Socioeconomic status and risk of cardiovascular disease in 20 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiologic (PURE) study.

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

Availability and affordability of essential medicines for diabetes across high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: a prospective epidemiological study.

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

Is Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in Canadian Family Practices Cost-Effective in Patients 65 Years and Older?

We present an economic evaluation of a recently completed cohort study in which 2054 seniors were screened for atrial fibrillation (AF) in 22 Canadian family practices. Using a Markov model, trial and literature data were used to project long-term outcomes and costs associated with 4 AF screening strategies for individuals aged 65 years or older: no screening, screen with 30-second radial manual pulse check (pulse check), screen with a blood pressure machine with AF detection (BP-AF), and screen with a single-lead electrocardiogram (SL-ECG). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% and the model used a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. Compared with no screening, screening for AF in Canadian family practice offices using pulse check or screen with a blood pressure machine with AF detection is the dominant strategy whereas screening with SL-ECG is a highly cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of CAD$4788. When different screening strategies were compared, screening with pulse check had the lowest expected costs ($202) and screening with SL-ECG had the highest expected costs ($222). The no-screening arm resulted in the lowest number of QALYs (8.74195) whereas pulse check and SL-ECG resulted in the highest expected QALYs (8.74362). Probabilistic analysis confirmed that pulse check had the highest probability of being cost-effective (63%) assuming a willingness to pay of $50,000 per QALY gained. Screening for AF in seniors during routine appointments with Canadian family physicians is a cost-effective strategy compared with no screening. Screening with a pulse check is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy.