| 1. |
- Chow, C. K., et al.
(författare)
-
Availability and affordability of essential medicines for diabetes across high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: a prospective epidemiological study
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. - : Elsevier BV. - 2213-8587. ; 6:10, s. 798-808
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Data are scarce on the availability and affordability of essential medicines for diabetes. Our aim was to examine the availability and affordability of metformin, sulfonylureas, and insulin across multiple regions of the world and explore the effect of these on medicine use. Methods In the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, participants aged 35-70 years (n=156 625) were recruited from 110 803 households, in 604 communities and 22 countries; availability (presence of any dose of medication in the pharmacy on the day of audit) and medicine cost data were collected from pharmacies with the Environmental Profile of a Community's Health audit tool. Our primary analysis was to describe the availability and affordability of metformin and insulin and also commonly used and prescribed combinations of two medicines for diabetes management (two oral drugs, metformin plus a sulphonylurea [either glibenclamide (also known as glyburide) or gliclazide] and one oral drug plus insulin [metformin plus insulin]). Medicines were defined as affordable if the cost of medicines was less than 20% of capacity-to-pay (the household income minus food expenditure). Our analyses included data collected in pharmacies and data from representative samples of households. Data on availability were ascertained during the pharmacy audit, as were data on cost of medications. These cost data were used to estimate the cost of a month's supply of essential medicines for diabetes. We estimated affordability of medicines using income data from household surveys. Findings Metformin was available in 113 (100%) of 113 pharmacies from high-income countries, 112 (88.2%) of 127 pharmacies in upper-middle-income countries, 179 (86.1%) of 208 pharmacies in lower-middle-income countries, 44 (64.7%) of 68 pharmacies in low-income countries (excluding India), and 88 (100%) of 88 pharmacies in India. Insulin was available in 106 (93.8%) pharmacies in high-income countries, 51 (40.2%) pharmacies in upper-middle-income countries, 61 (29.3%) pharmacies in lower-middle-income countries, seven (10.3%) pharmacies in lower-income countries, and 67 (76.1%) of 88 pharmacies in India. We estimated 0.7% of households in high-income countries and 26.9% of households in low-income countries could not afford metformin and 2.8% of households in high-income countries and 63.0% of households in low-income countries could not afford insulin. Among the 13 569 (8.6% of PURE participants) that reported a diagnosis of diabetes, 1222 (74.0%) participants reported diabetes medicine use in high-income countries compared with 143 (29.6%) participants in low-income countries. In multilevel models, availability and affordability were significantly associated with use of diabetes medicines. Interpretation Availability and affordability of essential diabetes medicines are poor in low-income and middle-income countries. Awareness of these global differences might importantly drive change in access for patients with diabetes.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Chow, C. K., et al.
(författare)
-
Tobacco control environment: cross-sectional survey of policy implementation, social unacceptability, knowledge of tobacco health harms and relationship to quit ratio in 17 low-income, middle-income and high-income countries
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Bmj Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: This study examines in a cross-sectional study 'the tobacco control environment' including tobacco policy implementation and its association with quit ratio. Setting: 545 communities from 17 high-income, upper-middle, low-middle and low-income countries (HIC, UMIC, LMIC, LIC) involved in the Environmental Profile of a Community's Health (EPOCH) study from 2009 to 2014. Participants: Community audits and surveys of adults (35-70 years, n= 12 953). Primary and secondary outcome measures: Summary scores of tobacco policy implementation (cost and availability of cigarettes, tobacco advertising, antismoking signage), social unacceptability and knowledge were associated with quit ratios (former vs ever smokers) using multilevel logistic regression models. Results: Average tobacco control policy score was greater in communities from HIC. Overall 56.1% (306/545) of communities had >2 outlets selling cigarettes and in 28.6% (154/539) there was access to cheap cigarettes (<5cents/cigarette) (3.2% (3/93) in HIC, 0% UMIC, 52.6% (90/171) LMIC and 40.4% (61/151) in LIC). Effective bans (no tobacco advertisements) were in 63.0% (341/541) of communities (81.7% HIC, 52.8% UMIC, 65.1% LMIC and 57.6% LIC). In 70.4% (379/538) of communities, >80% of participants disapproved youth smoking (95.7% HIC, 57.6% UMIC, 76.3% LMIC and 58.9% LIC). The average knowledge score was >80% in 48.4% of communities (94.6% HIC, 53.6% UMIC, 31.8% LMIC and 35.1% LIC). communities in the highest quintile of the combined scores had 5.0 times the quit ratio in men (Odds ratio (OR) 5.0, 95% CI 3.4 to 7.4) and 4.1 times the quit ratio in women (OR 4.1, 95% CI 2.4 to 7.1). Conclusions: This study suggests that more focus is needed on ensuring the tobacco control policy is actually implemented, particularly in LMICs. The gender-related differences in associations of policy, social unacceptability and knowledge suggest that different strategies to promoting quitting may need to be implemented in men compared to women.
|
|
| 4. |
- Khatib, R., et al.
(författare)
-
Availability and affordability of cardiovascular disease medicines and their effect on use in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: an analysis of the PURE study data
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 387:10013, s. 61-69
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: WHO has targeted that medicines to prevent recurrent cardiovascular disease be available in 80% of communities and used by 50% of eligible individuals by 2025. We have previously reported that use of these medicines is very low, but now aim to assess how such low use relates to their lack of availability or poor affordability. METHODS: We analysed information about availability and costs of cardiovascular disease medicines (aspirin, beta blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins) in pharmacies gathered from 596 communities in 18 countries participating in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. Medicines were considered available if present at the pharmacy when surveyed, and affordable if their combined cost was less than 20% of household capacity-to-pay. We compared results from high-income, upper middle-income, lower middle-income, and low-income countries. Data from India were presented separately given its large, generic pharmaceutical industry. FINDINGS: Communities were recruited between Jan 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2013. All four cardiovascular disease medicines were available in 61 (95%) of 64 urban and 27 (90%) of 30 rural communities in high-income countries, 53 (80%) of 66 urban and 43 (73%) of 59 rural communities in upper middle-income countries, 69 (62%) of 111 urban and 42 (37%) of 114 rural communities in lower middle-income countries, eight (25%) of 32 urban and one (3%) of 30 rural communities in low-income countries (excluding India), and 34 (89%) of 38 urban and 42 (81%) of 52 rural communities in India. The four cardiovascular disease medicines were potentially unaffordable for 0.14% of households in high-income countries (14 of 9934 households), 25% of upper middle-income countries (6299 of 24 776), 33% of lower middle-income countries (13 253 of 40 023), 60% of low-income countries (excluding India; 1976 of 3312), and 59% households in India (9939 of 16 874). In low-income and middle-income countries, patients with previous cardiovascular disease were less likely to use all four medicines if fewer than four were available (odds ratio [OR] 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.57). In communities in which all four medicines were available, patients were less likely to use medicines if the household potentially could not afford them (0.16, 0.04-0.55). INTERPRETATION: Secondary prevention medicines are unavailable and unaffordable for a large proportion of communities and households in upper middle-income, lower middle-income, and low-income countries, which have very low use of these medicines. Improvements to the availability and affordability of key medicines is likely to enhance their use and help towards achieving WHO's targets of 50% use of key medicines by 2025. FUNDING: Population Health Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, AstraZeneca (Canada), Sanofi-Aventis (France and Canada), Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany and Canada), Servier, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, King Pharma, and national or local organisations in participating countries.
|
|
| 5. |
- Murphy, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Inequalities in the use of secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease by socioeconomic status: evidence from the PURE observational study
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Lancet Global Health. - 2214-109X. ; 6:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background There is little evidence on the use of secondary prevention medicines for cardiovascular disease by socioeconomic groups in countries at different levels of economic development. Methods We assessed use of antiplatelet, cholesterol, and blood-pressure-lowering drugs in 8492 individuals with self-reported cardiovascular disease from 21 countries enrolled in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. Defining one or more drugs as a minimal level of secondary prevention, wealth-related inequality was measured using the Wagstaff concentration index, scaled from -1 (pro-poor) to 1 (pro-rich), standardised by age and sex. Correlations between inequalities and national health-related indicators were estimated. Findings The proportion of patients with cardiovascular disease on three medications ranged from 0% in South Africa (95% CI 0-1.7), Tanzania (0-3.6), and Zimbabwe (0-5.1), to 49.3% in Canada (44.4-54.3). Proportions receiving at least one drug varied from 2.0% (95% CI 0.5-6.9) in Tanzania to 91.4% (86.6-94.6) in Sweden. There was significant (p<0.05) pro-rich inequality in Saudi Arabia, China, Colombia, India, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe. Pro-poor distributions were observed in Sweden, Brazil, Chile, Poland, and the occupied Palestinian territory. The strongest predictors of inequality were public expenditure on health and overall use of secondary prevention medicines. Interpretation Use of medication for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease is alarmingly low. In many countries with the lowest use, pro-rich inequality is greatest. Policies associated with an equal or pro-poor distribution include free medications and community health programmes to support adherence to medications. Copyright (c) The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
| 6. |
- Savell, E., et al.
(författare)
-
The environmental profile of a community's health: a cross-sectional study on tobacco marketing in 16 countries
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Bulletin of the World Health Organization. - 0042-9686 .- 1564-0604. ; 93:12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare tobacco marketing in 16 countries while the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control requires parties to implement a comprehensive ban on such marketing. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2012, a kilometre-long walk was completed by trained investigators in 462 communities across 16 countries to collect data on tobacco marketing. We interviewed community members about their exposure to traditional and non-traditional marketing in the previous six months. To examine differences in marketing between urban and rural communities and between high-, middle- and low-income countries, we used multilevel regression models controlling for potential confounders. FINDINGS: Compared with high-income countries, the number of tobacco advertisements observed was 81 times higher in low-income countries (incidence rate ratio, IRR: 80.98; 95% confidence interval, CI: 4.15-1578.42) and the number of tobacco outlets was 2.5 times higher in both low- and lower-middle-income countries (IRR: 2.58; 95% CI: 1.17-5.67 and IRR: 2.52; CI: 1.23-5.17, respectively). Of the 11 842 interviewees, 1184 (10%) reported seeing at least five types of tobacco marketing. Self-reported exposure to at least one type of traditional marketing was 10 times higher in low-income countries than in high-income countries (odds ratio, OR: 9.77; 95% CI: 1.24-76.77). For almost all measures, marketing exposure was significantly lower in the rural communities than in the urban communities. CONCLUSION: Despite global legislation to limit tobacco marketing, it appears ubiquitous. The frequency and type of tobacco marketing varies on the national level by income group and by community type, appearing to be greatest in low-income countries and urban communities.
|
|
