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)

Household, community, sub-national and country-level predictors of primary cooking fuel switching in nine countries from the PURE study

Introduction. Switchingfrom polluting (e.g. wood, crop waste, coal)to clean (e.g. gas, electricity) cooking fuels can reduce household air pollution exposures and climate-forcing emissions.While studies have evaluated specific interventions and assessed fuel-switching in repeated cross-sectional surveys, the role of different multilevel factors in household fuel switching, outside of interventions and across diverse community settings, is not well understood. Methods.We examined longitudinal survey data from 24 172 households in 177 rural communities across nine countries within the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology study.We assessed household-level primary cooking fuel switching during a median of 10 years offollow up (∼2005–2015).We used hierarchical logistic regression models to examine the relative importance of household, community, sub-national and national-level factors contributing to primary fuel switching. Results. One-half of study households(12 369)reported changing their primary cookingfuels between baseline andfollow up surveys. Of these, 61% (7582) switchedfrom polluting (wood, dung, agricultural waste, charcoal, coal, kerosene)to clean (gas, electricity)fuels, 26% (3109)switched between different polluting fuels, 10% (1164)switched from clean to polluting fuels and 3% (522)switched between different clean fuels

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