Singapore's health-care system:key features, challenges, and shifts

Since Singapore became an independent nation in 1965, the development of its health-care system has been underpinned by an emphasis on personal responsibility for health, and active government intervention to ensure access and affordability through targeted subsidies and to reduce unnecessary costs. Singapore is achieving good health outcomes, with a total health expenditure of 4·47% of gross domestic product in 2016. However, the health-care system is contending with increased stress, as reflected in so-called pain points that have led to public concern, including shortages in acute hospital beds and intermediate and long-term care (ILTC) services, and high out-of-pocket payments. The main drivers of these challenges are the rising prevalence of non-communicable diseases and rapid population ageing, limitations in the delivery and organisation of primary care and ILTC, and financial incentives that might inadvertently impede care integration. To address these challenges, Singapore's Ministry of Health implemented a comprehensive set of reforms in 2012 under its Healthcare 2020 Masterplan. These reforms substantially increased the capacity of public hospital beds and ILTC services in the community, expanded subsidies for primary care and long-term care, and introduced a series of financing health-care reforms to strengthen financial protection and coverage. However, it became clear that these measures alone would not address the underlying drivers of system stress in the long term. Instead, the system requires, and is making, much more fundamental changes to its approach. In 2016, the Ministry of Health encapsulated the required shifts in terms of the so-called Three Beyonds—namely, beyond health care to health, beyond hospital to community, and beyond quality to value

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in humans and mice:Embracing clinical complexity in mouse models

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a multifactorial disease accounting for a large and increasing proportion of all clinical HF presentations. As a clinical syndrome, HFpEF is characterized by typical signs and symptoms of HF, a distinct cardiac phenotype and raised natriuretic peptides. Non-cardiac comorbidities frequently co-exist and contribute to the pathophysiology of HFpEF. To date, no therapy has proven to improve outcomes in HFpEF, with drug development hampered, at least partly, by lack of consensus on appropriate standards for pre-clinical HFpEF models. Recently, two clinical algorithms (HFA-PEFF and H(2)FPEF scores) have been developed to improve and standardize the diagnosis of HFpEF. In this review, we evaluate the translational utility of HFpEF mouse models in the context of these HFpEF scores. We systematically recorded evidence of symptoms and signs of HF or clinical HFpEF features and included several cardiac and extra-cardiac parameters as well as age and sex for each HFpEF mouse model. We found that most of the pre-clinical HFpEF models do not meet the HFpEF clinical criteria, although some multifactorial models resemble human HFpEF to a reasonable extent. We therefore conclude that to optimize the translational value of mouse models to human HFpEF, a novel approach for the development of pre-clinical HFpEF models is needed, taking into account the complex HFpEF pathophysiology in humans

Impact of baseline hemodynamics on the effects of a transcatheter interatrial shunt device in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Background: Interatrial shunt device (IASD) effects have been described in patients with heart failure and ejection fractions (EFs) ≥40%. However, baseline characteristics that correlate with greatest hemodynamic effects are unknown. On the basis of fundamental principles, we hypothesized that larger pressure gradients between left and right atria would yield greater shunt flow and greater hemodynamic effects. Methods and Results: REDUCE LAP-HF (Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure) was a multicenter study that investigated IASD safety and performance. Sixty-four patients with EF ≥40% underwent device implantation followed by hemodynamic assessments at rest and exercise, including pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP, surrogate for left atrial pressure) and central venous pressure (CVP). At 6 months, IASD resulted in an average pulmonary-to-systemic blood flow ratio of 1.27 and increased exercise tolerance. The PCWP-CVP gradient (ie, the driving pressure for shunt flow) decreased at peak exercise from 16.8±6.9 to 11.4±5.5 mm Hg, because of increased CVP (17.5±5.4 to 20.3±7.9 mm Hg; P=0.04) and decreased PCWP (34.1±7.6 to 31.6±8.0 mm Hg; P=0.025). Baseline PCWP-CVP gradient during exercise correlated with changes of both PCWP-CVP and PCWP: Δ(PCWP-CVP)=10.0−0.89·(PCWP-CVP)baseline (r2=0.56) and ΔPCWP=7.54−0.60·(PCWP-CVP)baseline (P=0.001). Hemodynamics of patients with EF ≥50% and those with EF <50% responded similarly to IASD. Conclusions: In heart failure patients with EF ≥40%, IASD significantly reduced PCWP and PCWP-CVP at peak exercise. Patients with higher baseline PCWP-CVP gradient had greater reductions in both parameters at follow-up. Results were sustained through 12 months and were independent of whether EF was ≥50% or between 40% and 49%. Additional studies will help further define the baseline hemodynamic predictors of exercise, hemodynamic, and clinical efficacy of the IASD. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01913613

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors and the Risk of Pneumonia and Septic Shock

CONTEXT: Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) have an increased risk of pneumonia and septic shock. Traditional glucose-lowering drugs have recently been found to be associated with a higher risk of infections. It remains unclear whether sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), which have pleiotropic/anti-inflammatory effects, may reduce the risk of pneumonia and septic shock in DM. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception up to May 19, 2022, for randomized, placebo-controlled trials of SGLT2i that included patients with DM and reported outcomes of interest (pneumonia and/or septic shock). Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment (using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) were conducted by independent authors. A fixed-effects model was used to pool the relative risk (RRs) and 95% CI across trials. RESULTS: Out of 4568 citations, 26 trials with a total of 59 264 patients (1.9% developed pneumonia and 0.2% developed septic shock) were included. Compared with placebo, SGLT2is significantly reduced the risk of pneumonia (pooled RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.98) and septic shock (pooled RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.95). There was no significant heterogeneity of effect size among trials. Subgroup analyses according to the type of SGLT2i used, baseline comorbidities, glycemic control, duration of DM, and trial follow-up showed consistent results without evidence of significant treatment-by-subgroup heterogeneity (all P(heterogeneity) > .10). CONCLUSION: Among DM patients, SGLT2is reduced the risk of pneumonia and septic shock compared with placebo. Our findings should be viewed as hypothesis generating, with concepts requiring validation in future studies

Readmissions, death and its associated predictors in heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND: Data on rehospitalizations for heart failure (HF) in Asia are scarce. We sought to determine the burden and predictors of HF (first and recurrent) rehospitalizations and all‐cause mortality in patients with HF and preserved versus reduced ejection fraction (preserved EF, ≥50%; reduced EF, <40%), in the multinational ASIAN‐HF (Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure) registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic (stage C) chronic HF were followed up for death and recurrent HF hospitalizations for 1 year. Predictors of HF hospitalizations or all‐cause mortality were examined with Cox regression for time to first event and other methods for recurrent events analyses. Among 1666 patients with HF with preserved EF (mean age, 68±12 years; 50% women), and 4479 with HF with reduced EF (mean age, 61±13 years; 22% women), there were 642 and 2302 readmissions, with 28% and 45% attributed to HF, respectively. The 1‐year composite event rate for first HF hospitalization or all‐cause death was 11% and 21%, and for total HF hospitalization and all‐cause death was 17.7 and 38.7 per 100 patient‐years in HF with preserved EF and HF with reduced EF, respectively. In HF with preserved EF, consistent independent predictors of these clinical end points included enrollment as an inpatient, Southeast Asian location, and comorbid chronic kidney disease or atrial fibrillation. The same variables were predictive of outcomes in HF with reduced EF except atrial fibrillation, and also included Northeast Asian location, older age, elevated heart rate, decreased systolic blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, and non‐usage of beta blockers. CONCLUSIONS: One‐year HF rehospitalization and mortality rates were high among Asian patients with HF. Predictors of outcomes identified in this study could aid in risk stratification and timely interventions. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01633398

Insights on Distinct Left Atrial Remodeling Between Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) commonly coexist with overlapping pathophysiology like left atrial (LA) remodeling, which might differ given different underlying mechanisms. Objectives: We sought to investigate the different patterns of LA wall remodeling in AF vs. HFpEF. Methods: We compared LA wall characteristics including wall volume (LAWV), wall thickness (LAWT), and wall thickness heterogeneity (LAWT[SD]) and LA structure, function among the controls (without AF or HFpEF, n = 115), HFpEF alone (n = 59), AF alone (n = 37), and HFpEF+AF (n = 38) groups using multi-detector computed tomography and echocardiography. Results: LA wall remodeling was most predominant and peak atrial longitudinal strain (PALS) was worst in HFpEF+AF patients as compared to the rest. Despite lower E/e' (9.8 ± 3.8 vs. 13.4 ± 6.4) yet comparable LA volume, LAWT and PALS in AF alone vs. HFpEF alone, LAWV [12.6 (11.6–15.3) vs. 12.0 (10.2–13.7); p = 0.01] and LAWT(SD) [0.68 (0.61–0.71) vs. 0.60 (0.56–0.65); p &lt; 0.001] were significantly greater in AF alone vs. HFpEF alone even after multi-variate adjustment and propensity matching. After excluding the HFpEF+AF group, both LAWV and LAWT [SD] provided incremental values when added to PALS or LAVi (all p for net reclassification improvement &lt;0.05) in discriminating AF alone, with LAWT[SD] yielding the largest C-statistic (0.78, 95% CI: 0.70–0.86) among all LA wall indices. Conclusions: Despite a similar extent of LA enlargement and dysfunction in HFpEF vs. AF alone, larger LAWV and LAWT [SD] can distinguish AF from HFpEF alone, suggesting the distinct underlying pathophysiological mechanism of LA remodeling in AF vs. HFpEF.</p

Insights on Distinct Left Atrial Remodeling Between Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) commonly coexist with overlapping pathophysiology like left atrial (LA) remodeling, which might differ given different underlying mechanisms. OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate the different patterns of LA wall remodeling in AF vs. HFpEF. METHODS: We compared LA wall characteristics including wall volume (LAWV), wall thickness (LAWT), and wall thickness heterogeneity (LAWT[SD]) and LA structure, function among the controls (without AF or HFpEF, n = 115), HFpEF alone (n = 59), AF alone (n = 37), and HFpEF+AF (n = 38) groups using multi-detector computed tomography and echocardiography. RESULTS: LA wall remodeling was most predominant and peak atrial longitudinal strain (PALS) was worst in HFpEF+AF patients as compared to the rest. Despite lower E/e' (9.8 ± 3.8 vs. 13.4 ± 6.4) yet comparable LA volume, LAWT and PALS in AF alone vs. HFpEF alone, LAWV [12.6 (11.6–15.3) vs. 12.0 (10.2–13.7); p = 0.01] and LAWT(SD) [0.68 (0.61–0.71) vs. 0.60 (0.56–0.65); p < 0.001] were significantly greater in AF alone vs. HFpEF alone even after multi-variate adjustment and propensity matching. After excluding the HFpEF+AF group, both LAWV and LAWT [SD] provided incremental values when added to PALS or LAVi (all p for net reclassification improvement <0.05) in discriminating AF alone, with LAWT[SD] yielding the largest C-statistic (0.78, 95% CI: 0.70–0.86) among all LA wall indices. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a similar extent of LA enlargement and dysfunction in HFpEF vs. AF alone, larger LAWV and LAWT [SD] can distinguish AF from HFpEF alone, suggesting the distinct underlying pathophysiological mechanism of LA remodeling in AF vs. HFpEF

Prevalence and Prognostic Significance of Frailty in Asian Patients With Heart Failure:Insights From ASIAN-HF

Background: Frailty is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and can adversely impact outcomes. Objectives: This study examined the prevalence of frailty among Asian patients with HF, its association with 1-year outcomes, and if race-ethnicity, HF subtypes, and sex modify this relationship. Methods: In the multinational ASIAN-HF (Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure) registry, a baseline frailty index (FI) was constructed using a cumulative deficits approach with 48 baseline variables, and patients were followed for the 1-year primary outcome of all-cause death or HF hospitalization. Results: Among 3,881 participants (age 61 ± 13 years, 27% female), the mean FI was 0.28 ± 0.11, and 69% were frail (FI &gt;0.21). Higher FI was associated with older age, Malay ethnicity, and Southeast Asian residency. While comorbidities were more frequent in frail patients (by definition), body mass index was not different across frailty classes. Compared with FI class 1 (&lt;0.21, nonfrail), FI class 2 (0.21-0.31) and FI class 3 (&gt;0.31) had increased risk of the 1-year composite outcome (hazard ratios of 1.84 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.42-2.38] and 4.51 [95% CI: 3.59-5.67], respectively), even after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratios of 1.49 [95% CI: 1.13-1.97] and 2.69 [95% CI: 2.06-3.50], respectively). Race-ethnicity modified the association of frailty with the composite outcome (Pinteraction = 0.0097), wherein the impact of frailty was strongest among Chinese patients. The association between frailty and outcomes did not differ between men and women (Pinteraction = 0.186) or for HF with reduced ejection fraction versus HF with preserved ejection fraction (Pinteraction = 0.094). Conclusions: Most Asian patients with HF are frail despite relatively young age. Our results reveal specific ethnic (Malay) and regional (Southeast Asia) predisposition to frailty and highlight its prognostic importance, especially in Chinese individuals.</p

Prevalence and Prognostic Significance of Frailty in Asian Patients With Heart Failure:Insights From ASIAN-HF

Background: Frailty is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and can adversely impact outcomes. Objectives: This study examined the prevalence of frailty among Asian patients with HF, its association with 1-year outcomes, and if race-ethnicity, HF subtypes, and sex modify this relationship. Methods: In the multinational ASIAN-HF (Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure) registry, a baseline frailty index (FI) was constructed using a cumulative deficits approach with 48 baseline variables, and patients were followed for the 1-year primary outcome of all-cause death or HF hospitalization. Results: Among 3,881 participants (age 61 ± 13 years, 27% female), the mean FI was 0.28 ± 0.11, and 69% were frail (FI &gt;0.21). Higher FI was associated with older age, Malay ethnicity, and Southeast Asian residency. While comorbidities were more frequent in frail patients (by definition), body mass index was not different across frailty classes. Compared with FI class 1 (&lt;0.21, nonfrail), FI class 2 (0.21-0.31) and FI class 3 (&gt;0.31) had increased risk of the 1-year composite outcome (hazard ratios of 1.84 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.42-2.38] and 4.51 [95% CI: 3.59-5.67], respectively), even after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratios of 1.49 [95% CI: 1.13-1.97] and 2.69 [95% CI: 2.06-3.50], respectively). Race-ethnicity modified the association of frailty with the composite outcome (Pinteraction = 0.0097), wherein the impact of frailty was strongest among Chinese patients. The association between frailty and outcomes did not differ between men and women (Pinteraction = 0.186) or for HF with reduced ejection fraction versus HF with preserved ejection fraction (Pinteraction = 0.094). Conclusions: Most Asian patients with HF are frail despite relatively young age. Our results reveal specific ethnic (Malay) and regional (Southeast Asia) predisposition to frailty and highlight its prognostic importance, especially in Chinese individuals.</p