year all-cause mortality following the index emergency department visit; we used socioeconomic status (measured by neighborhood median household income) as our main predictor after controlling for patient and hospital characteristics and revascularization. RESULTS: Socioeconomic status profoundly affected the rate of emergency department presentation and the process and outcome of acute myocardial infarction care. In patients belonging to the lowest versus the highest socioeconomic status quartile, the risk of presenting to the emergency department was 72% higher (P <.001); at 1 year, revascularization was lower (36% vs 48%, P <.001), and mortality higher (19.1% vs 9.1%, P <.001). Socioeconomic status was independently associated with 1-year mortality after adjustment for baseline characteristics and 1-year revascularization, and socioeconomic status was especially influential in non-revascularized patients. CONCLUSIONS: Given the influence of socioeconomic status on mortality after acute myocardial infarction and the key role of revascularization in modulating this relationship, our study has important implications for access to and process of cardiac care.

Forecasting mortality: dynamic assessment of risk in ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction.

AIMS: To demonstrate the feasibility and clinical utility of developing dynamic risk assessment models for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 6066 STEMI patients enrolled in the Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Thrombolytic-3 (ASSENT-3) trial with complete electrocardiographic data, we assessed the probability of 30-day mortality over the following forecasting periods beginning at day 0 (baseline), 3 h, day 2, and day 5 using multiple-logistic regression. These models were validated and simplified in independent samples of 1622 similar fibrinolytic-treated patients from the ASSENT-3 PLUS trial and in 814 STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the COMplement inhibition in Myocardial infarction treated with Angioplasty (COMMA) trial. The discriminatory power of these predictive models, from baseline to day 5, was excellent (c-statistics 0.80 to 0.87); and their predictive ability was supported by strong gradients in mortality outcomes as the risk score increased. Dynamic modelling also provided information on the change in prognosis over time which may be used to advise more appropriate therapeutic decisions, e.g. the identification of high-risk patients for possible co-interventions. CONCLUSION: Dynamic modelling for STEMI patients enhances the risk assessment and stratification and should provide valuable ongoing guidance for their management.

Do evidence-based treatments provide incremental benefits to patients with congestive heart failure already receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors? A secondary analysis of one-year outcomes from the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival (ATLAS) study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), use of submaximal doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (ie, low-dose ACE inhibitors) represents usual care in routine clinical practice, whereas high-dose ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and digoxin have each been shown to improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We examined whether treatment with high dose-ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and digoxin would each provide incremental benefits over that achieved with usual care and whether concurrent use of high-dose ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and digoxin would provide maximal benefits. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled, active-comparator trial. Specifically, we studied 1-year outcomes data from the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival trial (ATLAS), which assessed high-dose ACE inhibitors (mean dosage, 33.2 mg daily lisinopril) versus low-dose ACE inhibitors (mean dosage, 4.5 mg daily lisinopril) in patients of any age with advanced CHF in 287 centers in 19 countries in the 1990s. In our analysis, patients were classified by their use of low-dose or high-dose ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and/or digoxin at the time of randomization. The primary outcome of interest was the ATLAS composite end point of all-cause mortality or hospitalization for any reason at 1 year. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for baseline differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: The 3164 patients in the ATLAS study had a mean (SD) age of 64 (10) years; 2516 patients (80%) were men and 648 (20%) were women; mean (SD) left-ventricular ejection fraction was 23% (6%); and 2671 patients (84%) had New York Heart Association class III or IV symptoms. At 1 year, the mortality rate was 13% (408 patients); 43% (1369 patients) had > or =1 hospitalization; and the composite end point of mortality or hospitalization was 47% (1489 patients). Most patients (2873; 91%) remained on their initial treatment regimen. Compared with low-dose ACE inhibitors (n = 471), the composite end point decreased incrementally with the use of high-dose ACE inhibitors (n = 475) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.93; P = NS), high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers (n = 72) (aOR, 0.89; P = NS), and high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers plus digoxin (n = 77) (aOR, 0.47; P = 0.006). In absolute proportions, patients receiving high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers plus digoxin for 1 year had 12% fewer deaths and hospitalizations than patients receiving low-dose ACE inhibitors alone. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care for patients with CHF, in this analysis, an evidence-based strategy that incorporated high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers plus digoxin was associated with incrementally greater reductions in morbidity and mortality. These findings support treatment guidelines that recommend the concurrent use of all available proven efficacious treatment in patients with advanced CHF.

Impact of on-site cardiac interventional facilities on management and outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of on-site cardiac interventional facilities on the management and outcome of patients with versus those without ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the Canadian-American Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) IIb population. METHODS: Data from 4605 patients were analyzed in relation to the admitting hospital's capability to perform coronary procedures (noninvasive, angiography-capable and interventional hospitals). Differences in medication use, revascularization rate and patient outcome were determined. RESULTS: Whereas medication use during hospitalization and at discharge differed between non-ST elevation ACS patients treated in the three groups, these were generally more comparable among ST elevation ACS patients. In both ST segment cohorts, patients treated in interventional hospitals underwent coronary procedures more often (angiography rate greater than 70% versus 40% for noninvasive hospitals) and sooner (median two to three days versus four days in noninvasive hospitals) than those treated in other hospitals. Recurrent ischemia was significantly less common in non-ST elevation ACS patients treated in interventional hospitals (32% versus 36% in angiography-capable and 40% in noninvasive hospitals, P<0.001) and tended to be less common among ST elevation ACS patients treated in interventional hospitals. Patients treated in interventional hospitals tended to have lower mortality in the non-ST elevation ACS cohort but significantly fewer died in the ST elevation ACS during hospitalization and at 30 days, six months and one year (8.8% versus 11% in angiography-capable and 15% in noninvasive hospitals, P=0.015). These differences in mortality persisted after adjustment for key baseline covariates. Separate analysis of Canadian and American patients revealed similar mortality patterns, as to the total population, in both ST segment cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Presence of an on-site cardiac interventional facility favourably affected the management and outcome of ACS patients in both non-ST and ST elevation cohorts.