HEART UK Consensus Statement on Lipoprotein(a) - a call to action

Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), is a modified atherogenic low-density lipoprotein particle that contains apolipoprotein(a). Its levels are highly heritable and variable in the population. This consensus statement by HEART UK is based on the evidence that Lp(a) is an independent cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor, provides recommendations for its measurement in clinical practice and reviews current and emerging therapeutic strategies to reduce CVD risk. Ten statements summarise the most salient points for practitioners and patients with high Lp(a). HEART UK recommends that Lp(a) is measured in adults as follows: 1)those with a personal or family history of premature atherosclerotic CVD; 2)those with first-degree relatives who have Lp(a)levels > 200nmol/l; 3) patients with familial hypercholesterolemia; 4) patients with calcific aortic valve stenosis and 5) those with borderline (but<15%) 10 year risk of a cardiovascular event. The management of patients with raised Lp(a) levels should include: 1) reducing overall atherosclerotic risk; 2)controlling dyslipidemia with a desirable nonHDL-cholesterol level of <100mg/d (2.5mmol/l) and 3) consideration of lipoprotein apheresis

Identification and diagnosis of patients with familial chylomicronaemia syndrome (FCS)

Familial chylomicronaemia syndrome (FCS) is a rare, inherited disorder characterised by impaired clearance of triglyceride (TG)-rich lipoproteins from plasma, leading to severe hypertriglyceridaemia (HTG) and a markedly increased risk of acute pancreatitis. It is due to the lack of lipoprotein lipase (LPL) function, resulting from recessive loss of function mutations in the genes coding LPL or its modulators. A large overlap in the phenotype between FCS and multifactorial chylomicronaemia syndrome (MCS) contributes to the inconsistency in how patients are diagnosed and managed worldwide, whereas the incidence of acute hypertriglyceridaemic pancreatitis is more frequent in FCS. A panel of European experts provided guidance on the diagn

Epidemiology of prostate cancer in the Asia-Pacific region

The purpose of this paper was to examine and compare available data on incidence, mortality and survival for countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Incidence data were obtained from GLOBOCAN 2008, other online data sources and individual cancer registries. Country-specific mortality statistics by individual year were sourced from the World Health Organization Statistical Information System Mortality Database. All incidence and mortality rates were directly age-standardised to the Segi World Standard population and joinpoint models were used to assess trends. Data on survival were obtained from country-specific published reports where available. Approximately 14% (122,000) of all prostate cancers diagnosed worldwide in 2008 were within the Asia-Pacific region (10 per 100,000 population), with three out of every four of these prostate cancer cases diagnosed in either Japan (32%), China (28%) or Australia (15%). There were also about 42,000 deaths due to prostate cancer in the Asia-Pacific region (3 per 100,000). For the nine countries with incidence trend data available, eight showed recent significant increases in prostate cancer incidence. In contrast, recent decreases in prostate cancer mortality have been reported for Australia, Japan and New Zealand, but mortality has increased in several other countries. The lack of population-based data across most of the countries in this region limits the ability of researchers to understand and report on the patterns and distribution of this important cancer. Governments and health planners typically require quantitative evidence as a motivation for change. Unless there is a widespread commitment to improve the collection and reporting of data on prostate cancer it is likely that the burden of prostate cancer will continue to increase. Enhancing knowledge transfer between countries where there are differentials in capacity, policy and experience may provide the necessary impetus and opportunity to overcome at least some of the existing barriers

Relation between mild renal dysfunction and outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting

Background: Risk stratification algorithms for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) do not include a weighting for preoperative mild renal impairment defined as a serum creatinine 130 to 199 micromol/L (1.47 to 2.25 mg/dL), which may impact mortality and morbidity after CABG. Methods and results: We reviewed prospectively collected data between 1997 and 2004 on 4403 consecutive patients undergoing first-time isolated CABG with a preoperative serum creatinine <200 micromol/L (2.26 mg/dL)] in a single institution. The in-hospital mortality was 2.5% (112 of 4403), the need for new dialysis/hemofiltration was 1.3% (57 of 4403), and the stroke rate was 2.5% (108 of 4403). There were 458 patients with a serum creatinine 130 to 199 micromol/L or 1.47 to 2.25 mg/dL (mild renal dysfunction group) and 3945 patients with a serum creatinine <130 micromol/L (<1.47 mg/dL). Operative mortality was higher in the mild renal dysfunction group (2.1% versus 6.1%; P<0.001) and increased with increasing preoperative serum creatinine level. New dialysis/hemofiltration (0.8%versus 5.2%; P<0.001) and postoperative stroke (2.2% versus 5.0%; P<0.01) were also more common in the patients with mild renal impairment. Multivariate analysis adjusting for known risk factors confirmed preoperative mild renal impairment (creatinine 130 to 199 micromol/L or 1.47 to 2.25 mg/dL; odd ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.18 to 3.03; P=0.007) or glomerular filtration rate estimates <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, derived using the Cockroft-Gault formula, (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.16 to 3.48; P=0.015) as independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Preoperative mild renal dysfunction adversely affected the 3-year survival probability after CABG (93% versus 81%; P<0.001). Conclusions: Mild renal dysfunction is an important predictor of outcome in terms of in-hospital mortality, morbidity, and midterm survival in patients undergoing CABG

Identification of area-level influences on regions of high cancer incidence in Queensland, Australia: a classification tree approach

Background: Strategies for cancer reduction and management are targeted at both individual and area levels. Area-level strategies require careful understanding of geographic differences in cancer incidence, in particular the association with factors such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity and accessibility. This study aimed to identify the complex interplay of area-level factors associated with high area-specific incidence of Australian priority cancers using a classification and regression tree (CART) approach. Methods: Area-specific smoothed standardised incidence ratios were estimated for priority-area cancers across 478 statistical local areas in Queensland, Australia (1998-2007, n=186,075). For those cancers with significant spatial variation, CART models were used to identify whether area-level accessibility, socioeconomic status and ethnicity were associated with high area-specific incidence. Results: The accessibility of a person’s residence had the most consistent association with the risk of cancer diagnosis across the specific cancers. Many cancers were likely to have high incidence in more urban areas, although male lung cancer and cervical cancer tended to have high incidence in more remote areas. The impact of socioeconomic status and ethnicity on these associations differed by type of cancer. Conclusions: These results highlight the complex interactions between accessibility, socioeconomic status and ethnicity in determining cancer incidence risk

Market share and recent hiring trends in anthropology faculty positions.

Between 1985 and 2014, the number of US doctoral graduates in Anthropology increased from about 350 to 530 graduates per year. This rise in doctorates entering the work force along with an overall decrease in the numbers of tenure-track academic positions has resulted in highly competitive academic job market. We estimate that approximately79% of US anthropology doctorates do not obtain tenure-track positions at BA/BS, MA/MS, and PhD institutions in the US. Here, we examine where US anthropology faculty obtained their degrees and where they ultimately end up teaching as tenure-track faculty. Using data derived from the 2014-2015 AnthroGuide and anthropology departmental web pages, we identify and rank PhD programs in terms of numbers of graduates who have obtained tenure-track academic jobs; examine long-term and ongoing trends in the programs producing doctorates for the discipline as a whole, as well as for the subfields of archaeology, bioanthropology, and sociocultural anthropology; and discuss gender inequity in academic anthropology within the US