Explore the vast range of titles available.

What we know, and what we don’t

Background Rational medicine use is essential to optimize quality of healthcare delivery and resource utilization. We aim to conduct a systematic review of changes in prescribing patterns in the WHO African region and comparison with WHO indicators in two time periods 1995–2005 and 2006–2015. Methods Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, Africa-Wide Nipad, Africa Journals Online (AJOL), Google scholar and International Network for Rational Use of Drugs (INRUD) Bibliography databases to identify primary studies reporting prescribing indicators at primary healthcare centres (PHCs) in Africa. This was supplemented by a manual search of retrieved references. We assessed the quality of studies using a 14-point scoring system modified from the Downs and Black checklist with inclusions of recommendations in the WHO guidelines. Results Forty-three studies conducted in 11 African countries were included in the overall analysis. These studies presented prescribing indicators based on a total 141,323 patient encounters across 572 primary care facilities. The results of prescribing indicators were determined as follows; average number of medicines prescribed per patient encounter = 3.1 (IQR 2.3–4.8), percentage of medicines prescribed by generic name =68.0 % (IQR 55.4–80.3), Percentage of encounters with antibiotic prescribed =46.8 % (IQR 33.7–62.8), percentage of encounters with injection prescribed =25.0 % (IQR 18.7–39.5) and the percentage of medicines prescribed from essential medicines list =88.0 % (IQR 76.3–94.1). Prescribing indicators were generally worse in private compared with public facilities. Analysis of prescribing across two time points 1995–2005 and 2006–2015 showed no consistent trends. Conclusions Prescribing indicators for the African region deviate significantly from the WHO reference targets. Increased collaborative efforts are urgently needed to improve medicine prescribing practices in Africa with the aim of enhancing the optimal utilization of scarce resources and averting negative health consequences.

Unnecessary, disproportionate, and misguided

Access to essential medicines is still suboptimal in many countries. Recent studies examining the registration of medicines at the country level show that a considerable proportion of essential medicines do not have any corresponding products registered for use at the country level and therefore cannot be available at all times. Conversely, many non-essential medicines are registered by regulatory authorities for local markets, potentially facilitating inappropriate drug use and antimicrobial resistance. Addressing this public health gap requires linking the data on national drug registers with national essential medicines lists. Achieving this linkage will necessitate the development of common data variables and standards for both drug registers and essential medicines lists. This linkage would provide medicines regulators and health policy-makers with information on the gaps in the registration of essential medicines and allow them to take steps to prioritize registration of these medicines. This approach would improve availability of essential medicines for public health priorities and prevent over-registration of unnecessary medicines.

Peter Roderick, Alison Macfarlane, and Allyson M Pollock argue there’s still time to change tack on the UK’s ad hoc system for covid-19 tracking, testing, and contact tracing

Should be modelled on successful screening programmes

To analyse sales of fixed-dose combination and single antibiotics in India in relation to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations and national regulatory efforts to control antibiotic sales.ObjectiveTo analyse sales of fixed-dose combination and single antibiotics in India in relation to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations and national regulatory efforts to control antibiotic sales.We extracted data on sales volumes of systemic antibiotics in India from a market research company sales database. We compared the market share of antibiotic sales in 2020 by WHO AWaRe (Access, Watch and Reserve) category and for those under additional national regulatory controls. We also analysed sales of fixed-dose combinations that were: formally approved for marketing or had a no-objection certificate; on the national essential medicines list; and on the WHO list of not-recommended antibiotics.MethodsWe extracted data on sales volumes of systemic antibiotics in India from a market research company sales database. We compared the market share of antibiotic sales in 2020 by WHO AWaRe (Access, Watch and Reserve) category and for those under additional national regulatory controls. We also analysed sales of fixed-dose combinations that were: formally approved for marketing or had a no-objection certificate; on the national essential medicines list; and on the WHO list of not-recommended antibiotics.There were 78 single and 112 fixed-dose combination antibiotics marketed in India, accounting for 7.6 and 4.5 billion standard units of total sales, respectively. Access, Watch and Reserve antibiotics comprised 5.8, 5.6 and 0.1 billion standard units of total market sales, respectively. All additionally controlled antibiotics were Watch and Reserve antibiotics (23.6%; 2.9 billion standard units of total sales). Fixed-dose combinations on the WHO not-recommended list were marketed in 229 formulations, with 114 formulations (49.8%) having no record of formal approval or no-objection certificate. While there were no not-recommended fixed-dose combinations on the national list of essential medicines, 13 of the top-20 selling antibiotic fixed-dose combinations were WHO not-recommended.FindingsThere were 78 single and 112 fixed-dose combination antibiotics marketed in India, accounting for 7.6 and 4.5 billion standard units of total sales, respectively. Access, Watch and Reserve antibiotics comprised 5.8, 5.6 and 0.1 billion standard units of total market sales, respectively. All additionally controlled antibiotics were Watch and Reserve antibiotics (23.6%; 2.9 billion standard units of total sales). Fixed-dose combinations on the WHO not-recommended list were marketed in 229 formulations, with 114 formulations (49.8%) having no record of formal approval or no-objection certificate. While there were no not-recommended fixed-dose combinations on the national list of essential medicines, 13 of the top-20 selling antibiotic fixed-dose combinations were WHO not-recommended.The sale of Watch group drugs, and antibiotics banned or not approved, needs active investigation and enforcement in India. The evidence base underpinning formal approvals and no-objection certificates for not-recommended fixed-dose combinations should be audited.ConclusionThe sale of Watch group drugs, and antibiotics banned or not approved, needs active investigation and enforcement in India. The evidence base underpinning formal approvals and no-objection certificates for not-recommended fixed-dose combinations should be audited.

In 2012, an Indian parliamentary committee reported that manufacturing licenses for large numbers of fixed dose combination (FDC) drugs had been issued by state authorities without prior approval of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in violation of rules, and considered that some ambiguity until 1 May 2002 about states' powers might have contributed. To our knowledge, no systematic enquiry has been undertaken to determine if evidence existed to support these findings. We investigated CDSCO approvals for and availability of oral FDC drugs in four therapeutic areas: analgesia (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]), diabetes (metformin), depression/anxiety (anti-depressants/benzodiazepines), and psychosis (anti-psychotics). This was an ecologic study with a time-trend analysis of FDC sales volumes (2007-2012) and a cross-sectional examination of 2011-2012 data to establish the numbers of formulations on the market with and without a record of CDSCO approval (\"approved\" and \"unapproved\"), their branded products, and sales volumes. Data from the CDSCO on approved FDC formulations were compared with sales data from PharmaTrac, a database of national drug sales. We determined the proportions of FDC sales volumes (2011-2012) arising from centrally approved and unapproved formulations and from formulations including drugs banned/restricted internationally. We also determined the proportions of centrally approved and unapproved formulations marketed before and after 1 May 2002, when amendments were made to the drug rules. FDC approvals in India, the United Kingdom (UK), and United States of America (US) were compared. For NSAID FDCs, 124 formulations were marketed, of which 34 (27%) were centrally approved and 90 (73%) were unapproved; metformin: 25 formulations, 20 (80%) approved, five (20%) unapproved; anti-depressants/benzodiazepines: 16 formulations, three (19%) approved, 13 (81%) unapproved; anti-psychotics: ten formulations, three (30%) approved, seven (70%) unapproved. After 1 May 2002, the proportions of approved FDC formulations increased for NSAIDs (26%/28%) and anti-psychotics (0%/38%) and decreased for metformin (100%/75%) and anti-depressants/benzodiazepines (20%/18%), and the overall proportion approved remained similar before and after that date. FDC formulations gave rise to multiple branded products, ranging from 211 anti-psychotic FDC products from ten formulations to 2,739 NSAID FDC products from 124 formulations. The proportions of FDC sales volumes arising from unapproved formulations were as follows: anti-depressants/benzodiazepines, 69%; anti-psychotics, 43%; NSAIDs, 28%; and metformin, 0.4%. Formulations including drugs banned/restricted internationally comprised over 12% of NSAID FDC sales and 53% of anti-psychotic FDC sales. Across the four therapeutic areas, 14 FDC formulations were approved in the UK and 22 in the US. There was evidence supporting concerns about FDCs. Metformin excepted, substantial numbers of centrally unapproved formulations for NSAID, anti-depressant/benzodiazepine, and anti-psychotic FDCs were marketed; sales volumes were high. The legal need for central approval of new drugs before manufacture has been in place continuously since 1961, including for FDCs meeting the applicable legal test. Proportions of centrally unapproved formulations after 1 May 2002 did not decrease overall, and no ambiguity was found about states' licensing powers. Unapproved formulations should be banned immediately, prioritising those withdrawn/banned internationally and undertaking a review of benefits and risks for patients in ceasing or switching to other medicines. Drug laws need to be amended to ensure the safety and effectiveness of medicines marketed in India.