| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
