Background Access to medicines is important for long‐term care of cardiovascular diseases and hypertension. This study provides a cross‐country assessment of availability, prices, and affordability of cardiovascular disease and hypertension medicines to identify areas for improvement in access to medication treatment. Methods and Results We used the World Health Organization online repository of national essential medicines lists ( EML s) for 53 countries to transcribe the information on the inclusion of 12 cardiovascular disease/hypertension medications within each country's essential medicines list. Data on availability, price, and affordability were obtained from 84 surveys in 59 countries that used the World Health Organization's Health Action International survey methodology. We summarized and compared the indicators across lowest‐price generic and originator brand medicines in the public and private sectors and by country income groups. The average availability of the select medications was 54% in low‐ and lower‐middle‐income countries and 60% in high‐ and upper‐middle‐income countries, and was higher for generic (61%) than brand medicines (41%). The average patient median price ratio was 80.3 for brand and 16.7 for generic medicines and was higher for patients in low‐ and lower‐middle‐income countries compared with high‐ and upper‐middle‐income countries across all medicine categories. The costs of 1 month's antihypertensive medications were, on average, 6.0 days’ wage for brand medicine and 1.8 days’ wage for generics. Affordability was lower in low‐ and lower‐middle‐income countries than high‐ and upper‐middle‐income countries for both brand and generic medications. Conclusions The availability and accessibility of pharmaceuticals is an ongoing challenge for health systems. Low availability and high costs are major barriers to the use of and adherence to essential cardiovascular disease and antihypertensive medications worldwide, particularly in low‐ and lower‐middle‐income countries.

ObjectiveTo estimate the direct healthcare cost of being overweight or obese throughout pregnancy to the National Health Service in Wales.DesignRetrospective prevalence-based study.SettingCombined linked anonymised electronic datasets gathered on a cohort of women enrolled on the Growing Up in Wales: Environments for Healthy Living (EHL) study. Women were categorised into two groups: normal body mass index (BMI; n=260) and overweight/obese (BMI>25; n=224).Participants484 singleton pregnancies with available health service records and an antenatal BMI.Primary outcome measureTotal health service utilisation (comprising all general practitioner visits and prescribed medications, inpatient admissions and outpatient visits) and direct healthcare costs for providing these services in the year 2011–2012. Costs are calculated as cost of mother (no infant costs are included) and are related to health service usage throughout pregnancy and 2 months following delivery.ResultsThere was a strong association between healthcare usage cost and BMI (p<0.001). Adjusting for maternal age, parity, ethnicity and comorbidity, mean total costs were 23% higher among overweight women (rate ratios (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 1.230 to 1.233) and 37% higher among obese women (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.39) compared with women with normal weight. Adjusting for smoking, consumption of alcohol, or the presence of any comorbidities did not materially affect the results. The total mean cost estimates were £3546.3 for normal weight, £4244.4 for overweight and £4717.64 for obese women.ConclusionsIncreased health service usage and healthcare costs during pregnancy are associated with increasing maternal BMI; this was apparent across all health services considered within this study. Interventions costing less than £1171.34 per person could be cost-effective if they reduce healthcare usage among obese pregnant women to levels equivalent to that of normal weight women.

BackgroundToday, health care is patient-centred with patients more involved in medical decision making and taking an active role in managing their disease. It is important that patients are appropriately informed about their condition and that their health care needs are met. We examine the information utilisation, sources and needs of people with Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS).MethodsParticipants in an existing AS cohort study were asked to complete a postal or online questionnaire containing closed and open-ended questions, regarding their information access and needs. Participants were stratified by age and descriptive statistics were performed using STATA 11, while thematic analysis was performed on open-ended question narratives. Qualitative data was handled in Microsoft Access and explored for emerging themes and patterns of experiences.ResultsDespite 73% of respondents having internet access, only 49% used the internet to access information regarding AS. Even then, this was only infrequently. Only 50% of respondents reported accessing written information about AS, which was obtained mainly in specialist clinics. Women were more likely than men to access information (63% (women) 46% (men)) regardless of the source, while younger patients were more likely to use online sources. The main source of non-written information was the rheumatologist. Overall, the respondents felt there was sufficient information available, but there was a perception that the tone was often too negative. The majority (95%) of people would like to receive a regular newsletter about AS, containing positive practical and local information. Suggestions were also made for more information about AS to be made available to non-specialist medical professionals and the general public.ConclusionsThere appears to be sufficient information available for people with AS in the UK and this is mostly accessed by younger AS patients. Many patients, particularly men, choose not to access AS information and concerns were raised about its negative tone. Patients still rely on written and verbal information from their specialists. Future initiatives should focus on the delivery of more positive information, targeting younger participants in particular and increasing the awareness in the general population and wider non-specialist medical community.

BackgroundWe revisited the association between progress in MPOWER implementation from 2008 to 2016 and smoking prevalence from 2009 to 2017 and offered an in-depth understanding of differential outcomes for various country groups.MethodsWe used data from six rounds of the WHO Reports on the Global Tobacco Epidemic and calculated a composite MPOWER Score for each country in each period. We categorised the countries in four initial conditions based on their tobacco control preparedness measured by MPOWER score in 2008 and smoking burden measured by age-adjusted adult daily smoking prevalence in 2006: (1) High MPOWER – high prevalence (HM-HP). (2) High MPOWER – low prevalence (HM-LP). (3) Low MPOWER – high prevalence (LM-HP). (4) Low MPOWER – low prevalence (LM-LP). We estimated the association of age-adjusted adult daily smoking prevalence with MPOWER Score and cigarette tax rates using two-way fixed-effects panel regression models including both year and country fixed effects.ResultsA unit increase of the MPOWER Score was associated with 0.39 and 0.50 percentage points decrease in adult daily smoking prevalence for HM-HP and HM-LP countries, respectively. When tax rate was controlled for separately from MPOWE, an increase in tax rate showed a negative association with daily smoking prevalence for HM-HP and LM-LP countries, while the MPOWE Score showed a negative association for all initial condition country groups except for LM-LP countries.ConclusionA decade after the introduction of the WHO MPOWER package, we observed that the countries with higher initial tobacco control preparedness and higher smoking burden were able to reduce the adult daily smoking prevalence significantly.