Explore the vast range of titles available.

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines classified antibiotics into Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) categories for the treatment of 31 priority bacterial infections as a tool to facilitate antibiotic stewardship and optimal use. We compared the listing of antibiotics on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) to those in the 2019 WHO Model List and the AWaRe classification database to determine the degree to which NEMLs are in alignment with the AWaRe classification framework recommended by WHO. In this cross-sectional study, we obtained up-to-date (data after 2017) NEMLs from our Global Essential Medicines (GEM) database, WHO online resources, and individual countries' websites. From the 2019 WHO Model List we extracted, as a reference standard, a list of 37 antibiotics (44 unique antibiotics after accounting for combination drugs or therapeutically equivalent drugs as specified by WHO) that were considered essential in treating 31 of the most common and severe clinical infectious syndromes (priority infections). From the WHO AWaRe Classification Database, which contains commonly used antibiotics globally, we extracted a list of 122 AWaRe antibiotics listed by at least one country in the GEM database. We then assessed individual countries' NEMLs for listing of the 44 essential and 122 commonly used antibiotics, overall and according to AWaRe classification group. We also evaluated and summarised the listing of both first-choice and second-choice treatments for the 31 priority infections. A total coverage score was calculated for each country by assigning a treatment score of 0–3 for each priority infection on the basis of whether first-choice and second-choice treatments, according to the 2019 WHO Model List, were included in the country's NEML. Coverage scores were then compared against the score of the 2019 WHO Model List and across World Bank income groups and WHO regions. As of July 7, 2020, we had up-to-date NEMLs for 138 countries. Of the 44 unique essential antibiotics, 24 were Access, 15 were Watch, and five were Reserve. The median number of total essential antibiotics listed across the 138 NEMLs was 26 (IQR 21–32). 102 (74%) countries listed at least 22 (50%) of the 44 essential antibiotics. The median number of total AWaRe antibiotics listed by the 138 countries was 35 (IQR 29–46), of Access antibiotics was 18 (16–21), of Watch antibiotics was 16 (11–22), and of Reserve antibiotics was one (0–2). 56 (41%) countries did not list any essential Reserve antibiotics. 131 (95%) countries had coverage scores of at least 60, equivalent to at least 75% of the score of the 2019 WHO Model List, which was 80. Nine (7%) countries listed fewer than 12 of 24 essential Access antibiotics, and seven (5%) did not list sufficient first-choice and second-choice treatments for priority infections (ie, they had coverage scores lower than 60). Of the 31 priority infections, acute neonatal meningitis and high-risk febrile neutropenia did not have enough listed treatments, with 82 (59%) countries listing no treatment for acute neonatal meningitis and 84 (61%) countries listing only a first-choice treatment, only a second-choice treatment, or no treatment for high-risk febrile neutropenia. Coverage scores differed between countries on the basis of World Bank income groups (p=0·025). Our findings highlight potential changes to the antibiotics included in NEMLs that would increase adherence to international guidance aimed at effectively treating infectious diseases while addressing antimicrobial resistance. Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit.

WHO and Health Action International (HAI) have developed a standardised method for surveying medicine prices, availability, affordability, and price components in low-income and middle-income countries. Here, we present a secondary analysis of medicine availability in 45 national and subnational surveys done using the WHO/HAI methodology. Data from 45 WHO/HAI surveys in 36 countries were adjusted for inflation or deflation and purchasing power parity. International reference prices from open international procurements for generic products were used as comparators. Results are presented for 15 medicines included in at least 80% of surveys and four individual medicines. Average public sector availability of generic medicines ranged from 29·4% to 54·4% across WHO regions. Median government procurement prices for 15 generic medicines were 1·11 times corresponding international reference prices, although purchasing efficiency ranged from 0·09 to 5·37 times international reference prices. Low procurement prices did not always translate into low patient prices. Private sector patients paid 9–25 times international reference prices for lowest-priced generic products and over 20 times international reference prices for originator products across WHO regions. Treatments for acute and chronic illness were largely unaffordable in many countries. In the private sector, wholesale mark-ups ranged from 2% to 380%, whereas retail mark-ups ranged from 10% to 552%. In countries where value added tax was applied to medicines, the amount charged varied from 4% to 15%. Overall, public and private sector prices for originator and generic medicines were substantially higher than would be expected if purchasing and distribution were efficient and mark-ups were reasonable. Policy options such as promoting generic medicines and alternative financing mechanisms are needed to increase availability, reduce prices, and improve affordability. None.

The World Health Organization (WHO) promotes the development of national Essential Medicines Lists (EMLs) in order to improve the availability and use of medicines considered essential within health care systems. However, despite over 3 decades of international efforts, studies show an inconsistent pattern in the availability of essential medicines. We evaluated and compared the availability of essential medicines, and medicines not included in national EMLs, at global and regional levels. Medicine availability in the public and private sector were calculated based on data obtained from national and provincial facility-based surveys undertaken in 23 countries using the WHO/HAI methodology. The medicines were grouped according to their inclusion ('essential') or exclusion (termed 'non-essential') in each country's EML current at the time of the survey. Availability was calculated for originator brands, generics and any product type (originator brands or generics) and compared between the two groups. Results were aggregated by WHO regions, World Bank country income groups, a wealth inequality measure, and therapeutic groups. Across all sectors and any product type, the median availability of essential medicines was suboptimal at 61·5% (IQR 20·6%-86·7%) but significantly higher than non-essential medicines at 27·3% (IQR 3·6%-70·0%). The median availability of essential medicines was 40·0% in the public sector and 78·1% in the private sector; compared to 6·6% and 57·1% for non-essential medicines respectively. A reverse trend between national income level categories and the availability of essential medicines was identified in the public sector. EMLs have influenced the provision of medicines and have resulted in higher availability of essential medicines compared to non-essential medicines particularly in the public sector and in low and lower middle income countries. However, the availability of essential medicines, especially in the public sector does not ensure equitable access.

Gorik Ooms and Johanna Hanefeld argue that low and middle income countries could increase access to medicines by forming an alliance to credibly threaten companies with compulsory licences

Background Access to free essential medicines is a critical component of universal health coverage. However availability of essential medicines is poor in India with more than two-third of the people having limited or no access. This has pushed up private out-of-pocket expenditure due to medicines. The states of Punjab and Haryana are in the process of institutionalizing drug procurement models to provide uninterrupted access to essential medicines free of cost in all public hospitals and health centres. We undertook this study to assess the availability of medicines in public sector health facilities in the 2 states. Secondly, we also ascertained the quality of storage and inventory management systems in health facilities. Methods The present study was carried out in 80 public health facilities across 12 districts in Haryana and Punjab states. Overall, within each state 1 MC, 6 DHs, 11 CHCs and 22 PHCs were selected for the study. Drug procurement mechanisms in both the states were studied through document reviews and in-depth interviews with key stakeholders. Stock registers were reviewed to collect data on availability of a basket of essential medicines −92 at Primary Health Centre (PHC) level, 132 at Community Health Centre (CHC) level and 160 at tertiary care (District Hospital/Medical College) level. These essential medicines were selected based on the Essential Medicine List (EML) of the Department of Health (DOH). Results Overall availability of medicines was 45.2 % and 51.1 % in Punjab and Haryana respectively. Availability of anti-hypertensives was around 60 % in both the states whereas for anti-diabetics it was 44 % and 47 % in Punjab and Haryana respectively. Atleast one drug in each of the categories including analgesic/antipyretic, anti-helminthic, anti-spasmodic, anti-emetic, anti-hypertensive and uterotonics were nearly universally available in public sector facilities. On the contrary, medicines such as thrombolytics, anti-cancer and endocrine medicines were available in less than 30 % in public sector facilities. Among the medicines which were not available at the time of survey in Haryana, nearly 60 % of them were out of stock for 3–6 months whereas 8 % of them were out of stock for more than 6 months. Conclusion Health system needs to be strengthened by making essential medicines available for patients. Ensuring access to free medicines is likely to reduce private expenditure on medicines, which is a long-term, sustainable way to towards universal health coverage in India.

Increasing access to clinically beneficial targeted cancer medicines is a challenge in every country due to their high cost. We describe the interplay of innovative policies and programs involving multiple stakeholders to facilitate access to these medicines in Thailand, as well as the utilization of selected targeted therapies over time. We selected two medicines on the 2013 Thai national list of essential medicines (NLEM) [letrozole and imatinib] and three unlisted medicines for the same indications [trastuzumab, nilotinib and dasatinib]. We created timelines of access policies and programs for these products based on scientific and grey literature. Using IMS Health sales data, we described the trajectories of sales volumes of the study medicines between January 2001 and December 2012. We compared estimated average numbers of patients treated before and after the implementation of policies and programs for each product. Different stakeholders implemented multiple interventions to increase access to the study medicines for different patient populations. During 2007-2009, the Thai Government created a special NLEM category with different coverage requirements for payers and issued compulsory licenses; payers negotiated prices with manufacturers and engaged in pooled procurement; pharmaceutical companies expanded patient assistance programs and lowered prices in different ways. Compared to before the interventions, estimated numbers of patients treated with each medicine increased significantly afterwards: for letrozole from 645 (95% CI 366-923) to 3683 (95% CI 2,748-4,618); for imatinib from 103 (95% CI 72-174) to 350 (95% CI 307-398); and for trastuzumab from 68 (95% CI 45-118) to 412 (95% CI 344-563). Government, payers, and manufacturers implemented multi-pronged approaches to facilitate access to targeted cancer therapies for the Thai population, which differed by medicine. Routine monitoring is needed to assess clinical and economic impacts of these strategies in the health system.

Background Inequitable access to medicines is a major weakness in the Indian health care system. Baseline data needed to develop effective public health policy and provide equitable access to essential medicines. The present survey was conducted to investigate the price, availability, and affordability of fifty essential medicines in the public and private sector in Delhi, India using standardized WHO/HAI methodology. Methods Data on procurement price and availability was collected (July-October 2011) from three public healthcare providers: the federal (central) government, state government and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Data on price and availability of medicines was collected from private retail and chain pharmacies of a leading corporate house. Prices were compared to an international reference price (expressed as median price ratio-MPR). Results The procurement price of surveyed medicines was 0.53-0.82 times the international reference price-IRP. However, the overall mean availability of surveyed medicines in facilities under state government and MCD was 41.3% and 23.2%, respectively. The overall mean availability of medicines in three tertiary care facilities operated by the federal government was 49.3%. Availability of generic medicines was much higher in the private sector. Off-patented medicines, like diazepam, diclofenac, and doxycycline had the highest MPRs. The price ratio between procurement and retail was as high as 28 (range 11–28) for certain medicines. Seven-day treatment with a popular brand of amoxicillin+clavulanic acid or one inhaler each of budesonide and salbutamol cost 2.3 and 1.4 days’ wages for the lowest paid government worker. A majority of India’s population cannot afford these prices. Conclusions This study revealed that procurement prices of surveyed medicines were reasonable in comparison to IRP. However, variation in procurement prices of certain medicines by different public procurement agencies was noted. Availability of medicines was very poor in public sector facilities, which are the primary source of free medicines for a majority of India’s low-income population. Availability of medicines is better in private retail pharmacies but affordability remains a big challenge for a majority of the population. These data have significant policy implications that could help in amending policies to increase the access to essential medicines for India’s population.

One strategy to implement the rational use of medicines is the adoption of an 'essential medicines list'. The objective of this study was to analyze the list of medicines contained in the Brazilian National Relation of Essential Medicines (Rename, 2013) in terms of essentiality and rationality. Essentiality was determined by comparing this list to the 18th Essential Medicines List (EML) published by the World Health Organization (WHO). Drugs which were part of the Brazilian National Relation of Essential Medicines but not included in the EML were assessed using the classification described in La revue Prescrire to detect medications without added therapeutic value. It was discovered that the Brazilian National Relation of Essential Medicines contains 190 medications not included in the EML, of which 63 have no added therapeutic value. In addition, discrepancies were identified between the recommendations of the WHO and the drugs included in the Brazilian National Relation of Essential Medicines. It is concluded that drugs that are non-essential and provide no added therapeutic value should not be included in a list of essential medicines funded by the three Brazilian federal entities.

The Biopharmaceutics Classification system (BCS) classifies drug substances based on aqueous solubility and intestinal permeability. The objective of this study was to use the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines to determine the distribution of BCS Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 drugs in Abbreviated New drug Applications (ANDA) submissions. To categorize solubility and intestinal permeability properties of generic drugs under development, we used a list of 61 drugs which were classified as BCS 1, 2, 3, and 4 drugs with certainty in the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines. Applying this list to evaluation of 263 ANDA approvals of BCS drugs during the period of 2000 to 2011 indicated 110 approvals (41.8%) for Class 1 drugs (based on both biowaiver and in vivo bioequivalence studies), 55 (20.9%) approvals for Class 2 drugs, 98 (37.3%) approvals for Class 3 drugs, and no (0%) approvals for Class 4 drugs. The present data indicated a trend of more ANDA approvals of BCS Class 1 drugs than Class 3 or Class 2 drugs. Antiallergic drugs in Class 1, drugs for pain relief in Class 2 and antidiabetic drugs in Class 3 have received the largest number of approvals during this period.

ObjectivesEssential medicines lists (EMLs) are efficient means to ensure access to safe and effective medications. The WHO has led this initiative, generating a biannual EML since 1977. Nearly all countries have implemented national EMLs based on the WHO EML. Although EMLs have given careful consideration to many public health priorities, they have yet to comprehensively address the importance of medicines for treating acute illness and injury.MethodsWe undertook a multistep consensus process to establish an EML for emergency care in Africa. After a review of existing literature and international EMLs, we generated a candidate list for emergency care. This list was reviewed by expert clinicians who ranked the medicines for overall inclusion and strength of recommendation. These medications and recommendations were then evaluated by an expert group. Medications that reached consensus in both the online survey and expert review were included in a draft emergency care EML, which underwent a final inperson consensus process.ResultsThe final emergency care EML included 213 medicines, 25 of which are not in the 2017 WHO EML, but were deemed essential for clinical practice by regional emergency providers. The final EML has associated recommendations of desirable or essential and is subdivided by facility level. Thirty-nine medicines were recommended for basic facilities, an additional 96 for intermediate facilities (eg, district hospitals) and an additional 78 for advanced facilities (eg, tertiary centres).ConclusionThe 25 novel medications not currently on the WHO EML should be considered by planners when making rational formularies for developing emergency care systems. It is our hope that these resource-stratified lists will allow for easier implementation and will be a useful tool for practical expansion of emergency care delivery in Africa.