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

17 million people are estimated to die of cardiovascular diseases worldwide every year.1 About 20% occur in those with known vascular disease.2 Many of these deaths could be avoided if the use3 of proven medicines among patients with vascular disease (secondary prevention) were increased. Clinical guidelines recommend the use of four medicines for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: aspirin, β blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs), and statins.4 However, in a previous report from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, only 25% of patients with established cardiovascular disease were taking aspirin, 17% β blockers, 20% ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and 15% statins. In high-income countries, 11% of eligible patients were not taking any of these medicines, compared with 80% in low-income countries.

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.

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. FUNDING: Population Health Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, pharmaceutical companies (with major contributions from AstraZeneca [Canada], Sanofi Aventis [France and Canada], Boehringer Ingelheim [Germany amd Canada], Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline), Novartis and King Pharma, and national or local organisations in participating countries

Availability and affordability of medicines and cardiovascular outcomes in 21 high-income, middle-income and low-income countries

Objectives: We aimed to examine the relationship between access to medicine for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) among people at high risk of CVD in high-income countries (HICs), upper and lower middle-income countries (UMICs, LMICs) and low-income countries (LICs) participating in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study.Methods: We defined high CVD risk as the presence of any of the following: hypertension, coronary artery disease, stroke, smoker, diabetes or age \u3e55 years. Availability and affordability of blood pressure lowering drugs, antiplatelets and statins were obtained from pharmacies. Participants were categorised: group 1-all three drug types were available and affordable, group 2-all three drugs were available but not affordable and group 3-all three drugs were not available. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with nested clustering at country and community levels, adjusting for comorbidities, sociodemographic and economic factors.Results: Of 163 466 participants, there were 93 200 with high CVD risk from 21 countries (mean age 54.7, 49% female). Of these, 44.9% were from group 1, 29.4% from group 2 and 25.7% from group 3. Compared with participants from group 1, the risk of MACEs was higher among participants in group 2 (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31), and among participants from group 3 (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.50).Conclusion: Lower availability and affordability of essential CVD medicines were associated with higher risk of MACEs and mortality. Improving access to CVD medicines should be a key part of the strategy to lower CVD globally

Inequalities in the use of secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease by socioeconomic status: evidence from the PURE observational study

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. Funding: Full funding sources listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments)

Inequalities in the use of secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease by socioeconomic status: Evidence from the PURE observational study

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\u3c0·05) 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

Inequalities in the use of secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease by socioeconomic status: evidence from the PURE observational study.

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. FUNDING: Full funding sources listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments)

Implementing Fixed Dose Combination Medications for the Prevention and Control of Cardiovascular Diseases.

Highlights:  - Despite clinical evidence of its effectiveness in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, uptake of fixed dose combination therapy (FDCs) for CVD has been poor.- A symposium was held bringing together stakeholders on this issue, including from academia, government and NGOs.- The conclusion made was that what is now needed to improve implementation of FDCs is country-specific health systems analyses to design appropriate implementation strategies.- Implementation strategies must look beyond listing on the WHO Essential Medicines List to consider approaches to improving FDC availability, accessibility, affordability, and adherence.- Strategies might include incorporation of FDCs into the WHO HEARTS technical package, simplified treatment and monitoring algorithms, decentralisation of medicine dispensing and task-sharing for treatment management

The Health Impact Fund: How Might It Work for Novel Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation?

Cardiovascular diseases represent the greatest burden of global disease. Spending on cardiovascular diseases is higher than for other diseases, with the majority being spent on drugs. Therefore, these drugs and these diseases are hugely important to health systems, society, and pharmaceutical companies. The Health Impact Fund represents a new mechanism by which pharmaceutical innovators would be rewarded on the basis of the health impact of their new drugs. This review illustrates the concept of the Health Impact Fund using the example of novel anticoagulants for prevention of stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation. By considering existing data and the current situation for novel anticoagulants, we suggest that epidemiologic data and modeling techniques can be used to predict future trends in disease and the health impact of new drugs. The Health Impact Fund may offer potential benefits to pharmaceutical companies, patients, and governments and warrants proper investigation

Availability and affordability of medicines and cardiovascular outcomes in 21 high-income, middle-income and low-income countries.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the relationship between access to medicine for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) among people at high risk of CVD in high-income countries (HICs), upper and lower middle-income countries (UMICs, LMICs) and low-income countries (LICs) participating in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. METHODS: We defined high CVD risk as the presence of any of the following: hypertension, coronary artery disease, stroke, smoker, diabetes or age >55 years. Availability and affordability of blood pressure lowering drugs, antiplatelets and statins were obtained from pharmacies. Participants were categorised: group 1-all three drug types were available and affordable, group 2-all three drugs were available but not affordable and group 3-all three drugs were not available. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with nested clustering at country and community levels, adjusting for comorbidities, sociodemographic and economic factors. RESULTS: Of 163 466 participants, there were 93 200 with high CVD risk from 21 countries (mean age 54.7, 49% female). Of these, 44.9% were from group 1, 29.4% from group 2 and 25.7% from group 3. Compared with participants from group 1, the risk of MACEs was higher among participants in group 2 (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31), and among participants from group 3 (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.50). CONCLUSION: Lower availability and affordability of essential CVD medicines were associated with higher risk of MACEs and mortality. Improving access to CVD medicines should be a key part of the strategy to lower CVD globally

Clinical Impact of the Polypill for Cardiovascular Prevention in Latin America: A Consensus Statement of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology.

The burden of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is increasing, particularly in low-middle-income countries such as most of Latin America. This region presents specific socioeconomic characteristics, generating a high incidence of CVD despite efforts to control the problem. A consensus statement has been developed by Inter-American Society of Cardiology with the aim of answering some important questions related to CVD in this region and the role of the polypill in cardiovascular (CV) prevention as an intervention to address these issues. A multidisciplinary team composed of Latin American experts in the prevention of CVD was convened by the Inter-American Society of Cardiology and participated in the process and the formulation of statements. To characterize the prevailing situation in Latin American countries, we describe the most significant CV risk factors in the region. The barriers that impair the use of CV essential medications are also reviewed. The role of therapeutic adherence in CV prevention and how the polypill emerges as an effective strategy for optimizing adherence, accessibility, and affordability in the treatment of CVDs are discussed in detail. Clinical scenarios in which the polypill could represent an effective intervention in primary and secondary CV prevention are described. This initiative is expected to help professionals involved in the management of CVD and public health policymakers develop optimal strategies for the management of CVDs