DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: PURE study in 21 countries.
PARTICIPANTS: 148 858 participants with median follow-up of 9.5 years.
EXPOSURES: Country specific validated food frequency questionnaires were used to assess intakes of refined grains, whole grains, and white rice.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Composite of mortality or major cardiovascular events (defined as death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure). Hazard ratios were estimated for associations of grain intakes with mortality, major cardiovascular events, and their composite by using multivariable Cox frailty models with random intercepts to account for clustering by centre.
RESULTS: Analyses were based on 137 130 participants after exclusion of those with baseline cardiovascular disease. During follow-up, 9.2% (n=12 668) of these participants had a composite outcome event. The highest category of intake of refined grains (≥350 g/day or about 7 servings/day) was associated with higher risk of total mortality (hazard ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.46; P for trend=0.004), major cardiovascular disease events (1.33, 1.16 to 1.52; P for trend<0.001), and their composite (1.28, 1.15 to 1.42; P for trend<0.001) compared with the lowest category of intake (<50 g/day). Higher intakes of refined grains were associated with higher systolic blood pressure. No significant associations were found between intakes of whole grains or white rice and health outcomes.
CONCLUSION: High intake of refined grains was associated with higher risk of mortality and major cardiovascular disease events. Globally, lower consumption of refined grains should be considered.
METHODS: In the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, participants aged 35-70 years (n=156 625) were recruited from 110 803 households, in 604 communities and 22 countries; availability (presence of any dose of medication in the pharmacy on the day of audit) and medicine cost data were collected from pharmacies with the Environmental Profile of a Community's Health audit tool. Our primary analysis was to describe the availability and affordability of metformin and insulin and also commonly used and prescribed combinations of two medicines for diabetes management (two oral drugs, metformin plus a sulphonylurea [either glibenclamide (also known as glyburide) or gliclazide] and one oral drug plus insulin [metformin plus insulin]). Medicines were defined as affordable if the cost of medicines was less than 20% of capacity-to-pay (the household income minus food expenditure). Our analyses included data collected in pharmacies and data from representative samples of households. Data on availability were ascertained during the pharmacy audit, as were data on cost of medications. These cost data were used to estimate the cost of a month's supply of essential medicines for diabetes. We estimated affordability of medicines using income data from household surveys.
FINDINGS: Metformin was available in 113 (100%) of 113 pharmacies from high-income countries, 112 (88·2%) of 127 pharmacies in upper-middle-income countries, 179 (86·1%) of 208 pharmacies in lower-middle-income countries, 44 (64·7%) of 68 pharmacies in low-income countries (excluding India), and 88 (100%) of 88 pharmacies in India. Insulin was available in 106 (93·8%) pharmacies in high-income countries, 51 (40·2%) pharmacies in upper-middle-income countries, 61 (29·3%) pharmacies in lower-middle-income countries, seven (10·3%) pharmacies in lower-income countries, and 67 (76·1%) of 88 pharmacies in India. We estimated 0·7% of households in high-income countries and 26·9% of households in low-income countries could not afford metformin and 2·8% of households in high-income countries and 63·0% of households in low-income countries could not afford insulin. Among the 13 569 (8·6% of PURE participants) that reported a diagnosis of diabetes, 1222 (74·0%) participants reported diabetes medicine use in high-income countries compared with 143 (29·6%) participants in low-income countries. In multilevel models, availability and affordability were significantly associated with use of diabetes medicines.
INTERPRETATION: Availability and affordability of essential diabetes medicines are poor in low-income and middle-income countries. Awareness of these global differences might importantly drive change in access for patients with diabetes.
FUNDING: Full funding sources listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments).
Methods: Cross-sectional data from 21 countries in the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology study were collected covering 61 229 hypertensive individuals aged 35-70 years, their households and the 656 communities in which they live. Outcomes include whether hypertensive participants have their condition detected, treated and/or controlled. Multivariate statistical models adjusting for community fixed effects were used to assess the associations of three social capital measures: (1) membership of any social organisation, (2) trust in other people and (3) trust in organisations, stratified into high-income and low-income country samples.
Results: In low-income countries, membership of any social organisation was associated with a 3% greater likelihood of having one's hypertension detected and controlled, while greater trust in organisations significantly increased the likelihood of detection by 4%. These associations were not observed among participants in high-income countries.
Conclusion: Although the observed associations are modest, some aspects of social capital are associated with better management of hypertension in low-income countries where health systems are often weak. Given that hypertension affects millions in these countries, even modest gains at all points along the treatment pathway could improve management for many, and translate into the prevention of thousands of cardiovascular events each year.