Article

Availability, price and affordability of cardiovascular medicines: A comparison across 36 countries using WHO/HAI data

Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders (Impact Factor: 1.5). 06/2010; 10:25. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2261-10-25
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The global burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to rise. Successful treatment of CVD requires adequate pharmaceutical management. The aim was to examine the availability, pricing and affordability of cardiovascular medicines in developing countries using the standardized data collected according to the World Health Organization/Health Action International methodology.
The following medicines were included: atenolol, captopril, hydrochlorothiazide, losartan and nifedipine. Data from 36 countries were analyzed. Outcome measures were percentage availability, price ratios to international reference prices and number of day's wages needed by the lowest-paid unskilled government worker to purchase one month of chronic treatment. Patient prices were adjusted for inflation and purchasing power, procurement prices only for inflation. Data were analyzed for both generic and originator brand products and the public and private sector and summarized by World Bank Income Groups.
For all measures, there was great variability across surveys. The overall availability of cardiovascular medicines was poor (mean 26.3% in public sector, 57.3% private sector). Procurement prices were very competitive in some countries, whereas others consistently paid high prices. Patient prices were generally substantially higher than international references prices; some countries, however, performed well. Chronic treatment with anti-hypertensive medication cost more than one day's wages in many cases. In particular when monotherapy is insufficient, treatment became unaffordable.
The results of this study emphasize the need of focusing attention and financing on making chronic disease medicines accessible, in particular in the public sector. Several policy options are suggested to reach this goal.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Maaike Van Mourik, Jul 04, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
159 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), a large proportion of people with epilepsy do not receive treatment. An analysis of the availability, price, and affordability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was conducted to evaluate whether these factors contribute to the treatment gap. Data for five AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine, valproic acid, phenobarbital, and diazepam) were obtained from facility-based surveys conducted in 46 countries using the World Health Organization/Health Action International (WHO/HAI) methodology. Outcome measures were percentage availability, ratios of local prices to international reference prices, and number of days' wages needed by the lowest-paid unskilled government worker to purchase treatment. Prices were adjusted for inflation/deflation and purchasing power parity. The average availability of generic AEDs in the public sector was <50% for all medicines except diazepam injection. Private sector availability of generic oral AEDs ranged from 42.2% for phenytoin to 69.6% for phenobarbital. Public sector patient prices for generic carbamazepine and phenytoin were 4.95 and 17.50 times higher than international reference prices, respectively, whereas private sector patient prices were 11.27 and 24.77 times higher, respectively. For both medicines, originator brand prices were about 30 times higher. The highest prices were observed in the lowest income countries. The lowest-paid government worker would need wages from 1-2.6 days' to purchase a month's supply of phenytoin, whereas carbamazepine would cost 2.7-16.2 days' wages. Despite its widespread use in LMICs, WHO/HAI survey data for phenobarbital was only available from a small number of countries. In LMICs, availability and affordability of AEDs are poor and may be acting as a barrier to accessing treatment for epilepsy. Ensuring a consistent supply of AEDs at an affordable price should be a priority.
    Epilepsia 03/2012; 53(6):962-9. DOI:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2012.03446.x · 4.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate potential differences in the availability of medicines for chronic and acute conditions in low- and middle-income countries. Data on the availability of 30 commonly-surveyed medicines - 15 for acute and 15 for chronic conditions - were obtained from facility-based surveys conducted in 40 developing countries. Results were aggregated by World Bank country income group and World Health Organization region. The availability of medicines for both acute and chronic conditions was suboptimal across countries, particularly in the public sector. Generic medicines for chronic conditions were significantly less available than generic medicines for acute conditions in both the public sector (36.0% availability versus 53.5%; P = 0.001) and the private sector (54.7% versus 66.2%; P = 0.007). Antiasthmatics, antiepileptics and antidepressants, followed by antihypertensives, were the drivers of the observed differences. An inverse association was found between country income level and the availability gap between groups of medicines, particularly in the public sector. In low- and lower-middle income countries, drugs for acute conditions were 33.9% and 12.9% more available, respectively, in the public sector than medicines for chronic conditions. Differences in availability were smaller in the private sector than in the public sector in all country income groups. Current disease patterns do not explain the significant gaps observed in the availability of medicines for chronic and acute conditions. Measures are needed to better respond to the epidemiological transition towards chronic conditions in developing countries alongside current efforts to scale up treatment for communicable diseases.
    Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 06/2011; 89(6):412-21. DOI:10.2471/BLT.10.084327 · 5.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The concept of a polypill for cardiovascular disease prevention has attracted widespread attention since Wald and Law’s seminal paper in 2003. The authors estimated > 80% reduction in coronary heart disease and stroke deaths through mass application of a polypill in people aged 55 years and older. Although their proposition has been subject to criticisms and heated debate regarding side effects, efficacy, and appropriateness of the intervention, few have discussed the differential risks and benefits of a polypill for women and men and whether sex-specific polypill strategies should be developed. In this review, we discuss the benefits and drawbacks of sex-specific polypill strategies by evaluating the published literature regarding 1) sex differences in cardiovascular risk and risk reduction, 2) risks and benefits of a polypill in women compared to men, 3) anticipated hurdles to implementing a polypill strategy, 4) special considerations related to low- and middle-income country settings, and 5) potential sex-specific polypill strategies.
    Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports 06/2011; 5(3):280-286. DOI:10.1007/s12170-011-0161-9