| 1. |
- Rosengren, Annika, 1951, et al.
(författare)
-
Socioeconomic status and risk of cardiovascular disease in 20 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiologic (PURE) study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Lancet Global Health. - : Elsevier BV. - 2214-109X. ; 7:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Socioeconomic status is associated with differences in risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and outcomes, including mortality However, it is unclear whether the associations between cardiovascular disease and common measures of socioeconomic status-wealth and education-differ among high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries, and, if so, why these differences exist. We explored the association between education and household wealth and cardiovascular disease and mortality to assess which marker is the stronger predictor of outcomes, and examined whether any differences in cardiovascular disease by socioeconomic status parallel differences in risk factor levels or differences in management. Methods In this large-scale prospective cohort study, we recruited adults aged between 35 years and 70 years from 367 urban and 302 rural communities in 20 countries. We collected data on families and households in two questionnaires, and data on cardiovascular risk factors in a third questionnaire, which was supplemented with physical examination. We assessed socioeconomic status using education and a household wealth index. Education was categorised as no or primary school education only, secondary school education, or higher education, defined as completion of trade school, college, or university. Household wealth, calculated at the household level and with household data, was defined by an index on the basis of ownership of assets and housing characteristics. Primary outcomes were major cardiovascular disease (a composite of cardiovascular deaths, strokes, myocardial infarction, and heart failure), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality. Information on specific events was obtained from participants or their family. Findings Recruitment to the study began on Jan 12, 2001, with most participants enrolled between Jan 6, 2005, and Dec 4, 2014. 160 299 (87.9%) of 182 375 participants with baseline data had available follow-up event data and were eligible for inclusion. After exclusion of 6130 (3.8%) participants without complete baseline or follow-up data, 154 169 individuals remained for analysis, from five low-income, 11 middle-income, and four high-income countries. Participants were followed-up for a mean of 7.5 years. Major cardiovascular events were more common among those with low levels of education in all types of country studied, but much more so in low-income countries. After adjustment for wealth and other factors, the HR (low level of education vs high level of education) was 1.23 (95% CI 0.96-1.58) for high-income countries, 1.59 (1.42-1.78) in middle-income countries, and 2.23 (1.79-2.77) in low-income countries (p(interaction)<0 .0001). We observed similar results for all-cause mortality, with HRs of 1.50 (1.14-1.98) for high-income countries, 1.80 (1.58-2.06) in middle-income countries, and 2.76 (2.29-3.31) in low-income countries (p(interaction)<0. 0001). By contrast, we found no or weak associations between wealth and these two outcomes. Differences in outcomes between educational groups were not explained by differences in risk factors, which decreased as the level of education increased in high-income countries, but increased as the level of education increased in low-income countries (p(interaction)<0.0001). Medical care (eg, management of hypertension, diabetes, and secondary prevention) seemed to play an important part in adverse cardiovascular disease outcomes because such care is likely to be poorer in people with the lowest levels of education compared to those with higher levels of education in low-income countries; however, we observed less marked differences in care based on level of education in middle-income countries and no or minor differences in high-income countries. Interpretation Although people with a lower level of education in low-income and middle-income countries have higher incidence of and mortality from cardiovascular disease, they have better overall risk factor profiles. However, these individuals have markedly poorer health care. Policies to reduce health inequities globally must include strategies to overcome barriers to care, especially for those with lower levels of education. Copyright (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
| 2. |
- Attaei, M. W., et al.
(författare)
-
Availability and affordability of blood pressure-lowering medicines and the effect on blood pressure control in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: an analysis of the PURE study data
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Lancet Public Health. - 2468-2667. ; 2:9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Hypertension is considered the most important risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, but its control is poor worldwide. We aimed to assess the availability and affordability of blood pressure-lowering medicines, and the association with use of these medicines and blood pressure control in countries at varying levels of economic development. Methods We analysed the availability, costs, and affordability of blood pressure-lowering medicines with data recorded from 626 communities in 20 countries participating in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study. Medicines were considered available if they were present in the local pharmacy when surveyed, and affordable if their combined cost was less than 20% of the households' capacity to pay. We related information about availability and affordability to use of these medicines and blood pressure control with multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models, and compared results for high-income, upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income, and low-income countries. Data for India are presented separately because it has a large generic pharmaceutical industry and a higher availability of medicines than other countries at the same economic level. Findings The availability of two or more classes of blood pressure-lowering drugs was lower in low-income and middle-income countries (except for India) than in high-income countries. The proportion of communities with four drug classes available was 94% in high-income countries (108 of 115 communities), 76% in India (68 of 90), 71% in upper-middle-income countries (90 of 126), 47% in lower-middle-income countries (107 of 227), and 13% in low-income countries (nine of 68). The proportion of households unable to afford two blood pressure-lowering medicines was 31% in low-income countries (1069 of 3479 households), 9% in middle-income countries (5602 of 65 471), and less than 1% in high-income countries (44 of 10 880). Participants with known hypertension in communities that had all four drug classes available were more likely to use at least one blood pressure-lowering medicine (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.23, 95% CI 1.59-3.12); p<0.0001), combination therapy (1.53, 1.13-2.07; p=0.054), and have their blood pressure controlled (2.06, 1.69-2.50; p<0.0001) than were those in communities where blood pressure-lowering medicines were not available. Participants with known hypertension from households able to afford four blood pressure-lowering drug classes were more likely to use at least one blood pressure-lowering medicine (adjusted OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.25-1.62; p<0.0001), combination therapy (1.26, 1.08-1.47; p=0.0038), and have their blood pressure controlled (1.13, 1.00-1.28; p=0.0562) than were those unable to afford the medicines. Interpretation A large proportion of communities in low-income and middle-income countries do not have access to more than one blood pressure-lowering medicine and, when available, they are often not affordable. These factors are associated with poor blood pressure control. Ensuring access to affordable blood pressure-lowering medicines is essential for control of hypertension in low-income and middle-income countries. Copyright (C) The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
|
|
| 3. |
- Murphy, A., et al.
(författare)
-
The household economic burden of non-communicable diseases in 18 countries
- 2020
-
Ingår i: BMJ Global Health. - : BMJ. - 2059-7908. ; 5:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death globally. In 2014, the United Nations committed to reducing premature mortality from NCDs, including by reducing the burden of healthcare costs. Since 2014, the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study has been collecting health expenditure data from households with NCDs in 18 countries. Methods Using data from the PURE Study, we estimated risk of catastrophic health spending and impoverishment among households with at least one person with NCDs (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer and respiratory diseases; n=17 435), with hypertension only (a leading risk factor for NCDs; n=11 831) or with neither (n=22 654) by country income group: high-income countries (Canada and Sweden), upper middle income countries (UMICs: Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Poland, South Africa and Turkey), lower middle income countries (LMICs: the Philippines, Colombia, India, Iran and the Occupied Palestinian Territory) and low-income countries (LICs: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Tanzania) and China. Results The prevalence of catastrophic spending and impoverishment is highest among households with NCDs in LMICs and China. After adjusting for covariates that might drive health expenditure, the absolute risk of catastrophic spending is higher in households with NCDs compared with no NCDs in LMICs (risk difference=1.71%; 95% CI 0.75 to 2.67), UMICs (0.82%; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27) and China (7.52%; 95% CI 5.88 to 9.16). A similar pattern is observed in UMICs and China for impoverishment. A high proportion of those with NCDs in LICs, especially women (38.7% compared with 12.6% in men), reported not taking medication due to costs. Conclusions Our findings show that financial protection from healthcare costs for people with NCDs is inadequate, particularly in LMICs and China. While the burden of NCD care may appear greatest in LMICs and China, the burden in LICs may be masked by care foregone due to costs. The high proportion of women reporting foregone care due to cost may in part explain gender inequality in treatment of NCDs. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
|
|
