Explore the vast range of titles available.

The WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) identifies priority medicines that are most important to public health. Over time, the EML has included an increasing number of cancer medicines. We aimed to investigate whether the cancer medicines in the EML are aligned with the priority medicines of frontline oncologists worldwide, and the extent to which these medicines are accessible in routine clinical practice. This international, cross-sectional survey was developed by investigators from a range of clinical practice settings across low-income to high-income countries, including members of the WHO Essential Medicines Cancer Working Group. A 28-question electronic survey was developed and disseminated to a global network of oncologists in 89 countries and regions by use of a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their national and regional oncology associations or personal networks. The survey was open from Oct 15 to Dec 7, 2020. Fully qualified physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy to adults were eligible to participate in the survey. The primary question asked respondents to select the ten cancer medicines that would provide the greatest public health benefit to their country; subsequent questions explored availability and cost of cancer medicines. Descriptive statistics were used to compare access to medicines between low-income and lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries. 87 country-level contacts and two regional networks were invited to participate in the survey; 46 (52%) accepted the invitation and distributed the survey. 1697 respondents opened the survey link; 423 were excluded as they did not answer the primary study question and 326 were excluded because of ineligibility. 948 eligible oncologists from 82 countries completed the survey (165 [17%] in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 165 [17%] in upper-middle-income countries, and 618 [65%] in high-income countries). The most commonly selected medicines were doxorubicin (by 499 [53%] of 948 respondents), cisplatin (by 470 [50%]), paclitaxel (by 423 [45%]), pembrolizumab (by 414 [44%]), trastuzumab (by 402 [42%]), carboplatin (by 390 [41%]), and 5-fluorouracil (by 386 [41%]). Of the 20 most frequently selected high-priority cancer medicines, 19 (95%) are currently on the WHO EML; 12 (60%) were cytotoxic agents and 13 (65%) were granted US Food and Drug Administration regulatory approval before 2000. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability of each top 20 medication was 9–54% in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 13–90% in upper-middle-income countries, and 68–94% in high-income countries. The risk of catastrophic expenditure (spending >40% of total consumption net of spending on food) was more common in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, with 13–68% of respondents indicating a substantial risk of catastrophic expenditures for each of the top 20 medications in lower-middle-income countries versus 2–41% of respondents in upper-middle-income countries and 0–9% in high-income countries. These data demonstrate major barriers in access to core cancer medicines worldwide. These findings challenge the feasibility of adding additional expensive cancer medicines to the EML. There is an urgent need for global and country-level policy action to ensure patients with cancer globally have access to high priority medicines. None.

Essential medicines satisfy the priority health-care needs of the population. Essential medicines policies are crucial to promoting health and achieving sustainable development. Sustainable Development Goal 3.8 specifically mentions the importance of \"access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all\" as a central component of Universal Health Coverage (UHC), and Sustainable Development Goal 3.b emphasises the need to develop medicines to address persistent treatment gaps.

Certain non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (e.g., rofecoxib [Vioxx]) increase the risk of heart attack and stroke and should be avoided in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events. Rates of cardiovascular disease are high and rising in many low- and middle-income countries. We studied the extent to which evidence on cardiovascular risk with NSAIDs has translated into guidance and sales in 15 countries. Data on the relative risk (RR) of cardiovascular events with individual NSAIDs were derived from meta-analyses of randomised trials and controlled observational studies. Listing of individual NSAIDs on Essential Medicines Lists (EMLs) was obtained from the World Health Organization. NSAID sales or prescription data for 15 low-, middle-, and high-income countries were obtained from Intercontinental Medical Statistics Health (IMS Health) or national prescription pricing audit (in the case of England and Canada). Three drugs (rofecoxib, diclofenac, etoricoxib) ranked consistently highest in terms of cardiovascular risk compared with nonuse. Naproxen was associated with a low risk. Diclofenac was listed on 74 national EMLs, naproxen on just 27. Rofecoxib use was not documented in any country. Diclofenac and etoricoxib accounted for one-third of total NSAID usage across the 15 countries (median 33.2%, range 14.7-58.7%). This proportion did not vary between low- and high-income countries. Diclofenac was by far the most commonly used NSAID, with a market share close to that of the next three most popular drugs combined. Naproxen had an average market share of less than 10%. Listing of NSAIDs on national EMLs should take account of cardiovascular risk, with preference given to low risk drugs. Diclofenac has a risk very similar to rofecoxib, which was withdrawn from worldwide markets owing to cardiovascular toxicity. Diclofenac should be removed from EMLs.

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.

Recent public outcry has highlighted the rising cost of prescription drugs worldwide, which in several disease areas outpaces other health care expenditures and results in a suboptimal global availability of essential medicines. A systematic review of Pubmed, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Guardian was performed to identify articles related to the pricing of medicines. Changes in drug life cycles have dramatically affected patent medicine markets, which have long been considered a self-evident and self-sustainable source of income for highly profitable drug companies. Market failure in combination with high merger and acquisition activity in the sector have allowed price increases for even off-patent drugs. With market interventions and the introduction of QALY measures in health care, governments have tried to influence drug prices, but often encounter unintended consequences. Patent reform legislation, reference pricing, outcome-based pricing and incentivizing physicians and pharmacists to prescribe low-cost drugs are among the most promising short-term policy options. Due to the lack of systematic research on the effectiveness of policy measures, an increasing number of ad hoc decisions have been made with counterproductive effects on the availability of essential drugs. Future challenges demand new policies, for which recommendations are offered. A fertile ground for high-priced drugs has been created by changes in drug life-cycle dynamics, the unintended effects of patent legislation, government policy measures and orphan drug programs. There is an urgent need for regulatory reform to curtail prices and safeguard equitable access to innovative medicines.

Access to health care is a fundamental human right. However, nearly one-third of the global population have no access to it. This magnitude is even much worse in low- and middle-income countries. A cross-sectional study was conducted from April 12 to June 5, 2024 to determine availability, price and affordability of essential medicines for managing cardiovascular diseases using WHO/HAI methodology in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Data on the availability and price of the lowest priced generic medicines were collected from five public, ten private and eight other sectors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The availability was assessed as the percentage of health facilities that stocked the listed medicines. The prices of these medicines were evaluated across all sectors. Price variations were calculated to identify differences among these settings. Additionally, medicine prices were compared against the management sciences for health (MSH) International Reference Prices to calculate the Median Price Ratio (MPR), providing a standardized measure of price affordability and accessibility. The data was analyzed using WHO/HAI work book Excel sheet V 15. The overall availability of generic drugs in all sectors was found to be 34.52%. The availability was 33.73, 40.58, 29.8 and 33.99% in Public, Private, Kenema and Red Cross pharmacies, respectively. The median price ratios for the medications used to treat cardiovascular disease were 3.49, 7.24, 2.84 and 5.2 at Public, Private, Kenema, and Red Cross Pharmacies, respectively. Majority of the medicines were found to be unaffordable, costing up to 352.44 days’ wage of the lowest paid government employee to cover a one-month standard treatment. In conclusion, the study underscores significant challenges in the availability, pricing, and affordability of LPG medications to treat CVDs in Ethiopia.

Contemporary data on the availability, cost and affordability of essential medicines for chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are missing, despite most people with CRDs living in LMICs. Cross-sectional data for seven CRD medicines in pharmacies, healthcare facilities and central medicine stores were collected from 60 LMICs in 2022–2023. Medicines for symptomatic relief were widely available and affordable, while preventative treatments varied widely in cost, were less available and largely unaffordable. There is an urgent need to address these issues if the Sustainable Development Goal 3 is to be achieved for people with asthma by 2030.

The 2017 WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (EMLc) groups antibiotics as Access, Watch, or Reserve, based on recommendations of their use as first-choice and second-choice empirical treatment for the most common infections. This grouping provides an opportunity to review country-level antibiotic consumption and a potential for stewardship. Therefore, we aimed to review 2015 levels of oral antibiotic consumption by young children globally. We analysed wholesale antibiotic sales in 70 middle-income and high-income countries in 2015. We identified oral antibiotic formulations appropriate for use in young children (defined as child-appropriate formulations [CAFs]) using wholesale data from the IQVIA-Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System database, and we estimated 2015 antibiotic consumption in reference to the 2017 WHO EMLc Access, Watch, Reserve (AWaRe) antibiotic groups. We used three metrics for assessment of intra-country patterns: access percentage, defined as the number of CAF standard units of Access antibiotics divided by the total number of CAF standard units; amoxicillin index, defined as the number of amoxicillin CAF standard units divided by the total number of CAF standard units; and access-to-watch index, defined as the ratio of Access-to-Watch CAF standard units. The overall median volume of CAF antibiotic standard units sold in 2015 per country was 74·5 million (IQR 12·4–210·7 million). The median access percentage among the 70 countries was 76·3% (IQR 62·6–84·2). The amoxicillin index was low (median 30·7%, IQR 14·3–47·3). The median access-to-watch index was 6·0 (IQR 3·1–9·8). CAF antibiotic consumption patterns were highly variable between the 70 countries, without a clear difference between high-income and middle-income countries. Antibiotics in the Access group have a key role in treating young children globally. A simple combination of metrics based on the AWaRe groups can be informative on individual countries' patterns of antibiotic consumption and stewardship opportunities. These metrics could support countries in the development of programmes to improve access to core Access antibiotics, particularly amoxicillin. Global Antibiotic R&D Partnership (German Federal Ministry of Health, Médecins Sans Frontières, Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, and UK Department for International Development).

Background Despite the complexity of drug use, a number of indicators have been developed, standardized and evaluated by the World Health Organization (WHO). These indicators are grouped in to three categories namely: prescribing indicators, patient care indicators and facility indicators. The study was aimed to evaluate rational drug use based on WHO-core drug use indicators in Dilchora referral hospital, Dire Dawa; Hiwot Fana specialized university hospital, Harar and Karamara general hospital, Jigjiga, eastern Ethiopia. Methods Hospital based quantitative cross sectional study design was employed to evaluate rational drug use based on WHO core drug use indicators in selected hospitals. Systematic random sampling for prescribing indicators and convenient sampling for patient care indicators was employed. Taking WHO recommendations in to account, a total of 1,500 prescription papers (500 from each hospitals) were investigated. In each hospital, 200 outpatient attendants and 30 key essential drugs were also selected using the WHO recommendation. Data were collected using retrospective and prospective structured observational check list. Data were entered to EPI Data Version 3.1, exported and analyzed using SPSS version 16.0. Besides, the data were evaluated as per the WHO guidelines. Statistical significance was determined by one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for some variables. P -value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Finally, tabular presentation was used to present the data. Results Mean, 2.34 (±1.08) drugs were prescribed in the selected hospitals. Prescriptions containing antibiotics and that of injectables were 57.87 and 10.9% respectively. The average consultation and dispensing time were 276.5 s and 61.12 s respectively. Besides, 75.77% of the prescribed drugs were actually dispensed. Only 3.3% of prescriptions were adequately labeled and 75.7% patients know about the dosage of the prescription. Not more than, 20(66.7%) key drugs were available in stock while only 19(63.3%) of key drugs had adequate labeling. On average, selected key drugs were out of stock for 30 days per year. All of the hospitals included in the study used the national drug list, formulary and standard treatment guidelines but none of them had their own drug list or guideline. Conclusion Majority of WHO stated core drug use indicators were not met by the three hospitals included in the study.

Since economic liberalization in the late 1970s, China's health care providers have grown heavily reliant on revenue from drugs, which they both prescribe and sell. To curb abuse and to promote the availability, safety, and appropriate use of essential drugs, China introduced its national essential drug list in 2009 and implemented a zero markup policy designed to decouple provider compensation from drug prescription and sales. The authors collected and analyzed representative data from China's township health centers and their catchment-area populations both before and after the reform. They found large reductions in drug revenue, as intended by policy makers. However, they also found a doubling of inpatient care that appeared to be driven by supply, instead of demand. Thus, the reform had an important unintended consequence: China's health care providers have sought new, potentially inappropriate, forms of revenue.