Evaluation of healthcare policy in Latvia

Performance of healthcare system of Latvia has been criticised for several years, due to the problems of accessibility, weak efficiency and insufficient funding. Politicians, foreign and local experts all agree upon the need of reforms to improve the performance of the healthcare system. The aims are defined in long-term policy documents, but there are no defined tasks to be made and aims to be achieved in mid-term and short-term policy. The aim of the research was to make evaluation of performance of Latvia healthcare system as well as evaluation according to “Health 2020” framework recommendations. The results showed that changes in the healthcare system in Latvia are made on ‘ad-hoc’ basis without a strategic long-term plan, and despite the fact that guidelines on the public health refear to “Health 2020”, the changes that are made and reforms that are planned are not in compliance with “Health 2020”. Work on social determinants (equity, universal coverage, accessibility) hasn’t been effective, the aim ‘health in all policies’ hasn’t been achieved and the primary healthcare due to its unaccessibility doesn’t provide expected efficiency in the whole healthcare system.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Comparisons between Upper and Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis : A Review of the RIETE Registry

Publisher Copyright: © SAGE Publications.Background: The outcome of patients with upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) has not been consistently compared with that in patients with lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (LEDVT). Methods: We used the Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad Trombo Embólica (RIETE) registry to compare the outcomes during the course of anticoagulant therapy in patients with UEDVT versus outcomes in patients with LEDVT. Results: As of August 2015, 37,366 patients with acute DVT had been enrolled in RIETE: 35094 (94%) had LEDVT, 1334 (3.6%) non-catheter related UEDVT (672 unprovoked and 662 provoked) and 938 (2.5%) had catheter-related UEDVT. During the course of anticoagulation, patients with unprovoked UEDVT had a higher rate of DVT recurrences (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.22; 95% CI: 1.37-3.43) and a similar rate of PE recurrences or major bleeding than those with unprovoked LEDVT. Patients with non-catheter-related provoked UEDVT had a similar outcome than those with provoked LEDVT. Among patients with UEDVT, those with non-catheter related unprovoked UEDVT had a lower rate of PE recurrences (HR: 0.06; 95% CI: 0-0.35) and major bleeding (HR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.08-0.46) than those with catheter-related UEDVT or those with non-catheter related provoked UEDVT (HR: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.004-0.60; and 0.22; 95% CI: 0.08-0.52, respectively). On multivariable analysis, any difference had disappeared. Conclusion: During the course of anticoagulation, patients with UEDVT had a similar outcome than those with LEDVT. Among UEDVT patients, there were some differences according to the presence of catheter or additional risk factors for DVT. These differences disappeared after adjusting for potentially confounding variables.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Medical treatment of pulmonary hypertension in adults with congenital heart disease : updated and extended results from the International COMPERA-CHD Registry

Funding Information: The authors are indebted to the COMPERA investigators and their staff. We explicitly thank Dr. Claudia S. Copeland for the professional editing of the final draft of the manuscript. Funding: COMPERA is funded by unrestricted grants from Acceleron, Actelion Pharmaceuticals (Janssen), Bayer, OMT and GSK. These companies were not involved in data analysis or the writing of this manuscript. Funding Information: ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https:// dx.doi.org/10.21037/cdt-21-351). The series “Current Management Aspects in Adult Congenital Heart Disease (ACHD): Part IV” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. Dr. DH reports non-financial support from Actelion, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Shire, outside the submitted work; Dr. DP reports personal fees from Actelion, Biogen, Aspen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work; Dr. MD reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, GSK and MSD, outside the submitted work; Dr. HAG reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics, outside the submitted work; Dr. MG reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer and GSK, outside the submitted work; Dr. MMH reports personal fees from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, MSD and Pfizer, outside the submitted work; Dr. CDV reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics, outside the submitted work; Dr. RE reports personal fees from Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, OMT, Bayer, and Berlin Chemie; grants from Actelion and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work; Dr. MH reports grants and personal fees from Actelion, personal fees from Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Janssen, Novartis and MSD, outside the submitted work; Dr. MH reports personal fees from Acceleron, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BERLIN CHEMIE, GSK, MSD, Novartis and OMT, outside the submitted work; Dr. HW reports personal fees from Action, Bayer, Biotest, Boehringer, GSK, Pfizer, and Roche, outside the submitted work; Dr. DS reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, and GSK, outside the submitted work; Dr. LS reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, and MSD, outside the submitted work; Dr. SU reports grants from Swiss National Science Foundation, Zurich Lung, Swiss Lung, and Orpha Swiss, grants and personal fees from Actelion SA/Johnson & Johnson, Switzerland, and MSD Switzerland, outside the submitted work; Dr. TJL reports personal fees from Actelion, Janssen-Cilag, BMS, MSD, and OMT GmbH, outside the submitted work; Dr. LB reports personal fees from Actelion, outside the submitted work; Dr. MC reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH, Roche Pharma, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work; Dr. HW reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. EG reports personal fees from Actelion, Janssen, Bayer, MSD, Bial, OrPha Swiss GmbH, OMT and Medscape, outside the submitted work; Dr. SR reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, MSD, and United Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare. Publisher Copyright: © Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.Background: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is common in congenital heart disease (CHD). Because clinical-trial data on PAH associated with CHD (PAH-CHD) remain limited, registry data on the long-term course are essential. This analysis aimed to update information from the COMPERA-CHD registry on management strategies based on real-world data. Methods: The prospective international pulmonary hypertension registry COMPERA has since 2007 enrolled more than 10,000 patients. COMPERA-CHD is a sub-registry for patients with PAH-CHD Results: A total of 769 patients with PAH-CHD from 62 specialized centers in 12 countries were included into COMPERA-CHD from January 2007 through September 2020. At the last follow-up in 09/2020, patients [mean age 45.3±16.8 years; 512 (66%) female] had either post-tricuspid shunts (n=359; 46.7%), pre-tricuspid shunts (n=249; 32.4%), complex CHD (n=132; 17.2%), congenital left heart or aortic valve or aortic disease (n=9; 1.3%), or miscellaneous CHD (n=20; 2.6%). The mean 6-minute walking distance was 369±121 m, and 28.2%, 56.0%, and 3.8% were in WHO functional class I/II, III or IV, respectively (12.0% unknown). Compared with the previously published COMPERA-CHD data, after 21 months of followup, the number of included PAH-CHD patients increased by 91 (13.4%). Within this group the number of Eisenmenger patients rose by 39 (16.3%), the number of “Non-Eisenmenger PAH” patients by 45 (26.9%). Currently, among the 674 patients from the PAH-CHD group with at least one follow-up, 450 (66.8%) received endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), 416 (61.7%) PDE-5 inhibitors, 85 (12.6%) prostacyclin analogues, and 36 (5.3%) the sGC stimulator riociguat. While at first inclusion in the COMPERA-CHD registry, treatment was predominantly monotherapy (69.3%), this has shifted to favoring combination therapy in the current group (53%). For the first time, the nature, frequency, and treatment of significant comorbidities requiring supportive care and medication are described. Conclusions: Analyzing “real life data” from the international COMPERA-CHD registry, we present a comprehensive overview about current management modalities and treatment concepts in PAH-CHD. There was an trend towards more aggressive treatment strategies and combination therapies. In the future, particular attention must be directed to the “Non-Eisenmenger PAH” group and to patients with complex CHD, including Fontan patients.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Rate and duration of hospitalisation for acute pulmonary embolism in the real-world clinical practice of different countries : Analysis from the RIETE registry

publishersversionPeer reviewe

Comparison of seven prognostic tools to identify low-risk pulmonary embolism in patients aged <50 years

publishersversionPeer reviewe

Association Between Preexisting Versus Newly Identified Atrial Fibrillation and Outcomes of Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) may exist before or occur early in the course of pulmonary embolism (PE). We determined the PE outcomes based on the presence and timing of AF. Methods and Results Using the data from a multicenter PE registry, we identified 3 groups: (1) those with preexisting AF, (2) patients with new AF within 2 days from acute PE (incident AF), and (3) patients without AF. We assessed the 90-day and 1-year risk of mortality and stroke in patients with AF, compared with those without AF (reference group). Among 16 497 patients with PE, 792 had preexisting AF. These patients had increased odds of 90-day all-cause (odds ratio [OR], 2.81; 95% CI, 2.33-3.38) and PE-related mortality (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.37-4.14) and increased 1-year hazard for ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 5.48; 95% CI, 3.10-9.69) compared with those without AF. After multivariable adjustment, preexisting AF was associated with significantly increased odds of all-cause mortality (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.57-2.32) but not PE-related mortality (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.85-2.66). Among 16 497 patients with PE, 445 developed new incident AF within 2 days of acute PE. Incident AF was associated with increased odds of 90-day all-cause (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.75-2.97) and PE-related (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.01-6.59) mortality but not stroke. Findings were similar in multivariable analyses. Conclusions In patients with acute symptomatic PE, both preexisting AF and incident AF predict adverse clinical outcomes. The type of adverse outcomes may differ depending on the timing of AF onset.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Outcome during and after anticoagulant therapy in cancer patients with incidentally found pulmonary embolism

Current guidelines suggest treating cancer patients with incidental pulmonary embolism comparably to patients with symptomatic pulmonary embolism. We used the Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) registry to compare the rate of major bleeding and symptomatic pulmonary embolism during the course of anticoagulation and after its discontinuation in cancer patients with incidental pulmonary embolism. As of March 2016, 715 cancer patients with incidental pulmonary embolism had been enrolled in RIETE. During the course of anticoagulant therapy (mean 235 days), the rate of major bleeding was higher than the rate of symptomatic pulmonary embolism (10.1 (95% CI 7.48-13.4) versus 3.17 (95% CI 1.80-5.19) events per 100 patient-years, respectively), and the rate of fatal bleeding was higher than the rate of fatal pulmonary embolism (2.66 (95% CI 1.44-4.52) versus 0.66 (95% CI 0.17-1.81) deaths per 100 patient-years, respectively). After discontinuing anticoagulation (mean follow-up 117 days), the rate of major bleeding was lower than the rate of symptomatic pulmonary embolism (3.00 (95% CI 1.10-6.65) versus 8.37 (95% CI 4.76-13.7) events per 100 patient-years, respectively); however, there were no differences in the rate of fatal events at one death each. The risk/benefit ratio of anticoagulant therapy in cancer patients with incidental pulmonary embolism is uncertain and must be evaluated in further studies

Enoxaparin versus dalteparin or tinzaparin in patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism: The RIETECAT study

Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication in patients with cancer and a leading cause of morbidity and death. Objectives The objective of the RIETECAT study was to compare the long‐term effectiveness and safety of enoxaparin versus dalteparin or tinzaparin for the secondary prevention of VTE in adults with active cancer. Methods We used the data from the multicenter, multinational RIETE registry to compare the rates of VTE recurrences, major bleeding, or death over 6 months in patients with active cancer and acute VTE using full doses of enoxaparin versus dalteparin or tinzaparin, and a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to analyze the primary end point. Results From January 2009 to June 2018, 4451 patients with active cancer received full doses of the study drugs: enoxaparin, 3526 patients; and dalteparin or tinzaparin, 925 (754 + 171) patients. There was limited difference in VTE recurrences (2.0% vs 2.5%) and mortality rate (19% vs 17%) between the enoxaparin and dalteparin or tinzaparin subgroups. However, there was a slight numerical increase in major bleeding (3.1% vs 1.9%). Propensity score matching confirmed that there were no differences in the risk for VTE recurrences (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48‐1.38), major bleeding (aHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.80‐2.46), or death (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88‐1.30) between subgroups. Conclusions In RIETECAT, in patients with cancer and VTE receiving full‐dose enoxaparin or dalteparin or tinzaparin, no statistically significant differences were observed regarding effectiveness and safety outcomes over a 6‐month period

Pulmonary hypertension in patients with COPD. results from the comparative, prospective registry of newly initiated therapies for pulmonary hypertension (COMPERA)

Background: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in COPD is a poorly investigated clinical condition. Research Question: Which factors determine the outcome of PH in COPD? Study Design and Methods: We analyzed the characteristics and outcome of patients enrolled in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) with moderate or severe PH in COPD as defined during the 6th PH World Symposium who received medical therapy for PH and compared them with patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH). Results: The population included incident patients with moderate PH in COPD (n = 68), with severe PH in COPD (n = 307), and with IPAH (n = 489). Patients with PH in COPD were older, predominantly male, and treated mainly with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. Despite similar hemodynamic impairment, patients with PH in COPD achieved a worse 6-min walking distance (6MWD) and showed a more advanced World Health Organization functional class (WHO FC). Transplant-free survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were higher in the IPAH group than in the PH in COPD group (IPAH: 94%, 75%, and 55% vs PH in COPD: 86%, 55%, and 38%; P = .004). Risk factors for poor outcomes in PH in COPD were male sex, low 6MWD, and high pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). In patients with severe PH in COPD, improvements in 6MWD by ≥ 30 m or improvements in WHO FC after initiation of medical therapy were associated with better outcomes. Interpretation: Patients with PH in COPD were functionally more impaired and had a poorer outcome than patients with IPAH. Predictors of death in the PH in COPD group were sex, 6MWD, and PVR. Our data raise the hypothesis that some patients with severe PH in COPD may benefit from PH treatment. Randomized controlled studies are necessary to explore this hypothesis further. Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01347216; URL: www.clinicaltrials.go