Objective To compare coronary risk factors and disease prevalence among Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis, and in all South Asians (these three groups together) with Europeans. Results There were differences in social and economic circumstances, lifestyles, anthropometric measures and disease both between Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis and between all South Asians and Europeans. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis were the poorest groups. For most risk factors, the Bangladeshis (particularly men) fared the worst: smoking was most common (57%) in that group, and Bangladeshis had the highest concentrations of triglycerides (2.04 mmol/l) and fasting blood glucose (6.6 mmol/l) and the lowest concentration of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (0.97 mmol/l). Blood pressure, however, was lowest in Bangladeshis. Bangladeshis were the shortest (men 164 cm tall v 170 cm for Indians and 174 cm for Europeans). A higher proportion of Pakistani and Bangladeshi men had diabetes (22.4% and 26.6% respectively) than Indians (15.2%). Comparisons of all South Asians with Europeans hid some important differences, but South Asians were still disadvantaged in a wide range of risk factors. Findings in women were similar. Conclusion Risk of coronary heart disease is not uniform among South Asians, and there are important differences between Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis for many coronary risk factors. The belief that, except for insulin resistance, South Asians have lower levels of coronary risk factors than Europeans is incorrect, and may have arisen from combining ethnic subgroups and examining a narrow range of factors.

No abstract

No abstract

SUMMARYBackground: Heart failure (HF) remains a condition with high morbidity and mortality. We tested a telephone support strategy to reduce major events in rural and remote Australians with HF, who have limited healthcare access. Telephone support comprised an interactive telecommunication software tool (TeleWatch) with follow-up by trained cardiac nurses. Methods: Patients with a general practice (GP) diagnosis of HF were randomized to usual care (UC) or UC and telephone support intervention (UC+I) using a cluster design involving 143 GPs throughout Australia. Patients were followed up for 12 months. The primary endpoint was the Packer clinical composite score. Secondary endpoints included hospitalization for any cause, death or hospitalization, as well as HF hospitalization. Results: Four hundred and five patients were randomized to CHAT. Patients were well matched at baseline for key demographic variables. The primary endpoint of the Packer score was not different between the two groups (P = 0.98), although more patients improved with UC+I. There were fewer patients hospitalized for any cause (74 vs. 114,, P = 0.006) and who died or were hospitalized (89 vs. 124,, P = 0.011), in the UC+I vs. UC group. HF hospitalizations were reduced with UC+I (23 vs. 35, adjusted HR 0.81 [95% CI 0.44-1.38]), although this was not significant (P = 0.43). There were 16 deaths in the UC group and 17 in the UC+I group (P = 0.43). Conclusions: Although no difference was observed in the primary endpoint of CHAT (Packer composite score), UC+I significantly reduced the number of HF patients hospitalized among a rural and remote cohort. These data suggest that telephone support may be an efficacious approach to improve clinical outcomes in rural and remote HF patients.