METHODS: This study included 1740 males (1146 Chinese, 327 Malays and 267 Asian Indians) and 1950 females (1329 Chinese, 360 Malays and 261 Asian Indians) with complete data on anthropometric indices, fasting lipids, smoking status, alcohol consumption, exercise frequency and genotype at the APOE locus.
RESULTS: Malays and Asian Indians were more obese compared with the Chinese. Smoking was uncommon in all females but Malay males had significantly higher prevalence of smokers. Malays had the highest LDL-C whilst Indians had the lowest HDL-C, The epsilon 3 allele was the most frequent allele in all three ethnic groups. Malays had the highest frequency of epsilon 4 (0.180 and 0.152) compared with Chinese (0.085 and 0.087) and Indians (0.108 and 0.075) in males and females, respectively. The epsilon 2 allele was the least common in Asian Indians. Total cholesterol (TC) and LDL-C was highest in epsilon 4 carriers and lowest in epsilon 2 carriers. The reverse was seen in HDL-C with the highest levels seen in epsilon 2 subjects. The association between ethnic group and HDL-C differed according to APOE genotype and gender. Asian Indians had the lowest HDL-C for each APOE genotype except in Asian Indian males with epsilon 2, where HDL-C concentrations were intermediate between Chinese and Malays.
CONCLUSION: Ethnic differences in lipid profile could be explained in part by the higher prevalence of epsilon 4 in the Malays. Ethnicity may influence the association between APOE genotypes and HDL-C. APOE genotype showed no correlation with HDL-C in Malay males whereas the association in Asian Indians was particularly marked. Further studies of interactions between genes and environmental factors will contribute to the understanding of differences of coronary risk amongst ethnic groups.
METHODS: Urologists worldwide completed a Société Internationale d'Urologie online survey from 16 April 2020 until 1 May 2020. Analysis was carried out to evaluate their knowledge about protecting themselves and others in the workplace, including their confidence in their ability to remain safe at work, and any regional differences.
RESULTS: There were 3488 respondents from 109 countries. Urologists who stated they were moderately comfortable that their work environment offers good protection against coronavirus disease 2019 showed a total mean satisfaction level of 5.99 (on a "0 = not at all" to "10 = very" scale). A large majority (86.33%) were confident about protecting themselves from coronavirus disease 2019 at work. However, only about one-third reported their institution provided the required personal protective equipment (35.78%), and nearly half indicated their hospital has or had limited personal protective equipment availability (48.08%). Worldwide, a large majority of respondents answered affirmatively for testing the healthcare team (83.09%). Approximately half of the respondents (52.85%) across all regions indicated that all surgical team members face an equal risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (52.85%). Nearly one-third of respondents reported that they had experienced social avoidance (28.97%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that urologists lack up-to-date knowledge of preferred protocols for personal protective equipment selection and use, social distancing, and coronavirus disease 2019 testing. These data can provide insights into functional domains from which other specialties could also benefit.