PubMed · 42676986
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
2026-09-01. Public health round-up.. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.26.010926
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in Australia and New Zealand. Publicly subsidised access to new cardiovascular medications is governed by the PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) in Australia and PHARMAC (Pharmaceutical Management Agency) in New Zealand, yet no consolidated resource catalogues recent listings across both jurisdictions. METHODS: We reviewed all new cardiovascular drug listings and indications on the PBS and PHARMAC schedules from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2025. PBS data were obtained from the PBS Pricing and Policy Branch through the Cardiac Society for Australia and New Zealand. PHARMAC data were obtained via direct communication with PHARMAC and cross-referenced with public schedule information. Pivotal trial evidence, restriction criteria, and prescribing considerations were extracted from published literature and regulatory documents. RESULTS: Five new cardiovascular drugs were PBS-listed (inclisiran, mavacamten, tafamidis, icosapent ethyl and migalastat), two existing drugs received new cardiovascular indications (empagliflozin and dapagliflozin for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction) and prasugrel was relisted for acute coronary syndrome. One major change occurred on the PHARMAC schedule (empagliflozin for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction). CONCLUSIONS: The 2023-2025 period has seen notable additions to cardiovascular pharmacotherapy in Australia, including the first cardiac myosin inhibitor, the first transthyretin stabiliser, expanded lipid lowering therapy options, and extension of SGLT2 inhibitor coverage across the heart failure ejection fraction spectrum. A pronounced access disparity persists between Australia and New Zealand.
OBJECTIVE: Media portrayals of people with mental illness have the power to mitigate or perpetuate stigma related to mental health. This study aimed to investigate reported real-world exposure to news media portrayals about people with mental health problems in the past 12 months and the impact of these. METHODS: Data were from a nationally representative survey of 6032 Australians exploring attitudes towards people with mental health problems. Participants were asked about their exposure to positive news stories about a person with a mental health problem, as well as negative portrayals, in which someone was harmed by a person with a mental health problem. Further questions covered the sources (traditional or social media) and impact of these exposures. RESULTS: Regression models were used to explore sociodemographic predictors of impact. Most participants reported exposure to negative news portrayals (68.4%, 95% confidence interval = [66.9, 69.8]), while fewer reported exposure to positive news stories (33.7%, 95% confidence interval = [32.3, 35.2]). Most people exposed to the negative news stories reported a negative impact (69.0%, 95% confidence interval = [67.2, 70.7]), and most exposed to positive news stories reported a positive impact (80.2%, 95% confidence interval = [77.6, 82.5]). Age and gender were associated with reported impact but not lived experience of mental illness. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to negative news stories about mental health problems was prevalent. Given their impact on news audiences broadly, negative news stories need to be accurate and responsible to mitigate negative impacts. A renewed focus on generating and promoting positive and stigma-challenging news stories is needed to increase subsequent positive impacts.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.