Dataset Information

Access to Medications for Cardiovascular Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

ABSTRACT: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) represent the highest burden of disease globally. Medicines are a critical intervention used to prevent and treat CVD. This review describes access to medication for CVD from a health system perspective and strategies that have been used to promote access, including providing medicines at lower cost, improving medication supply, ensuring medicine quality, promoting appropriate use, and managing intellectual property issues. Using key evidence in published and gray literature and systematic reviews, we summarize advances in access to cardiovascular medicines using the 5 health system dimensions of access: availability, affordability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of medicines. There are multiple barriers to access of CVD medicines, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Low availability of CVD medicines has been reported in public and private healthcare facilities. When patients lack insurance and pay out of pocket to purchase medicines, medicines can be unaffordable. Accessibility and acceptability are low for medicines used in secondary prevention; increasing use is positively related to country income. Fixed-dose combinations have shown a positive effect on adherence and intermediate outcome measures such as blood pressure and cholesterol. We have a new opportunity to improve access to CVD medicines by using strategies such as efficient procurement of low-cost, quality-assured generic medicines, development of fixed-dose combination medicines, and promotion of adherence through insurance schemes that waive copayment for long-term medications. Monitoring progress at all levels, institutional, regional, national, and international, is vital to identifying gaps in access and implementing adequate policies.

SUBMITTER: Wirtz VJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4880457 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Access to Medications for Cardiovascular Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Wirtz Veronika J VJ Kaplan Warren A WA Kwan Gene F GF Laing Richard O RO

Circulation 20160501 21

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) represent the highest burden of disease globally. Medicines are a critical intervention used to prevent and treat CVD. This review describes access to medication for CVD from a health system perspective and strategies that have been used to promote access, including providing medicines at lower cost, improving medication supply, ensuring medicine quality, promoting appropriate use, and managing intellectual property issues. Using key evidence in published and gray l ...[more]

PMID: 27217433

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth expenditures are a major financial burden for many persons in low and middle-income countries, where individuals often lack health insurance. We estimate the effect of purchasing cardiovascular medicines on poverty in low and middle-income populations using rural and urban India as an example.MethodsWe created step-up treatment regimens for prevention of ischemic heart disease for the most common cardiovascular medications in India based on their cost and relative risk reduction. Cost was measured by Government of India mandated ceiling prices in rupees (Rs. 1 = $0·016) for essential medicines plus taxes. We calculated step-wise projected incidence and intensity of impoverishment due to medicine purchase. To do this we measured the resources available to individuals as daily per-capita expenditures from the latest National Sample Survey, subtracted daily medication costs, and compared this to 2014 poverty thresholds recommended by an expert group.FindingsAnalysis of cost-effectiveness resulted in five primary prevention drug regimens, created by progressive addition of Aspirin 75 mg, Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg, Losartan 25 mg, and Atorvastatin 10 mg or 40mg. Daily cost from steps 1 to 5 increased from Rs. 0·13, Rs. 1.16, Rs. 3.81, Rs. 10.07, to Rs. 28.85. At baseline, 31% of rural and 27% percent of urban Indian population are poor at the designated poverty thresholds. The Rs. 28.85 regimen would be unaffordable to 81% and 58% of rural and urban people. A secondary prevention regimen with aspirin, hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol and atorvastatin could be unaffordable to 81% and 57% rural and urban people respectively. According to our estimates, 17% of the rural 32% of the urban adult population could benefit with these medications, and their out of pocket purchase could impoverish 17 million rural and 10 million urban people in India and increase respective poverty gaps by 2.9%.ConclusionMedication costs for cardiovascular disease have the potential to cause financial burden to a significant proportion of people in India. These costs increase the likelihood that patients will forego needed treatment and emphasize the need for programs to reduce the costs of medications for cardiovascular patients in India, including by expansion of prescription drug coverage.

Project description:The 2011 United Nations (UN) General Assembly Political Declaration on Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) brought NCDs to the global health agenda. Essential medicines are central to treating chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes. Our study aimed to quantify access to essential medicines for people with chronic conditions in five low- and middle-income countries and to evaluate how household socioeconomic status and perceptions about medicines availability and affordability influence access. We analysed data for 1867 individuals with chronic diseases from national surveys (Ghana, Jordan, Kenya, Philippines and Uganda) conducted in 2007-10 using a standard World Health Organization (WHO) methodology to measure medicines access and use. We defined individuals as having access to medicines if they reported regularly taking medicine for a diagnosed chronic disease and data collectors found a medicine indicated for that disease in their homes. We used logistic regression models accounting for the clustered survey design to investigate determinants of keeping medicines at home and predictors of access to medicines for chronic diseases. Less than half of individuals previously diagnosed with a chronic disease had access to medicines for their condition in every country, from 16% in Uganda to 49% in Jordan. Other than reporting a chronic disease, higher household socioeconomic level was the most significant predictor of having any medicines available at home. The likelihood of having access to medicines for chronic diseases was higher for those with medicines insurance coverage [highest adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.12 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.38, 7.07)] and lower for those with past history of borrowing money to pay for medicines [lowest adjusted OR 0.56 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.92)]. Our study documents poor access to essential medicines for chronic conditions in five resource-constrained settings. It highlights the importance of financial risk protection and consumer education about generic medicines in global efforts towards improving treatment of chronic diseases.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The incidence and mortality of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) in low and middle income countries (LMICs) have been increasing, while access to CVDs medicines is suboptimal. We assessed selection of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of CVDs on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) of LMICs and potential determinants for selection. METHODS:Only operational NEMLs were considered eligible for this study. A selection of medicines listed under "cardiovascular medicines" or "blood products and plasma substitutes" in the NEMLs were included if they were present on international guidelines for the prevention and treatment of CVDs (hyperlipidemia, hypertension, platelet inhibition, ischemic stroke, stable ischemic heart disease, acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, peripheral arterial disease and acute limb ischemia). The number and diversity of essential medicines selected for CVDs were studied. Moreover, determinants of selection of essential medicines for CVDs at a national level were explored. Data analysis was done using univariate linear regression and non-parametric tests. RESULTS:All medicine groups listed by the international guidelines were selected by the majority of the 34 countries studied with the exception of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors which appeared on less than half of the NEMLs studied (41% of countries). The total number of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases (median 24 (range 16-50)) differed significantly across income levels (median range: 19.5-25, p = 0.014) and across regions (median range: 20-32, p = 0.049). When recommendations of the international guidelines were considered, over 75% of the NEMLs contained essential medicines for the majority of CVDs. CONCLUSION:The main medicine classes for the management of CVDs were represented on NEMLs. Consequently, for the majority of CVDs, evidence-based guideline-recommended treatment is possible as far as selection of essential medicines is concerned. Selection will therefore not be the limiting step in access to medicines for cardiovascular diseases.

Project description:ImportanceGastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is a rare cancer treated with the tyrosine kinase inhibitors imatinib mesylate or sunitinib malate. In general, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), access to these treatments is limited.ObjectiveTo describe the demographic characteristics, treatment duration, and survival of patients with GIST in LMICs treated with imatinib and sunitinib through The Max Foundation programs.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective database cohort analysis included patients in 2 access programs administered by The Max Foundation: the Glivec International Patient Assistance Program (GIPAP), from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, and the Max Access Solutions (MAS) program, January 1, 2017, to October 12, 2020. Sixty-six countries in which The Max Foundation facilitates access to imatinib and sunitinib were included. Participants consisted of patients with approved indications for imatinib, including adjuvant therapy in high-risk GIST by pathologic evaluation of resected tumor or biopsy-proven unresectable or metastatic GIST. All patients were reported to have tumors positive for CD117(c-kit) by treating physicians. A total of 9866 patients received treatment for metastatic and/or unresectable disease; 2100 received adjuvant imatinib; 49 received imatinib from another source and were only included in the sunitinib analysis; and 53 received both imatinib and sunitinib through The Max Foundation programs. Data were analyzed from October 13, 2020, to January 30, 2024.Main outcomes and measuresDemographic and clinical information was reported by treating physicians. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS). An imputation-based informed censoring model estimated events for patients lost to follow-up after treatment with adjuvant imatinib. Patients who were lost to follow-up with metastatic or unresectable disease were presumed deceased.ResultsA total of 12 015 unique patients were included in the analysis (6890 male [57.6%]; median age, 54 [range, 0-100] years). Of these, 2100 patients were treated with imatinib in the adjuvant setting (median age, 54 [range 8-88] years) and 9866 were treated with imatinib for metastatic or unresectable disease (median age, 55 [range, 0-100] years). Male patients comprised 5867 of 9866 patients (59.5%) with metastatic or unresectable disease and 1023 of 2100 patients (48.7%) receiving adjuvant therapy. The median OS with imatinib for unresectable or metastatic disease was 5.8 (95% CI, 5.6-6.1) years, and the median TTD was 4.2 (95% CI, 4.1-4.4) years. The median OS with sunitinib for patients with metastatic or unresectable GIST was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.5-2.5) years; the median TTD was 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0-2.1) years. The 10-year OS rate in the adjuvant setting was 73.8% (95% CI, 67.2%-81.1%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients with GIST who were predominantly from LMICs and received orally administered therapy through the GIPAP or MAS programs, outcomes were similar to those observed in high-resource countries. These findings underscore the feasibility and relevance of administering oral anticancer therapy to a molecularly defined population in LMICs, addressing a critical gap in cancer care.

Project description:Background: The treatment gap for epilepsy is large in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and the effectiveness and safety of the available anti-seizure medication (ASMs) is not fully understood. We systematically reviewed available evidence on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of ASM in LMIC. Methods: We searched four main databases (PubMed, Psych-Info, CINAHL and Embase) up to 31 st December 2020, with eligible articles screened using a PRISMA checklist and a set of exclusion and inclusion criteria. Full texts were examined to evaluate the extent and practice of TDM in LMICs. Analyses were performed using Stata 13 and descriptive statistics were used to pool median distribution of TDM across studies. Results: Of the 6,309 articles identified in the initial search, 65 (1.0%) met the eligibility criteria. TDM of ASMs was mostly done to assess toxicity (42.8%), but rarely to monitor adherence (9.0%). TDM differed by economic status and infrastructural status with majority of the studies coming from Europe (53.8%) and upper-middle-income countries (87.6%). First generation ASMs (82.3%) were more likely to be monitored than second generation ASMs (17.6%) and carbamazepine was the most frequently monitored drug. Fluorescence Polarization Immunoassay (FPIA) was the most common technique used for TDM (41.5%) followed by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) (16.9%). In addition, FPIA was the cheapest method of TDM based on approximated costs ($1000, TDx system). Assay validation and quality control were reported variably, and reference ranges used during TDM of ASMs were relatively uniform. Conclusions: TDM is mostly done to evaluate ASM toxicity, but rarely for other reasons such as evaluating adherence or assessing clinical efficacy. There is a need for more investment in comprehensive and targeted TDM in LMICs when initiating treatment, switching therapies, adding or removing ASM and evaluating treatment response and safety of both first generation and second generation ASMs.

Dataset Information

Access to Medications for Cardiovascular Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Publications

Access to Medications for Cardiovascular Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets