Dataset Information

Selection of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases in low and middle income countries.

ABSTRACT: 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.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.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.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.

SUBMITTER: Bazargani YT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6019804 | biostudies-other | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Selection of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases in low and middle income countries.

Bazargani Y T YT Ugurlu M M de Boer A A Leufkens H G M HGM Mantel-Teeuwisse A K AK

BMC cardiovascular disorders 20180625 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>Only operational NEMLs were considered eligible for this study. A selection of medicines listed under "cardiov ...[more]

PMID: 29940880

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimDiabetes is a growing burden especially in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Inadequate access to diabetes care is of particular concern and selection of appropriate diabetes medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) is a first step in achieving adequate access. This selection was studied among LMICs and influences of various factors associated with selection decisions were assessed.MethodsCountries were studied if they employed NEMLs for reimbursement or procurement purposes. Presence and number of essential diabetes medicines from different classes, both insulins and oral blood glucose lowering medicines, were surveyed and calculated. Data were also analyzed by country income level, geographic region, year of last update of the NEML and purpose of NEML employment. The effect of prevalence and burden of disease on the number of essential diabetes medicines was also studied. Non parametric tests and univariate linear regression analysis were used.ResultsNearly all countries (n?=?32) had chosen fast (97%) and intermediate acting insulin (93%), glibenclamide and metformin (100% both) as essential medicines. The median number of essential diabetes medicines was 6, equally divided between insulins and oral medicines. 20% of the countries had selected insulin analogues as essential medicines. Among all the studied factors, an increase in burden of diabetes and wealth of countries were associated with selection of higher numbers of essential diabetes medicines (p?=?0.02 in both cases).ConclusionsNearly all the studied LMICs had included the minimum required medicines for diabetes management in their NEMLs. Selection can still be improved (e.g. exclusion of insulin analogues and replacement of glibenclamide by gliclazide). Nevertheless, the known suboptimal and inconsistent availability of essential diabetes medicines in LMICs cannot be explained by inadequate selection of essential medicines. Countries should therefore be encouraged to give precedence to implementation of NEMLs to make essential diabetes medicines more accessible.

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:BackgroundAsthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cause a considerable burden of morbidity and mortality in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Access to safe, effective, quality-assured, and affordable essential medicines is variable. We aimed to review the existing literature relating to the availability, cost, and affordability of WHO's essential medicines for asthma and COPD in LMICs.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was done by searching seven databases to identify research articles published between Jan 1, 2010, and June 30, 2022. Studies on named essential medicines for asthma and COPD in LMICs were included and review articles were excluded. Two authors (MS and HT) screened and extracted data independently, and assessed bias using Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools. The main outcome measures were availability (WHO target of 80%), cost (compared with median price ratio [MPR]), and affordability (number of days of work of the lowest paid government worker). The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021281069.FindingsOf 4742 studies identified, 29 met the inclusion criteria providing data from 60 LMICs. All studies had a low risk of bias. Six of 58 countries met the 80% availability target for short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs), three of 48 countries for inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), and zero of four for inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting beta-agonist (ICS-LABA) combination inhalers. Costs were reported by 12 studies: the range of MPRs was 1·1-351 for SABAs, 2·6-340 for ICSs, and 24 for ICS-LABAs in the single study reporting this. Affordability was calculated in ten studies: SABA inhalers typically cost around 1-4 days' wages, ICSs 2-7 days, and ICS-LABAs at least 6 days. The included studies showed heterogeneity.InterpretationEssential medicines for treating asthma and COPD were largely unavailable and unaffordable in LMICs. This was particularly true for inhalers containing corticosteroids.FundingWHO and Wellcome Trust.

Project description:Cervical cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in women, with 85% of cases and deaths occurring in developing countries. While organized screening programs have reduced cervical cancer incidence in high-income countries through detection and treatment of precancerous lesions, the implementation of organized screening has not been effective in low-resource settings due to lack of infrastructure and limited budgets. Our objective was to estimate the cost of comprehensive primary and secondary cervical cancer prevention in low- and middle-income countries.We performed a modeling analysis to estimate 1) for girls aged 10 years, the cost of 2-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination; and 2) for women aged 30 to 49 years, the cost of cervical cancer screening (with visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), HPV testing, or cytology) and preventive treatment in 102 low- and middle-income countries from 2015 to 2024. We used an Excel-based costing and service utilization model to estimate financial costs (2013 US$) based on prevalence of HPV, prevalence of precancerous lesions, and screening test performance. Where epidemiologic data were unavailable, we extrapolated from settings with data using an individual-based microsimulation model of cervical carcinogenesis (calibrated to 20 settings) and multivariate regression. Total HPV vaccination costs ranged from US$8.6 billion to US$24.2 billion for all scenarios considered (immediate, 5-year, or 10-year roll-out; price per dose US$4.55-US$70 by country income level). The total cost of screening and preventive treatment ranged from US$5.1 billion (10-year roll-out, screening once at age 35 years) to US$42.3 billion (immediate roll-out, high intensity screening). Limitations of this analysis include the assumption of standardized protocols by country income level that did not account for the potential presence of multiple screening modalities or management strategies within a country, and extrapolation of cost and epidemiologic data to settings where data were limited.The estimated cost of comprehensive cervical cancer prevention with 2-dose HPV vaccination of 10-year-old girls and screening of women aged 30 to 49 years ranges from US$13.7 billion to US$66.5 billion, depending on speed of roll-out, vaccine price per dose, and screening test and frequency. Findings demonstrate the substantial impact of vaccine price in middle-income countries that are not eligible for assistance from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Replacing routine cytology with HPV-based screening may reduce total costs. Data on the health impact and relative cost-effectiveness of strategies are needed to determine the best value for public health dollars.

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of deaths globally, with greatest premature mortality in the low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Many of these countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, have significant budget constraints. The need for current evidence on which interventions offer good value for money to stem this CVD epidemic motivates this study.MethodsIn this systematic review, we included studies reporting full economic evaluations of individual and population-based interventions (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic), for primary and secondary prevention of CVD among adults in LMIC. Several medical (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science) and economic (EconLit, NHS EED) databases and grey literature were searched. Screening of studies and data extraction was done independently by two reviewers. Drummond's checklist and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality rating scale were used in the quality appraisal for all studies used to inform this evidence synthesis.ResultsFrom a pool of 4059 records, 94 full texts were read and 50 studies, which met our inclusion criteria, were retained for our narrative synthesis. Most of the studies were from middle-income countries and predominantly of high quality. The majority were modelled evaluations, and there was significant heterogeneity in methods. Primary prevention studies dominated secondary prevention. Most of the economic evaluations were performed for pharmacological interventions focusing on blood pressure, cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet aggregants. The greatest majority were cost-effective. Compared to individual-based interventions, population-based interventions were few and mostly targeted reduction in sodium intake and tobacco control strategies. These were very cost-effective with many being cost-saving.ConclusionsThis evidence synthesis provides a contemporary update on interventions that offer good value for money in LMICs. Population-based interventions especially those targeting reduction in salt intake and tobacco control are very cost-effective in LMICs with potential to generate economic gains that can be reinvested to improve health and/or other sectors. While this evidence is relevant for policy across these regions, decision makers should additionally take into account other multi-sectoral perspectives, including considerations in budget impact, fairness, affordability and implementation while setting priorities for resource allocation.

Project description:BackgroundWhile there is good evidence to show that behavioural and lifestyle interventions can reduce cardiovascular disease risk factors in affluent settings, less evidence exists in lower income settings.This study systematically assesses the evidence on cost-effectiveness for preventive cardiovascular interventions in low and middle-income settings.MethodsDesignSystematic review of economic evaluations on interventions for prevention of cardiovascular disease.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Knowledge, Scopus and Embase, Opensigle, the Cochrane database, Business Source Complete, the NHS Economic Evaluations Database, reference lists and email contact with experts.Eligibility criteria for selecting studieswe included economic evaluations conducted in adults, reporting the effect of interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease in low and middle income countries as defined by the World Bank. The primary outcome was a change in cardiovascular disease occurrence including coronary heart disease, heart failure and stroke.Data extractionAfter selection of the studies, data were extracted by two independent investigators using a previously constructed tool and quality was evaluated using Drummond's quality assessment score.ResultsFrom 9731 search results we found 16 studies, which presented economic outcomes for interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease in low and middle income settings, with most of these reporting positive cost effectiveness results.When the same interventions were evaluated across settings, within and between papers, the likelihood of an intervention being judged cost effective was generally lower in regions with lowest gross national income. While population based interventions were in most cases more cost effective, cost effectiveness estimates for individual pharmacological interventions were overall based upon a stronger evidence base.ConclusionsWhile more studies of cardiovascular preventive interventions are needed in low and mid income settings, the available high-level of evidence supports a wide range of interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular disease as being cost effective across all world regions.

Dataset Information

Selection of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases in low and middle income countries.

Publications

Selection of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases in low and middle income countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets