The case for increased peritoneal dialysis utilization in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has several advantages compared to haemodialysis (HD), but there is evidence showing underutilization globally, especially in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs) where kidney replacement therapies (KRT) are often unavailable, inaccessible, and unaffordable. Only 11% of all dialysis patients worldwide use PD, more than 50% of whom live in China, the United States of America, Mexico, or Thailand. Various barriers to increased PD utilization have been reported worldwide including patient preference, low levels of education, and lower provider reimbursement. However, unique but surmountable barriers are applicable to LLMICs including the excessively high cost of providing PD (related to PD fluids in particular), excessive cost of treatment borne by patients (relative to HD), lack of adequate PD training opportunities for doctors and nurses, low workforce availability for kidney care, and challenges related to some PD outcomes (catheter-related infections, hospitalizations, mortality, etc.). This review discusses some known barriers to PD use in LLMICs and leverages data that show a global trend in reducing rates of PD-related infections, reducing rates of modality switches from HD, and improving patient survival in PD to discuss how PD use can be increased in LLMICs. We therefore, challenge the idea that low PD use in LLMICs is unavoidable due to these barriers and instead present opportunities to improve PD utilization in LLMICs.

Prevalence of osteoarthritis in lower middle- and low-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Evidence from the Global Burden of Disease studies suggests that osteoarthritis (OA) is a significant cause of disability globally; however, it is less clear how much of this burden exists in low-income and lower middle-income countries. This study aims to determine the prevalence of OA in people living in low-income and lower middle-income countries. Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science) were systematically searched from inception to October 2018 for population-based studies. We included studies reporting the prevalence of OA among people aged 15 years and over in low-income and lower middle-income countries. The prevalence estimates were pooled across studies using random effects meta-analysis. Our study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018112870.The search identified 7414 articles, of which 356 articles were selected for full text assessment. 34 studies were eligible and included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of OA was 16·05% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12·55-19·89), with studies demonstrating a substantial degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 99·50%). The pooled prevalence of OA was 16.4% (CI 11·60-21.78%) in South Asia, 15.7% (CI 5·31-30·25%) in East Asia and Pacific, and 14.2% (CI 7·95-21·89%) in Sub Saharan Africa. The meta-regression analysis showed that publication year, study sample size, risk of bias score and country-income categories were significantly associated with the variations in the prevalence estimates. The prevalence of OA is high in low-income and lower middle-income countries, with almost one in six of the study participants reported to have OA. With the changing population demographics and the shift to the emergence of non-communicable diseases, targeted public health strategies are urgently needed to address this growing epidemic in the aging population.

Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low-Income and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks.

Policy makers in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) are increasingly looking to develop 'evidence-based' frameworks for identifying priority health interventions. This paper synthesises and appraises the literature on methodological frameworks--which incorporate economic evaluation evidence--for the purpose of setting healthcare priorities in LMICs. A systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, Econlit and PubMed identified 3968 articles with a further 21 articles identified through manual searching. A total of 36 papers were eligible for inclusion. These covered a wide range of health interventions with only two studies including health systems strengthening interventions related to financing, governance and human resources. A little under half of the studies (39%) included multiple criteria for priority setting, most commonly equity, feasibility and disease severity. Most studies (91%) specified a measure of 'efficiency' defined as cost per disability-adjusted life year averted. Ranking of health interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis and generalised cost-effectiveness were the most common frameworks for identifying priority health interventions. Approximately a third of studies discussed the affordability of priority interventions. Only one study identified priority areas for the release or redeployment of resources. The paper concludes by highlighting the need for local capacity to conduct evaluations (including economic analysis) and empowerment of local decision-makers to act on this evidence.