METHODS: In the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiological study (PURE), individuals aged 35-70 years from urban and rural communities in 27 countries were considered for inclusion. We recorded information on participants' sociodemographic characteristics, risk factors, medication use, cardiac investigations, and interventions. 168 490 participants who enrolled in the first two of the three phases of PURE were followed up prospectively for incident cardiovascular disease and death.
FINDINGS: From Jan 6, 2005 to May 6, 2019, 202 072 individuals were recruited to the study. The mean age of women included in the study was 50·8 (SD 9·9) years compared with 51·7 (10) years for men. Participants were followed up for a median of 9·5 (IQR 8·5-10·9) years. Women had a lower cardiovascular disease risk factor burden using two different risk scores (INTERHEART and Framingham). Primary prevention strategies, such as adoption of several healthy lifestyle behaviours and use of proven medicines, were more frequent in women than men. Incidence of cardiovascular disease (4·1 [95% CI 4·0-4·2] for women vs 6·4 [6·2-6·6] for men per 1000 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·72-0·79]) and all-cause death (4·5 [95% CI 4·4-4·7] for women vs 7·4 [7·2-7·7] for men per 1000 person-years; aHR 0·62 [95% CI 0·60-0·65]) were also lower in women. By contrast, secondary prevention treatments, cardiac investigations, and coronary revascularisation were less frequent in women than men with coronary artery disease in all groups of countries. Despite this, women had lower risk of recurrent cardiovascular disease events (20·0 [95% CI 18·2-21·7] versus 27·7 [95% CI 25·6-29·8] per 1000 person-years in men, adjusted hazard ratio 0·73 [95% CI 0·64-0·83]) and women had lower 30-day mortality after a new cardiovascular disease event compared with men (22% in women versus 28% in men; p<0·0001). Differences between women and men in treatments and outcomes were more marked in LMICs with little differences in HICs in those with or without previous cardiovascular disease.
INTERPRETATION: Treatments for cardiovascular disease are more common in women than men in primary prevention, but the reverse is seen in secondary prevention. However, consistently better outcomes are observed in women than in men, both in those with and without previous cardiovascular disease. Improving cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment, especially in LMICs, should be vigorously pursued in both women and men.
FUNDING: Full funding sources are listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments).
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.
FUNDING: Funding for this study was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the International Development Research Centre.
METHODS: Using data from the PURE Study, we estimated risk of catastrophic health spending and impoverishment among households with at least one person with NCDs (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer and respiratory diseases; n=17 435), with hypertension only (a leading risk factor for NCDs; n=11 831) or with neither (n=22 654) by country income group: high-income countries (Canada and Sweden), upper middle income countries (UMICs: Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Poland, South Africa and Turkey), lower middle income countries (LMICs: the Philippines, Colombia, India, Iran and the Occupied Palestinian Territory) and low-income countries (LICs: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Tanzania) and China.
RESULTS: The prevalence of catastrophic spending and impoverishment is highest among households with NCDs in LMICs and China. After adjusting for covariates that might drive health expenditure, the absolute risk of catastrophic spending is higher in households with NCDs compared with no NCDs in LMICs (risk difference=1.71%; 95% CI 0.75 to 2.67), UMICs (0.82%; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27) and China (7.52%; 95% CI 5.88 to 9.16). A similar pattern is observed in UMICs and China for impoverishment. A high proportion of those with NCDs in LICs, especially women (38.7% compared with 12.6% in men), reported not taking medication due to costs.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that financial protection from healthcare costs for people with NCDs is inadequate, particularly in LMICs and China. While the burden of NCD care may appear greatest in LMICs and China, the burden in LICs may be masked by care foregone due to costs. The high proportion of women reporting foregone care due to cost may in part explain gender inequality in treatment of NCDs.