Generic drugs: Review and experiences from South India


Abstract

The cost of pharmaceuticals, as a percentage of total healthcare spending, has been rising worldwide. This has resulted in strained national budgets and a high proportion of people without access to essential medications. Though India has become a global hub of generic drug manufacturing, the expected benefits of cheaper drugs are not translating into savings for ordinary people. This is in part due to the rise of branded generics, which are marketed at a price point close to the innovator brands. Unbranded generic medicines are not finding their way into prescriptions due to issues of confidence and perception, though they are proven to be much cheaper and comparable in efficacy to branded medicines. The drug inventory of unbranded generic manufacturers fares reasonably when reviewed using the World Health Organization-Health Action International (WHO-HAI) tool for analysing drug availability. Also, unbranded generic medicines are much cheaper when compared to the most selling brands and they can bring down the treatment costs in primary care and family practice. We share our experience in running a community pharmacy for an urban health center in the Pathanamthitta district of Kerala State, which is run solely on generic medicines. The drug availability at the community pharmacy was 73.3% when analyzed using WHO-HAI tool and the savings for the final consumers were up to 93.1%, when compared with most-selling brand of the same formulation.

Keywords: Drug availability, drug industry/legislation and jurisprudence, drugs, economic competition, essential medicines, generic*, generic medicines, global health, India, patents as topic/legislation and jurisprudence*, poverty, unbranded generics

Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that almost 30% of the world population lacks access to essential medicines and that the figure will rise to more than 50% in some countries of Africa and Asia.[1] The cost of the pharmaceuticals is the main factor that hampers access to medicines and the governments in poor countries seem to be doing very little to counter this problem. The public sector availability of essential medicines was less than 50% in most of the countries of Africa and Asia.[2] This is appalling in the face of increases in healthcare expenditure in most of the developing nations, mostly financed through secured loans by international development banks and consortia.

The situation in India is not very different than that of other developing nations. Healthcare expenditures have been growing in India, both in real terms and also when considered as a proportion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).[3] However, even with this recent increase in healthcare spending, India’s expenditure on health is nowhere near that of OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) nations.[4] The total public spending on healthcare in India accounted for only around 1.2% of GDP in 2012, with the per-capita spending on health around USD 160. This is a miniscule amount when compared against the OECD per-capita healthcare spending of USD 3,484 in 2012.[3,4] This shows that the healthcare spending in the country is set to rise further in the coming years and the healthcare industry is all set for a boom time.

The cost of medicines and pharmaceuticals as a percentage of total healthcare spending has also been rising worldwide.[5] It is the fastest-growing item in the healthcare budgets worldwide and it varies between 20-60% in various healthcare budgets of countries.[6] By 2020, the prescription drug market in United States of America is set to grow to USD 700 billion (B) and China will be USD 260 B.[5] Though no credible predictions about the Indian pharmaceutical industry are available, it is quite safe to assume that Indian pharmaceutical industry will also grow manifold. The growth of the pharmaceutical market worldwide and its increased share in total healthcare spending will reignite the age-old debate on how to balance the cost of innovation in drug research and universal access to the fruits of that research.[7]

Rise of Generics

The role of generic medicines in reducing the healthcare expenditure has been recognised for a long time. Multiple studies have proven that saving through substitution of originator brands by cheaper generic medicines, savings in the range of 10-90% can be achieved.[8] Most national governments have been encouraging the use of generic medicines worldwide and many healthcare systems have policies of substituting expensive branded original medications with generic medicines.[9] In the United States, generic substitution (GS) is an accepted practice and at the end of 2012, almost 80% of all the prescriptions were of generic medications. This has resulted in a substantial moderation of expenditure growth in widely used drugs and significant savings to the economy.[6] In the United Kingdom, GS is now a standard practice in hospitals operated by the National Health Service (NHS) and medical schools have included generic prescribing as a part of their medical training.[10]

In India, the procurement price of essential medicines is generally lower than the mean International Reference Pricing (IRP) but availability of these drugs in the public sector has always been a problem. The exorbitant cost of some of the commonly used medications in private pharmacies makes it inaccessible to majority of the poor.[11] Also, the difference between procurement prices and retail prices in case of some of the generic medicines, were as high as 28 times, which shows a very high margin of profit-taking in view of limited price control mechanisms.[11] It is in this light, that the government revised the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy in 2012. It gave methods to calculate ceiling prices for drugs which are under the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) which was modified in 2011. It gave a formula for deciding the ceiling prices for drugs under NLEM, using a market-based pricing (MBP) method, taking into account the prices of all manufacturers having a market share of more than 1% nationally.[12] The Drug Price Control Order of 2013 was a follow-up to the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy and gave the price ceiling for 348 drugs and over 600 formulations. However, the action was considered inadequate by many activists lobbying for cheaper drugs and they termed it as a sell-out to international pharmaceutical companies.[13]

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

The multiplicity of brands and manufacturers makes it difficult to decipher the actual market dynamics and the structural issues in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. The complexity of the market and the intensity of the competition between companies in India have made the country a hub for manufacture of generic medicines, earning a sobriquet “pharmacy of the developing world.”[14] This, along with a favorable governmental stance has made India a powerhouse in this field, bringing it into direct confrontation with certain developed nations where most of the big multinational pharmaceutical companies are located[14] There have been many instances when the Indian Patents Office and the Supreme Court of India effectively used certain flexibilities of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement of the World Trade Organization and also the safeguards embedded in the Indian Patents Act. The compulsory licensing of Sorafenib, a drug used in treatment of advanced liver and renal cancer and the rejection of patent application for Imatinib, a drug used in the treatment of leukaemia, were considered as landmark decisions by many state and non-state organizations involved in pharmaceutical sector.[15,16]

Considering the Indian scenario, we can divide the brands into innovator brands (IB), most-selling generics (MSG), and least-priced generics (LPG).[17] The IBs will be at the highest price point, followed by MSGs and LPGs. A new category of generic drugs known as unbranded generics (UB) are also coming into the market now. These drugs are usually manufactured by not-for-profit organizations or are subsidised by certain non-governmental organizations (NGO).[18] Though the price points of these different categories of drugs are different, their efficacies are comparable. This fact has been proved by multiple studies all over the world and it belittles the reasoning which goes behind differential pricing of the same drug.[19,20] Even though it has been proved that there is not much difference in efficacy between the above categories of drugs, physicians tend to prescribe drugs manufactured by highly-reputed companies. Their trust is often misplaced as most of these leading companies market drugs manufactured by less-known manufacturers.[18]

A Model Community Pharmacy: Experiences from South India

Pushpagiri Medical College, which is a teaching hospital in Kerala state of India partnered with a social organization, Bodhana Social Service Society, involved in poverty alleviation and income generation programmes, to start an urban health center with an objective to improve patient accessibility to cost-effective medical care. The urban health center serves a population of 10,000, spread over 5 municipal wards of Tiruvalla municipality and was intended as a model for cost-effective primary care. A comprehensive population survey was carried out before the start of the project and the health center started functioning in September 2014. As a part of the initiative, a community pharmacy was opened to stock unbranded generic drugs manufactured by two non-governmental organizations. Low-Cost Standard Therapeutics (LOCOST), Baroda and Comprehensive Medical Supplies India (CMSI), Chennai were the two NGOs providing us with the drugs which were needed at the community pharmacy.[21,22] The drugs were provided to us at a nominal cost, after we provided an undertaking that the Pushpagiri Medical College is a charitable institution with no intention of making profits. Also, the physicians working at the health center made a collective decision to prescribe all the drugs generically and the pharmacist was advised to dispense the cheapest generic brand.

The drug inventory available with these not-for-profit manufacturers were fairly comprehensive when reviewed using the World Health Organization-Health Action International (WHO-HAI) tool for quantifying availability of essential medicines.[23] The WHO-HAI tool is a validated method for measuring availability of drugs in a health system and includes 30 core medicines: 14 essential medicines for global burden of disease and 16 medicines specific to the WHO region [Table 1].[24]

Table 1

Drug inventory of LOCOST, Baroda and CMSI, Chennai: Review using WHO-HAI tool for WHO South East Asian Region

The WHO-HAI tool showed a drug availability of 73.3% for LOCOST, Baroda and 43.3% for CMSI, Chennai. This is much better when compared to drug inventory in public hospitals in other parts of India, assessed using the same methodology.[11] There are a multitude of companies and NGOs manufacturing UB medicines and the drug inventory of a health system can be made comprehensive through a mixed purchase model where procurement is done from multiple vendors.[23]

Similarly, unbranded generic drugs offered significant savings to the health system in terms of costs involved for procurement. When reviewed against the MSBs, UB medicines were costing only a fraction of the maximum retail price (MRP) of MSPs [Table 2].

Table 2

Comparison of drug prices of most-selling brands and their generic counterparts: drugs identified by WHO-HAI tool for WHO South East Asian Region[17,25]

The community pharmacy has been in operation since September 2014, and stocks over 120 formulations manufactured by unbranded generic manufacturers. In addition, it also supplies LSG to augment the drug inventory of the pharmacy. There is a family physician and a general practitioner who run the center, apart from regular specialist visits from Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital. The urban health center has an outpatient load of 20-25 patients a day within 6 months of starting operations. The staff from the center is providing services to 3 old-age homes and a few surrounding schools and the drugs from the community pharmacy is being used for free supply during the medical camps conducted by the department of community medicine.

The patients and the physicians have responded positively to this novel initiative and the general acceptability has been found to be high, though objective studies to assess the same are yet to be done. Some physicians have suggested replicating this model in other similar health initiatives also. The financial sustainability of the model is still unproven, and the urban health center along with the community pharmacy is being sustained with large subsidies provided by Pushpagiri Medical College and Bodhana Social Service Society. The cost of setting-up such a facility was around INR 500,000, which includes the furniture, basic medical equipment, basic lab accessories, and first round of procurement for the community pharmacy and is exclusive of the capital expenditure on the building. The average monthly expenditure in running the health center, has been around INR 150,000 a month, including salaries, cost of consumables and medicines and exclusive of building rent and depreciation. The income earned by the center is around INR 40,000, and there is an excess of expenditure over income to the range of more than INR 100,000 a month, which is subsidised by Pushpagiri Medical College and Bodhana Social Service Society. Both the organizations are charitable societies run by a prominent religious group and the subsidies are meant to further their commitment to social causes.

The community pharmacy concept faced the following key challenges:

  • Absence of intermediaries for drug procurement results in inordinate delays in transit, mainly on account of the tardy services rendered by private logistics companies
  • Advance payment in full has to be remitted to the bank accounts of these NGOs for supply of drugs, which goes against the standard practice of procurement followed in hospitals. This has been an issue with the internal audit department
  • The difference between procurement price and the MRP is minimal and this is causing worries of long-term financial sustainability of the community pharmacy model
  • Packaging of the drugs is unattractive in some cases, resulting in difficulty to convince patients about the efficacy of the drug
  • We have faced difficulty in convincing some of the specialist doctors on the quality of the drug, despite providing ample literature proving the efficacy of unbranded generic drugs.

The Way Forward

Many studies have revealed apprehensions among physicians in prescribing UB medicines to their patients. Most of these apprehensions are related to quality of the product and the fear of losing patients.[26] Along with these unfounded concerns, poor patient acceptability due to various issues like poor packaging, lack of brand promotion initiatives, etc., are affecting the extend of penetration of UB drugs in the country, even though India is becoming a lifeline for all developing countries in the supply of generic medicines.[27] The government and the policy makers in India and other similar developing countries should focus on building the confidence of physicians and the patients regarding unbranded generic medications. The demand side management should include a multifaceted approach in which issues of different stakeholders are addressed and affirmative actions taken in favour of unbranded generic medicine manufacturers.[27] Another important issue is concerning the inherent deficiencies and implementation status of the Drug Price Control Order of 2013. The said order has been criticised extensively for being myopic in its approach, as the number of formulations included is less than 20% of the whole pharmaceutical market. Also, it gave ample space for pharmaceutical companies to tweak their marketing strategies by focussing on formulations and dosages not covered by the Drug Price Control Order. It also leaves out the important area of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), a potential loop-hole for the pharmaceutical companies to exploit fully. It is indeed distressing to note that more than 90% of the diabetic drug market is out of the purview of this order.[13] The policy makers in the country needs to get a realisation that the share of drugs in out-of-pocket expenditure (OPP) is around 80% in India and a tighter regulatory framework is needed to protect the consumers against exploitation.[28]

In the future, we intend to do a study on the perception about generic drugs, among the treating physicians and the patients who form the clientele of the community pharmacy. This can help us to understand the issues which affect the actual stakeholders and find means to improve the acceptability and penetration of generic medicines. Also, after the yearly financial audit, we plan to do a cost-benefit analysis to objectively analyse the efficacy of the model in monetary terms.

References

1. The World Medicines Situation 2011. The World Health Organisation. [Last accessed on 2015 Mar 2]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s18772en/s18772en.pdf .
2. Cameron A, Ewen M, Ross-Degnan D, Ball D, Laing R. Medicine prices, availability, and affordability in 36 developing and middle-income countries: A secondary analysis. Lancet. 2009;373:240–9. [PubMed]
3. Health Expenditure, Total (% of GDP) | Data | Table. [Last accessed on 2015 Mar 2]. Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS .
4. Microsoft Word-Briefing-Note-INDIA-2014-doc-Briefing-Note-INDIA-2014.pdf. [Last accessed on 2015 Mar 2]. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Briefing-Note-INDIA-2014.pdf .
5. Daemmrich A, Mohanty A. Healthcare reform in the United States and China: Pharmaceutical market implications. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2014;7:9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
6. Hoffman JM, Li E, Doloresco F, Matusiak L, Hunkler RJ, Shah ND, et al. Projecting future drug expenditures–2012. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2012;69:405–21. [PubMed]
7. Sax P. Spending on medicines in Israel in an international context. Isr Med Assoc J. 2005;7:286–91.[PubMed]
8. Cameron A, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Leufkens HG, Laing RO. Switching from originator brand medicines to generic equivalents in selected developing countries: How much could be saved? Value Health. 2012;15:664–73. [PubMed]
9. Hassali MA, Alrasheedy AA, McLachlan A, Nguyen TA, Al-Tamimi SK, Ibrahim MI, et al. The experiences of implementing generic medicine policy in eight countries: A review and recommendations for a successful promotion of generic medicine use. Saudi Pharm. 2014;22:491–503. [PMC free article][PubMed]
10. Duerden MG, Hughes DA. Generic and therapeutic substitutions in the UK: Are they a good thing? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;70:335–41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Kotwani A, Ewen M, Dey D, Iyer S, Lakshmi PK, Patel A, et al. Prices and availability of common medicines at six sites in India using a standard methodology. Indian J Med Res. 2007;125:645–54.[PubMed]
12. Copy of f1.pdf – NPPPNotification.pdf [Internet] [Cited 2015 Mar 2, Last accessed on 2015 Mar 2]. Available from: http://www.nppaindia.nic.in/NPPPNotification.pdf .
13. Paying the Price – The Hindu. [Last accessed on 2015 Mar 2]. Available from: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/paying-the-price/article4912732.ece .
14. Kapczynski A. Engineered in India–patent law 2.0. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:497–9. [PubMed]
15. Bhaumik S. India’s rejection of Novartis’s patent is but a small step in the right direction. BMJ. 2013;346:f2412. [PubMed]
16. Lancet Oncology. Is India ready to lead the battle for fair access to medicines? Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:437. [PubMed]
17. Bhargava A, Kalantri SP. The crisis in access to essential medicines in India: Key issues which call for action. Indian J Med Ethics. 2013;10:86–95. [PubMed]
18. Amit G, Rosen A, Wagshal AB, Bonneh DY, Liss T, Grosbard A, et al. Efficacy of substituting innovator propafenone for its generic formulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93:1558–60. [PubMed]
19. Kesselheim AS, Stedman MR, Bubrick EJ, Gagne JJ, Misono AS, Lee JL, et al. Seizure outcomes following the use of generic versus brand-name antiepileptic drugs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Drugs. 2010;70:605–21. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20. Asia Pacific Ecumenical News-News. [Last accessed on 2015 Mar 2]. Available from: http://apenews.org/newsread.asp?nid=163 .
21. LOCOST: Medicines within the Common Man’s Reach | The Alternative. [Last accessed on 2015 Mar 2]. Available from: http://www.thealternative.in/business/locost- affordable-medicine-drugscommon-man-reach .
22. Where Are We Now: Assessing the Price, Availability and Affordability of Essential Medicines in Delhi as India Plans Free Medicine for All. [Last accessed on 2015 Mar 2]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3733775 . [PMC free article] [PubMed]
23. Madden JM, Meza E, Ewen M, Laing RO, Stephens P, Ross-Degnan D. Measuring medicine prices in Peru: Validation of key aspects of WHO/HAI survey methodology. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2010;27:291–9. [PubMed]
24. Drug Price List. List of Generic Names in Alphabetical Order. [Last accessed on 2015 Mar 2]. Available from: http://www.medindia.net/drug-price .
25. Generic Index | DrugsUpdate India. [Last accessed on 2015 Mar 2]. Available from: http://www.drugsupdate.com/generic/listing .
26. Waning B, Diedrichsen E, Moon S. A lifeline to treatment: The role of Indian generic manufacturers in supplying antiretroviral medicines to developing countries. J Int AIDS Soc. 2010;13:35. [PMC free article][PubMed]
27. Shrank WH, Choudhry NK, Liberman JN, Brennan TA. The use of generic drugs in prevention of chronic disease is far more cost-effective than thought, and may save money. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011;30:1351–7. [PubMed]
28. Thakkar KB, Billa G. Light at the end of the tunnel: The Great Indian Pharmacoeconomics story. Front Pharmacol. 2013;4:153. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Source:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

How Many Americans Live In poverty?


The Census Bureau's new supplemental poverty measure now considers food stamps, health care costs, and cost-of-living in its calculations of who is and is not poor.

 As we reported earlier this year, there are some big problems with the way poverty is measured in this country. So we were interested to see a Census report out today based on the “supplemental poverty measure” — a newer, unofficial method that figures in the value of many government benefits, the cost of living in different cities, and health-care costs.

A few of the report’s key findings:

  • Almost 50 million people in the U.S. are poor using the supplemental measure, compared to the 47 million using the official measure.
  • Food stamps (formally known as SNAP) keep about five million people out of poverty, according to the supplemental measure.
  • Without Social Security more than half of all Americans 65 and over would be in poverty. (Both supplemental and traditional poverty measures include Social Security benefits.)
  • Under the supplemental measure, which includes cost-of-living differences, poverty is much higher in expensive states like California and New York, and lower in places like Alabama and Kentucky.
  • The poverty rate for children goes down under the supplemental measure and it goes up for those 65 and older. That’s because the supplemental measure includes the impact of out-of-pocket medical expenses (which are high for senior citizens) and of certain government benefits that go disproportionately to children.

Sara Kimberlin, author of the Berkeley study, used the supplemental poverty measure to look at poverty over an 11-year period. She found that chronic poverty — those who were poor for more than half that time — was lower than previously thought. Only about two percent of people were chronically poor under the supplemental measure, compared with 3.3 percent under the official rate.

This is important, because research shows that chronic poverty does the most long-term harm to people, especially children.

Kimberlin says most people in poverty are poor for a short period of time, because government benefits help lift them back above the poverty line. And it’s only a big setback — like a job loss or unexpected medical bill — that pulls them back down.

The supplemental measure “makes it easier to think about solutions,” Kimberlin says, because you can get an idea which programs are doing the most good.

Source:http://www.npr.org

Poverty changes your brain to make you less intelligent, study suggests


Researchers find link between low incomes and poorer brain function and say the stress of life with little money could be part of the reason; there is ‘little evidence’ to suggest falling intelligence pushes people into poverty, they add.

ChildPoverty-Getty-v2.jpg

Falling into poverty appears to make people become less intelligent and become old before their time, according to a new study.

Researchers found life on the breadline for 20 years was “strongly associated” with “worse cognitive function” and premature aging.

And they suggested the potential causes of this phenomenon included the stress of having little money, inadequate housing and sanitation, and an unhealthy lifestyle – a poor diet, smoking, alcohol and too little exercise.

Writing in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, researchers led by Professor Adina Zeki Al Hazzouri, of Miami University, said the trend was found even among highly educated people who fell on hard times.

This, they argued, means it is unlikely that people who are becoming less intelligent for some other reason are falling into poverty.

The researchers studied information about 3,400 adults who took part in a study on heart disease. They were all 18 to 30 when the project began in 1985.

As part of that study, details about their income were recorded and they were also given tests used to detect what is known as “cognitive aging”.

“The overall magnitude of the associations suggests that economic adversities experienced in young adulthood are important determinants of cognitive health in midlife,” the paper said.

“From a mechanistic perspective, economic hardship may be on the pathway and an important contributor to clinically significant cognitive deficit and premature aging among economically disadvantaged individuals.

“Furthermore, in analyses restricted to participants with a high level of education, significant associations were still observed, suggesting little evidence that reverse causation could explain these findings.”

They put forward four different possible “pathways” in which poverty could affect people’s brains.

“First, exposure to low income and socioeconomic conditions has been associated with unhealthy behaviours, such as alcohol use, smoking, and inadequate physical activity, which are in turn risk factors for small brain infarcts and poor cognition,” the paper said.

“Second, exposure to low income may influence educational attainment and ultimately shape many of the risk factors of cognition, including adult living environment (inadequate housing and sanitation), health behaviours, and access to resources.

“Third, the stress of exposure to low income has been shown to be associated with dysfunction of the hypothalamic adrenocortical axis [glands inside the brain], which in turn is a pathway leading to worse risk factors of cognition.

“Fourth, income inequality may suggest a lack in public investment and health infrastructure, which then influence health through stress-induced mechanisms and decreased social and physical resources.”

Poverty linked to childhood depression, changes in brain connectivity


Poverty linked to childhood depression, changes in brain connectivity
Functional MRI scans show areas in the brains of poor children with normal connectivity highlighted in red and blue, and weakened connectivity shown in green. The areas in green are among several areas — detailed in other brain scans — where connections are weakened in children raised in poverty. 

Many negative consequences are linked to growing up poor, and researchers at Washington University St. Louis have identified one more: altered brain connectivity.

Analyzing of 105 children ages 7 to 12, the researchers found that key structures in the are connected differently in poor children than in kids raised in more affluent settings. In particular, the brain’s hippocampus—a structure key to learning, memory and regulation of stress—and the amygdala—which is linked to stress and emotion—connect to other areas of the brain differently in poor children than in kids whose families had .

Those connections, viewed using functional MRI scans, were weaker, depending on the degree of to which a child was exposed. The poorer the family, the more likely the hippocampus and amygdala would connect to other brain structures in ways the researchers characterized as weaker. In addition, poorer preschoolers were much more likely to have symptoms of clinical depression when they reached school age.

The study is available online Friday, Jan. 15, in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

“Our past research has shown that the brain’s anatomy can look different in poor children, with the size of the hippocampus and amygdala frequently altered in kids raised in poverty,” said first author Deanna M. Barch, PhD, chair of Washington University’s Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences in Arts & Sciences, and the Gregory B. Couch Professor of Psychiatry at the School of Medicine. “In this study, we found that the way those structures connect with the rest of the brain changes in ways we would consider to be less helpful in regulating emotion and stress.”

Poverty linked to childhood depression, changes in brain connectivity
Deanna M. Barch, Ph.D. (left), and Joan L. Luby, M.D., analyzed brain scans from more than 100 children and found weaker connections involving key structures in the brains of poor children. 

Those changes in connectivity also are related to a risk of clinical depression. Those in the study who were poor as preschoolers were more likely to be depressed at age 9 or 10.

Previous research from the same group of investigators had identified differences in the volume of gray matter and white matter, and the size and volume of the hippocampus and amygdala. But they also found that many of those changes could be overcome through nurturing from parents. That wasn’t true, however, regarding changes in connectivity identified in the new study.

“Poverty is one of the most powerful predictors of poor developmental outcomes for children,” said co-investigator Joan L. Luby, MD, the Samuel and Mae S. Ludwig Professor of Child Psychiatry and director of Washington University’s Early Emotional Development Program. “Previously, we’ve seen that there may be ways to overcome some brain changes linked to poverty, but we didn’t see anything that reversed the negative changes in connectivity present in poor kids.”

Setup Timeout Error: Setup took longer than 30 seconds to complete.
Poverty is associated with many bad things for children, and now researchers at Washington University in St. Louis have identified one more: impaired brain function. They found that key structures in the brain work differently in kids raised in poverty than in those from more affluent situations. Credit: Washington University BioMed Radio

The researchers measured poverty using what’s called an income-to-needs ratio that takes into account a family’s size and annual income. The current federal poverty level is $24,250 for a family of four.

Children raised in poverty tend to have poorer cognitive and educational outcomes and are at higher risk for psychiatric illnesses, including depression and antisocial behaviors. Researchers hypothesize that factors such as stress, adverse environmental exposures—including lead, cigarette smoke and poor nutrition—along with limited educational opportunities, can contribute to problems later in life.

But Barch emphasized that the link between poverty and poor outcomes doesn’t necessarily lock a child into a difficult life.

“Many things can be done to foster brain development and positive emotional development,” she said. “Poverty doesn’t put a child on a predetermined trajectory, but it behooves us to remember that adverse experiences early in life are influencing the development and function of the brain. And if we hope to intervene, we need to do it early so that we can help shift children onto the best possible developmental trajectories.”

Poverty, Education Tied to Outcomes in Musculoskeletal Diseases


  • As observed in other chronic diseases, lower educational level and socioeconomic status (SES) have a strong independent association with poorer physical and mental health in those with musculoskeletal disease, according to research published online in RMD Open.

Led by Polina Putrik, a PhD student in health policy at Maastricht University Medical Center in the Netherlands, the study analyzed population survey data from the Dutch National Monitor on Musculoskeletal System 2010. A demographically representative sample of 8,904 members of the Dutch population completed a survey on sociodemographics, physician-diagnosed morbidities, and physical and mental health measured by standard instruments.

Regression models were computed: first, in the total group of patients with musculoskeletal disease, with education, age, gender, origin, and place of residence as independent variables; and, second, in individuals expected to have paid work, with an added variable of social status. Models were repeated for five other subgroups of chronic disorders (cardiovascular, diabetes, cancer, mental, and respiratory).

Physician-confirmed musculoskeletal disease was reported by a substantial 1,766 (20%) participants (mean age 59 years, 38% male). In addition, 1,855 respondents (21%) reported cardiovascular disease (CVD), 679 (8%) respiratory disorders, 547 (6%) diabetes, 526 (6%) mental disorders, and 270 (3%) cancer. More than half (4,525/51%) reported no disease.

Musculoskeletal disease was associated with the lowest level of physical health. In musculoskeletal disease patients, primary-school versus university education was consistently associated with worse physical and mental health: -5.3 on the physical component summary (PCS) subscale of the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), and -3.3 on its mental component summary (MCS) subscale. Being on state subsidy versus having paid employment also related to poorer health: -5.3 PCS and -4.7 MCS.

“These health gradients are unfair and partly avoidable, and require consorted attention and action in and outside healthcare,” Putrik and colleagues wrote.

Gender was relevant only for PCS: female versus male -2.1. With the exception of cancer, other diseases showed comparable differences in health by education and SES. No health gradients by ethnic origin or place of residence were observed.

The physical health gradient by education seen in musculoskeletal disease patients was also present in comparable magnitude in persons with CVD: lower-education CVD patients had a 6.6-point lower PCS score compared with university graduates. The effect was even stronger in patients with mental disorders (8.0 points lower) and respiratory disorders (9.1 points lower). Gradients were also seen in patients with diabetes (5.0 points lower) and in the healthy population (4.2 points lower).

As for SES, differences in PCS between employed persons and those receiving state living allowances were higher in patients with CVD, mental disorders, and respiratory disorders compared with musculoskeletal disease patients: employed musculoskeletal disease patients had on average a 5-point higher score on PCS, while in CVD and mental, and respiratory disorders those differences reached 11.6, 5.9 and 8.8 points, respectively.

In mental health, a comparable gradient by education was seen in musculoskeletal disease and CVD patients: the mental health of persons with the lowest versus the highest educational attainment was on average 3.8 points lower in those with CVD and 3.3 lower in those with musculoskeletal disease. In all other diseases, a trend to have worse mental health in less-educated individuals was present but did not reach statistical significance.

Significantly, comorbidities and smoking status were always important confounders for both physical and mental health in patients with chronic diseases, and body mass index was particularly relevant for physical function. “It is of note that the presence of comorbidities even amplified the effect of not having paid employment (having to rely on living allowance) on mental health,” the investigators wrote.

Noting theirs is the first study to compare both mental and physical health gradients by SES across the major chronic diseases, the authors speculate that persons of lower educational level may lack the skills to cope with the consequences of their diseases. “Healthcare systems should become more aware that individuals with low SES may benefit from preventive and clinical care, tailored to [the] specific needs of these persons, independently of the type of the disease they suffer from,” they wrote.

Addressing study limitations, they cited the low response rate of 22.4% to the survey, which may lessen the generalizability of findings. Furthermore, compared with data from the Dutch Bureau of Statistics, the sample seemed to have a somewhat lower representation of lower-education respondents. They also conceded that self-administered surveys find it more difficult to reach respondents with low levels of education and literacy, which could lead to an underestimation of the extent of the problem.

“Low SES of the patient should be a signal for healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to join efforts in order to reduce health inequities,” they concluded.

The Lasting Impacts of Poverty on the Brain.


Poverty shapes people in some hard-wired ways that we’re only now beginning to understand. Back in August, we wrote about some provocative new research that found that poverty imposes a kind of tax on the brain. It sucks up so much mental bandwidth – capacity spent wrestling with financial trade-offs, scarce resources, the gap between bills and income – that the poor have fewer cognitive resources left over to succeed at parenting, education, or work. Experiencing poverty is like knocking 13 points off your IQ as you try to navigate everything else. That’s like living, perpetually, on a missed night of sleep.

That finding offered a glimpse of what poverty does to a person during a moment in time. Picture a mother trying to accomplish a single task (making dinner) while preoccupied with another (paying the rent on time). But scientists also suspect that poverty’s disadvantages – and these moments – accumulate across time. Live in poverty for years, or even generations, and its effects grow more insidious. Live in poverty as a child, and it affects you as an adult, too.

Some new research about the long-term arc of poverty, particularly on the brain, was recently published in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and these findings offer a useful complement to the earlier study. In this new paper, researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago, Cornell, the University of Michigan, and the University of Denver followed children from the age of 9 through their early 20s.

The Lasting Impacts of Poverty on the Brain

Those who grew up poor later had impaired brain function as adults—a disadvantage researchers could literally see in the activity of the amygdala and prefrontal cortex on an fMRI scan. Children who were poor at age 9 had greater activity in the amygdala and less activity in the prefrontal cortex at age 24 during an experiment when they were asked to manage their emotions while looking at a series of negative photos. This is significant because the two regions of the brain play a critical role in how we detect threats and manage stress and emotions.

Poor children, in effect, had more problems regulating their emotions as adults (regardless of what their income status was at 24). These same patterns of “dysregulation” in the brain have been observed in people with depression, anxiety disorders, aggression and post-traumatic stress disorders.

Over the course of the longitudinal study – which included 49 rural, white children of varying incomes – these same poor children were also exposed to chronic sources of stress like violence and family turmoil, or crowded and low-quality housing. Those kinds of stressors, the researchers theorize, may help explain the link between income status in childhood and how well the brain functions later on. That theory, they write, is consistent with the idea that “early experiences of poverty become embedded within the organism, setting individuals on lifelong trajectories.”

To add some of these findings together: Poverty taxes the ability of parents to do all kinds of things, including care for their children. And the developmental challenges that children face in a home full of stressed adults may well influence the adults that they, themselves, become.

Is India’s malnutrition crisis a myth?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/27/is-indias-malnutrition-crisis-a-myth/