MATERIALS AND METHODS: The communities were selected from rural and urban populations in four peninsular states (Selangor, Kelantan, Perak, and Johor). Following a multistage sampling approach, communities in each stratum were selected according to probability proportional to the size and identified based on national census data by the community and administrative registers. Households were randomly selected. Eligible individuals were those aged between 35 and 70 years old, self-reported or identified as hypertensive at screening. Informed consent was taken. A survey using validated questionnaires was conducted.

RESULTS: The total number of respondents was 579. The mean age was 59.0 (95%: 58.4, 59.7) and more were women (71.5%) than men (28.5%). Regarding respondents selfreported level of hypertension knowledge, 2.9% reported having no knowledge at all, 80.1% had little knowledge, and 17.9% were very familiar. Among all respondents, 56.2% (95% CI: 50.7, 61.6) correctly answered at least four out of five objective knowledge questions.Almost all (91.5%) were aware that hypertension could cause a stroke. However, one-fifth believed it could cause cancer. Almost threequarters said that people with high blood pressure generally felt well (72.1%) and recognized that they should not stop taking their medication (70.7%). Most of the respondents knew that people should take their medication even if they feel well (73.6%). Although more than half (66.0%) of the respondents rated their health as poor. Interestingly, most did not perceive themselves as having a long-term illness (95.0%).

METHODS: HOPE 4 was an open, community-based, cluster-randomised controlled trial involving 1371 individuals with new or poorly controlled hypertension from 30 communities (defined as townships) in Colombia and Malaysia. 16 communities were randomly assigned to control (usual care, n=727), and 14 (n=644) to the intervention. After community screening, the intervention included treatment of cardiovascular disease risk factors by NPHWs using tablet computer-based simplified management algorithms and counselling programmes; free antihypertensive and statin medications recommended by NPHWs but supervised by physicians; and support from a family member or friend (treatment supporter) to improve adherence to medications and healthy behaviours. The primary outcome was the change in Framingham Risk Score 10-year cardiovascular disease risk estimate at 12 months between intervention and control participants. The HOPE 4 trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01826019.

FINDINGS: All communities completed 12-month follow-up (data on 97% of living participants, n=1299). The reduction in Framingham Risk Score for 10-year cardiovascular disease risk was -6·40% (95% CI 8·00 to -4·80) in the control group and -11·17% (-12·88 to -9·47) in the intervention group, with a difference of change of -4·78% (95% CI -7·11 to -2·44, p<0·0001). There was an absolute 11·45 mm Hg (95% CI -14·94 to -7·97) greater reduction in systolic blood pressure, and a 0·41 mmol/L (95% CI -0·60 to -0·23) reduction in LDL with the intervention group (both p<0·0001). Change in blood pressure control status (<140 mm Hg) was 69% in the intervention group versus 30% in the control group (p<0·0001). There were no safety concerns with the intervention.

INTERPRETATION: A comprehensive model of care led by NPHWs, involving primary care physicians and family that was informed by local context, substantially improved blood pressure control and cardiovascular disease risk. This strategy is effective, pragmatic, and has the potential to substantially reduce cardiovascular disease compared with current strategies that are typically physician based.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to evaluate whether a community-based, multifaceted intervention package primarily provided by nonphysician health workers can improve long-term cardiovascular risk in people with hypertension by addressing identified barriers at the patient, health care provider, and health system levels.

METHODS/DESIGN: HOPE-4 is a community-based, parallel-group, cluster randomized controlled trial involving 30 communities (1,376 participants) in Colombia and Malaysia. Participants ≥50 years old and with newly diagnosed or poorly controlled hypertension were included. Communities were randomized to usual care or to a multifaceted intervention package that entails (1) detection, treatment, and control of cardiovascular risk factors by nonphysician health workers in the community, who use tablet-based simplified management algorithms, decision support, and counseling programs; (2) free dispensation of combination antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering medications, supervised by local physicians; and (3) support from a participant-nominated treatment supporter (either a friend or family member). The primary outcome is the change in Framingham Risk Score after 12 months between the intervention and control communities. Secondary outcomes including change in blood pressure, lipid levels, and Interheart Risk Score will be evaluated.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study, set in Malaysia and the Philippines, builds on two systematic reviews of barriers to effective hypertension management. People with hypertension (pre-existing and newly diagnosed) will be identified in poor households in 24-30 communities per country. Quantitative and qualitative methods will be used to examine their experiences of and pathways into seeking and obtaining care. These include two waves of household surveys of 20-25 participants per community 12-18 months apart, microcosting exercises to assess the cost of illness (including costs due to health seeking activities and inability to work (5 per community)), preliminary and follow-up in-depth interviews and digital diaries with hypertensive adults over the course of a year (40 per country, employing an innovative mobile phone technology), focus group discussions with study participants and structured assessments of health facilities (including formal and informal providers).

METHODS: Between 2009 and 2012, a kilometre-long walk was completed by trained investigators in 462 communities across 16 countries to collect data on tobacco marketing. We interviewed community members about their exposure to traditional and non-traditional marketing in the previous six months. To examine differences in marketing between urban and rural communities and between high-, middle- and low-income countries, we used multilevel regression models controlling for potential confounders.

FINDINGS: Compared with high-income countries, the number of tobacco advertisements observed was 81 times higher in low-income countries (incidence rate ratio, IRR: 80.98; 95% confidence interval, CI: 4.15-1578.42) and the number of tobacco outlets was 2.5 times higher in both low- and lower-middle-income countries (IRR: 2.58; 95% CI: 1.17-5.67 and IRR: 2.52; CI: 1.23-5.17, respectively). Of the 11,842 interviewees, 1184 (10%) reported seeing at least five types of tobacco marketing. Self-reported exposure to at least one type of traditional marketing was 10 times higher in low-income countries than in high-income countries (odds ratio, OR: 9.77; 95% CI: 1.24-76.77). For almost all measures, marketing exposure was significantly lower in the rural communities than in the urban communities.

METHODS: We defined high CVD risk as the presence of any of the following: hypertension, coronary artery disease, stroke, smoker, diabetes or age >55 years. Availability and affordability of blood pressure lowering drugs, antiplatelets and statins were obtained from pharmacies. Participants were categorised: group 1-all three drug types were available and affordable, group 2-all three drugs were available but not affordable and group 3-all three drugs were not available. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with nested clustering at country and community levels, adjusting for comorbidities, sociodemographic and economic factors.

RESULTS: Of 163 466 participants, there were 93 200 with high CVD risk from 21 countries (mean age 54.7, 49% female). Of these, 44.9% were from group 1, 29.4% from group 2 and 25.7% from group 3. Compared with participants from group 1, the risk of MACEs was higher among participants in group 2 (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31), and among participants from group 3 (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.50).

DESIGN: Population-based prospective observational study.

SETTING: Urban and rural communities in 20 high income, middle income and low income.

PARTICIPANTS: 119 894 community-dwelling middle-aged adults.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Associations of social isolation with mortality, cardiovascular death, non-cardiovascular death and incident diseases.

RESULTS: Social isolation was more common in middle-income and high-income countries compared with low-income countries, in urban areas than rural areas, in older individuals and among women, those with less education and the unemployed. It was more frequent among smokers and those with a poorer diet. Social isolation was associated with greater risk of mortality (HR of 1.26, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.36), incident stroke (HR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.40), cardiovascular disease (HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.25) and pneumonia (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.37), but not cancer. The associations between social isolation and mortality were observed in populations in high-income, middle-income and low-income countries (HR (95% CI): 1.69 (1.32 to 2.17), 1.27 (1.15 to 1.40) and 1.47 (1.25 to 1.73), respectively, interaction p=0.02). The HR associated with social isolation was greater in men than women and in younger than older individuals. Mediation analyses for the association between social isolation and mortality showed that unhealthy behaviours and comorbidities may account for about one-fifth of the association.

SETTING: 545 communities from 17 high-income, upper-middle, low-middle and low-income countries (HIC, UMIC, LMIC, LIC) involved in the Environmental Profile of a Community's Health (EPOCH) study from 2009 to 2014.

PARTICIPANTS: Community audits and surveys of adults (35-70 years, n=12 953).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Summary scores of tobacco policy implementation (cost and availability of cigarettes, tobacco advertising, antismoking signage), social unacceptability and knowledge were associated with quit ratios (former vs ever smokers) using multilevel logistic regression models.

RESULTS: Average tobacco control policy score was greater in communities from HIC. Overall 56.1% (306/545) of communities had >2 outlets selling cigarettes and in 28.6% (154/539) there was access to cheap cigarettes (<5cents/cigarette) (3.2% (3/93) in HIC, 0% UMIC, 52.6% (90/171) LMIC and 40.4% (61/151) in LIC). Effective bans (no tobacco advertisements) were in 63.0% (341/541) of communities (81.7% HIC, 52.8% UMIC, 65.1% LMIC and 57.6% LIC). In 70.4% (379/538) of communities, >80% of participants disapproved youth smoking (95.7% HIC, 57.6% UMIC, 76.3% LMIC and 58.9% LIC). The average knowledge score was >80% in 48.4% of communities (94.6% HIC, 53.6% UMIC, 31.8% LMIC and 35.1% LIC). Summary scores of policy implementation, social unacceptability and knowledge were positively and significantly associated with quit ratio and the associations varied by gender, for example, communities in the highest quintile of the combined scores had 5.0 times the quit ratio in men (Odds ratio (OR) 5·0, 95% CI 3.4 to 7.4) and 4.1 times the quit ratio in women (OR 4.1, 95% CI 2.4 to 7.1).

Objective: To identify any associations between depressive symptoms and incident CVD and all-cause mortality in countries at different levels of economic development and in urban and rural areas.

Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, population-based cohort study was conducted between January 2005 and June 2019 (median follow-up, 9.3 years) and included 370 urban and 314 rural communities from 21 economically diverse countries on 5 continents. Eligible participants aged 35 to 70 years were enrolled. Analysis began February 2018 and ended September 2019.

Exposures: Four or more self-reported depressive symptoms from the Short-Form Composite International Diagnostic Interview.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident CVD, all-cause mortality, and a combined measure of either incident CVD or all-cause mortality.

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.

METHODS: Between August 2020 and September 2021, we surveyed 24,506 community-dwelling participants from the Prospective Urban-Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study across high (HIC), upper middle (UMIC)-and lower middle (LMIC)-income countries. We collected information regarding the impact of the pandemic on their self-reported personal finances and sources of income.

FINDINGS: Overall, 32.4% of participants had suffered an adverse financial impact, defined as job loss, inability to meet financial obligations or essential needs, or using savings to meet financial obligations. 8.4% of participants had lost a job (temporarily or permanently); 14.6% of participants were unable to meet financial obligations or essential needs at the time of the survey and 16.3% were using their savings to meet financial obligations. Participants with a post-secondary education were least likely to be adversely impacted (19.6%), compared with 33.4% of those with secondary education and 33.5% of those with pre-secondary education. Similarly, those in the highest wealth tertile were least likely to be financially impacted (26.7%), compared with 32.5% in the middle tertile and 30.4% in the bottom tertile participants. Compared with HICs, financial impact was greater in UMIC [odds ratio of 2.09 (1.88-2.33)] and greatest in LMIC [odds ratio of 16.88 (14.69-19.39)]. HIC participants with the lowest educational attainment suffered less financial impact (15.1% of participants affected) than those with the highest education in UMIC (22.0% of participants affected). Similarly, participants with the lowest education in UMIC experienced less financial impact (28.3%) than those with the highest education in LMIC (45.9%). A similar gradient was seen across country income categories when compared by pre-pandemic wealth status.

INTERPRETATION: The financial impact of the pandemic differs more between HIC, UMIC, and LMIC than between socio-economic categories within a country income level. The most disadvantaged socio-economic subgroups in HIC had a lower financial impact from the pandemic than the most advantaged subgroup in UMIC, with a similar disparity seen between UMIC and LMIC. Continued high levels of infection will exacerbate financial inequity between countries and hinder progress towards the sustainable development goals, emphasising the importance of effective measures to control COVID-19 and, especially, ensuring high vaccine coverage in all countries.

METHODS: In this multinational, prospective cohort study, we examined associations for 14 potentially modifiable risk factors with mortality and cardiovascular disease in 155 722 participants without a prior history of cardiovascular disease from 21 high-income, middle-income, or low-income countries (HICs, MICs, or LICs). The primary outcomes for this paper were composites of cardiovascular disease events (defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) and mortality. We describe the prevalence, hazard ratios (HRs), and population-attributable fractions (PAFs) for cardiovascular disease and mortality associated with a cluster of behavioural factors (ie, tobacco use, alcohol, diet, physical activity, and sodium intake), metabolic factors (ie, lipids, blood pressure, diabetes, obesity), socioeconomic and psychosocial factors (ie, education, symptoms of depression), grip strength, and household and ambient pollution. Associations between risk factors and the outcomes were established using multivariable Cox frailty models and using PAFs for the entire cohort, and also by countries grouped by income level. Associations are presented as HRs and PAFs with 95% CIs.

FINDINGS: Between Jan 6, 2005, and Dec 4, 2016, 155 722 participants were enrolled and followed up for measurement of risk factors. 17 249 (11·1%) participants were from HICs, 102 680 (65·9%) were from MICs, and 35 793 (23·0%) from LICs. Approximately 70% of cardiovascular disease cases and deaths in the overall study population were attributed to modifiable risk factors. Metabolic factors were the predominant risk factors for cardiovascular disease (41·2% of the PAF), with hypertension being the largest (22·3% of the PAF). As a cluster, behavioural risk factors contributed most to deaths (26·3% of the PAF), although the single largest risk factor was a low education level (12·5% of the PAF). Ambient air pollution was associated with 13·9% of the PAF for cardiovascular disease, although different statistical methods were used for this analysis. In MICs and LICs, household air pollution, poor diet, low education, and low grip strength had stronger effects on cardiovascular disease or mortality than in HICs.

INTERPRETATION: Most cardiovascular disease cases and deaths can be attributed to a small number of common, modifiable risk factors. While some factors have extensive global effects (eg, hypertension and education), others (eg, household air pollution and poor diet) vary by a country's economic level. Health policies should focus on risk factors that have the greatest effects on averting cardiovascular disease and death globally, with additional emphasis on risk factors of greatest importance in specific groups of countries.

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.