Sex Differences in the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk in Primary Health Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sex differences exist in the assessment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk scores/risk factors in primary health care. DESIGN/METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched on 31 January 2017. Clinical trials and observational studies were included if they reported on the assessment of CVD risk score, blood pressure (BP), cholesterol or smoking status in primary health care, stratified by sex. Meta-analyses were performed, using random effects models, to determine differences between sexes, separately for adjusted and unadjusted data. RESULTS: Of 14,928 studies found in the search, 22 studies (including 4,754,782 patients) were included in the systematic review with the meta-analysis for quantitative assessment. Overall, the assessment rates of CVD risk score and risk factors were similar in women and men (CVD risk score: 30.7% vs. 35.2% [difference (95% CI): -4.5 (-5.1, -3.9)]; BP: 91.3% vs. 88.5% [2.8 (2.5, 3.0)]; cholesterol: 69.9% vs. 71.0% [-1.1 (-1.5, -0.8)]; and smoking: 85.9% vs. 86.7% [-0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)]). The pooled, adjusted likelihood of having the risk score, BP and cholesterol assessments were comparable between women and men: OR (95% CI): 0.87 (0.70, 1.07); 1.41 (0.89, 2.25); and 1.15 (0.82, 1.60), respectively. However, women were 32% less likely to be assessed for smoking (0.68 [0.47, 1.00]). There was substantial heterogeneity between studies and the risk of publication bias was moderate. CONCLUSION: Despite the guideline recommendations, assessment of CVD risk score in primary health care was low in both sexes. Further, women were less likely to be assessed for their smoking status than men, whereas no sex discrepancies were found for BP and cholesterol assessments.

The effect of socioeconomic disadvantage on prescription of guideline-recommended medications for patients with acute coronary syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are varying data on whether socioeconomic status (SES) affects the treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Our aim was to obtain a reliable estimate of the effect of SES on discharge prescription of medications following an ACS through systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and Global Health were searched systematically on 6th April 2016. Studies were eligible if the participants had ACS and reported the rate/odds of guideline-recommended ACS medications prescription (aspirin, antiplatelet, beta blocker, angiotensin co-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and statin) at discharge stratified by SES. A meta-analysis was performed to pool the estimates, comparing the prescription ratio (PR) between the lowest and the highest SES groups. RESULTS: Of 252 articles found from the search, seven met the eligibility criteria and it included 41,462 (20,986 from the lowest SES group) patients. We found that the individual/neighbourhood level SES did not affect the prescription of aspirin (PR (95% CI): 0.97 (0.91, 1.03)), but for beta blocker and statin, the lowest SES group were disadvantaged (0.84 (0.73, 0.94), 0.80 (0.62, 0.98), respectively). In contrast, ACEi were prescribed more often to the lowest individual/neighbourhood level SES group than the highest (1.13 (1.05, 1.22)). Although the risk of bias was low, there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the recommendations to close the treatment gap, the rate of prescription of guideline-recommended medications in managing ACS is significantly different between patients with the lowest and the highest groups. A solution is needed to provide equitable care across the SES groups. PROSPERO REGISTRY: Systematic review registration no.: CRD42016048503. Registered 28 September 2016.

Gender inequalities in cardiovascular risk factor assessment and management in primary healthcare.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify contemporary differences in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor assessment and management between women and men in Australian primary healthcare services. METHODS: Records of routinely attending patients were sampled from 60 Australian primary healthcare services in 2012 for the Treatment of Cardiovascular Risk using Electronic Decision Support study. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare the rate of CVD risk factor assessment and recommended medication prescriptions, by gender. RESULTS: Of 53 085 patients, 58% were female. Adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, women were less likely to have sufficient risk factors measured for CVD risk assessment (OR (95% CI): 0.88 (0.81 to 0.96)). Among 13 294 patients (47% women) in the CVD/high CVD risk subgroup, the adjusted odds of prescription of guideline-recommended medications were greater for women than men: 1.12 (1.01 to 1.23). However, there was heterogeneity by age (p <0.001), women in the CVD/high CVD risk subgroup aged 35-54 years were less likely to be prescribed the medications (0.63 (0.52 to 0.77)), and women in the CVD/high CVD risk subgroup aged ≥65 years were more likely to be prescribed the medications (1.34 (1.17 to 1.54)) than their male counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Women attending primary healthcare services in Australia were less likely than men to have risk factors measured and recorded such that absolute CVD risk can be assessed. For those with, or at high risk of, CVD, the prescription of appropriate preventive medications was more frequent in older women, but less frequent in younger women, compared with their male counterparts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 12611000478910, Pre-results.

The household economic burden for acute coronary syndrome survivors in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Studies of chronic diseases are associated with a financial burden on households. We aimed to determine if survivors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) experience household economic burden and to quantify any potential burden by examining level of economic hardship and factors associated with hardship. METHODS: Australian patients admitted to hospital with ACS during 2-week period in May 2012, enrolled in SNAPSHOT ACS audit and who were alive at 18 months after index admission were followed-up via telephone/paper survey. Regression models were used to explore factors related to out-of-pocket expenses and economic hardship. RESULTS: Of 1833 eligible patients at baseline, 180 died within 18 months, and 702 patients completed the survey. Mean out-of-pocket expenditure (n = 614) in Australian dollars was A$258.06 (median: A$126.50) per month. The average spending for medical services was A$120.18 (SD: A$310.35) and medications was A$66.25 (SD: A$80.78). In total, 350 (51 %) of patients reported experiencing economic hardship, 78 (12 %) were unable to pay for medical services and 81 (12 %) could not pay for medication. Younger age (18-59 vs ≥80 years (OR): 1.89), no private health insurance (OR: 2.04), pensioner concession card (OR: 1.80), residing in more disadvantaged area (group 1 vs 5 (OR): 1.77), history of CVD (OR: 1.47) and higher out-of-pocket expenses (group 4 vs 1 (OR): 4.57) were more likely to experience hardship. CONCLUSION: Subgroups of ACS patients are experiencing considerable economic burden in Australia. These findings provide important considerations for future policy development in terms of the cost of recommended management for patients.

Should fee-for-service be for all guideline-advocated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care? Observations from the Snapshot ACS study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to explore the association of health insurance status on the provision of guideline-advocated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care in Australia. METHODS: Consecutive hospitalisations of suspected ACS from 14 to 27 May 2012 enrolled in the Snapshot study of Australian and New Zealand patients were evaluated. Descriptive and logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association of patient risk and insurance status with the receipt of care. RESULTS: In all, 3391 patients with suspected ACS from 247 hospitals (23 private) were enrolled in the present study. One-third of patients declared private insurance coverage; of these, 27.9% (304/1088) presented to private facilities. Compared with public patients, privately insured patients were more likely to undergo in-patient echocardiography and receive early angiography; furthermore, in those with a discharge diagnosis of ACS, there was a higher rate of revascularisation (P < 0.001). Each of these attracts potential fee-for-service. In contrast, proportionately fewer privately insured ACS patients were discharged on selected guideline therapies and were referred to a secondary prevention program (P = 0.056), neither of which directly attracts a fee. Typically, as GRACE (the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) risk score rose, so did the level of ACS care; however, propensity-adjusted analyses showed lower in-hospital adverse events among the insured group (odds ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.88; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Fee-for-service reimbursement may explain differences in the provision of selected guideline-advocated components of ACS care between privately insured and public patients.