Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 42753774

Global inequalities in cardiometabolic care and achievable cardiovascular risk reduction by wealth, region, and sex: a pooled analysis of individual participant data from 76 countries.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Wealth-related inequalities affect cardiometabolic health worldwide, but their implications for cardiometabolic care and potentially preventable cardiovascular disease remain poorly understood. We aimed to quantify wealth-related inequalities in the care cascade for hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolaemia by wealth quintile, region, and sex. METHODS: In this cross-sectional, individual-level analysis, we analysed harmonised, nationally representative health examination surveys conducted in five WHO regions. Adults aged 18 years or older with data on age, sex, wealth, and at least one cardiometabolic outcome were eligible. All variables in the surveys were obtained from standardised in-person examinations. We evaluated hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolaemia and applied a care cascade of disease awareness, treatment, and control for each condition uniformly across all surveys. Disease status was defined from measured biomarkers, self-reported diagnosis, or current medication; awareness and treatment were based on self-reported information, and control on measured biomarkers. Each indicator was expressed as the proportion of all individuals with the corresponding condition. Socioeconomic position was assessed using household wealth indices derived within each survey, and participants were ranked within each country and categorised into country-specific quintiles (quintile 1 to quintile 5), with quintile 1 including those with the least household wealth. Inequality was quantified by the quintile 5 minus quintile 1 difference, the slope index of inequality (SII), and relative index of inequality (RII). Predicted 10-year cardiovascular risk was estimated with the Globorisk equations, and trial-derived relative risk reductions were applied to estimate achievable absolute risk reduction. The ASANDE consortium is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07427355). FINDINGS: We analysed data from 109 surveys conducted in 76 countries between 2002 and 2024. 315 403 (65·9%) of 478 947 survey participants with available data were included in this analysis (median age 40 years [IQR 30-52], 185 209 [58·7%] women, and 130 194 [41·3%] men). Inequalities widened progressively across the care cascade in all regions and were most pronounced for disease control. Pooled across regions, the SII for control was 4·4% (95% CI 2·4-6·4) for hypertension (RII 1·1, 1·1-1·2), 4·8% (0·6-9·0) for diabetes (RII 1·1, 1·0-1·2), and 6·5% (3·8-9·2) for hypercholesterolaemia (RII 1·1, 1·0-1·1). However, regional patterns varied substantially. In the region of the Americas, disease control consistently favoured wealthier individuals (SII 9·2% for hypertension, 4·8-13·5; RII 1·2, 1·1-1·3). In the African region, coverage was uniformly low, and the largest absolute inequality favoured individuals with the least wealth, particularly for hypercholesterolaemia treatment (SII -37·6%, -49·7 to -25·5; RII 0·6, 0·5 to 0·7). Baseline cardiovascular risk was higher in individuals with the least wealth than among the wealthiest (13·6% vs 12·2%), but achievable absolute risk reduction was correlated with baseline risk rather than with treatment coverage: achievable reduction was greatest in the European Region (3·9%) and lowest in the Africa region (2·5%). Across all regions, achievable absolute risk reduction was greater in men than in women (4·6% vs 3·5% in the European region). INTERPRETATION: The populations with the largest treatment gaps are not necessarily those that could achieve the greatest absolute reduction in cardiovascular risk through treating individuals who are currently untreated. In settings where coverage is uniformly low, expanding the supply of care matters more than redistributing access to it. Moreover, because socioeconomic inequalities widen after diagnosis, screening alone is unlikely to reduce disparities unless accompanied by sustained access to treatment. Policy should prioritise overall population health over maximise equity within the population. FUNDING: None.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bamba Gaye, Gurbinder Singh, Elisabeth L P Sattler, Moustafa I Morsy, Ahmed Abdelnoor, Liliana Aguayo, Jennifer Carter, Robert J Clarke, Sokhna Dieng, Hassim Bachir Diop, Anastase Dzudie, Johann Edjimbi, Tiffany L Gary-Webb, Ngone Diaba Gaye, Bartlomiej Guzik, Tomasz J Guzik, Mohamed B Jalloh, Mame Madjiguene Ka, Hubert Lam, Camille Lassale, Sarah Lewington, Eloi Marijon, Kevin Marsh, Ntobeko A B Ntusi, Christian Diomu Okitondo, Isaac Sekitoleko, Papa Salif Sow, Gabriel S Tajeu, Modou Jobe, Thiess Lorenz, Pasquale Maffia, Ibrahima Socé Fall, ASANDE Consortium collaborators. 2026-09-17. Global inequalities in cardiometabolic care and achievable cardiovascular risk reduction by wealth, region, and sex: a pooled analysis of individual participant data from 76 countries.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langlo.2026.104082

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article