Dataset Information

Priority medicines for maternal and child health: a global survey of national essential medicines lists.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In April 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a list of "priority medicines" for maternal and child health based on 1) the global burden of disease and 2) evidence of efficacy and safety. The objective of this study was to examine the occurrence of these priority medicines on national essential medicines lists.

Methods and findings

All essential medicines lists published since 1999 were selected from the WHO website collection. The most-up-to date list for each country was then selected, resulting in 89 unique country lists. Each list was evaluated for inclusion of medicines (chemical entity, concentration, and dosage form) on the Priority Medicines List. There was global variation in the listing of the Priority Medicines. The most frequently listed medicine was paracetamol, on 94% (84/89) of lists. Sodium chloride, gentamicin and oral rehydration solution were on 93% (83/89) of lists. The least frequently listed medicine was the children's antimalarial rectal artesunate, on 8% of lists (7/89); artesunate injection was on 16% (14/89) of lists. Pediatric artemisinin combination therapy, as dispersible tablets or flexible oral solid dosage form, appeared on 36% (32/89) of lists. Procaine benzylpenicillin, for treatment of pediatric pneumonia and neonatal sepsis, was on 50% (45/89) of the lists. Zinc, for treatment of diarrhoea in children, was included on only 15% (13/89) of lists. For prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage in women, oxytocin was more prevalent on the lists than misoprostol; they were included on 55 (62%) and 31 (35%) of lists, respectively. Cefixime, for treatment of uncomplicated anogenital gonococcal infection in woman was on 26% (23/89) of lists. Magnesium sulfate injection for treatment of severe pre-eclampsia and eclampsia was on 50% (45/89) of the lists.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that countries need to urgently amend their lists to provide all priority medicines as part of the efforts to improve maternal and child health.

SUBMITTER: Hill S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3365009 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimDiabetes is a growing burden especially in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Inadequate access to diabetes care is of particular concern and selection of appropriate diabetes medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) is a first step in achieving adequate access. This selection was studied among LMICs and influences of various factors associated with selection decisions were assessed.MethodsCountries were studied if they employed NEMLs for reimbursement or procurement purposes. Presence and number of essential diabetes medicines from different classes, both insulins and oral blood glucose lowering medicines, were surveyed and calculated. Data were also analyzed by country income level, geographic region, year of last update of the NEML and purpose of NEML employment. The effect of prevalence and burden of disease on the number of essential diabetes medicines was also studied. Non parametric tests and univariate linear regression analysis were used.ResultsNearly all countries (n?=?32) had chosen fast (97%) and intermediate acting insulin (93%), glibenclamide and metformin (100% both) as essential medicines. The median number of essential diabetes medicines was 6, equally divided between insulins and oral medicines. 20% of the countries had selected insulin analogues as essential medicines. Among all the studied factors, an increase in burden of diabetes and wealth of countries were associated with selection of higher numbers of essential diabetes medicines (p?=?0.02 in both cases).ConclusionsNearly all the studied LMICs had included the minimum required medicines for diabetes management in their NEMLs. Selection can still be improved (e.g. exclusion of insulin analogues and replacement of glibenclamide by gliclazide). Nevertheless, the known suboptimal and inconsistent availability of essential diabetes medicines in LMICs cannot be explained by inadequate selection of essential medicines. Countries should therefore be encouraged to give precedence to implementation of NEMLs to make essential diabetes medicines more accessible.

Project description:BackgroundNon-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death worldwide. Inadequate and inequitable access to essential NCD medicines is a major concern, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. National Essential Medicines Lists (EMLs) are important policy tools that indicate which medicines are prioritized as essential within a country's health system. This study sought to analyze a wide range of national essential medicines lists (EMLs) for their inclusion of priority non communicable disease (NCD) interventions recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).MethodsThree lists of WHO endorsed priority NCD interventions were included. A database with 137 national EMLs and the WHO EML was created from the WHO Repository and these EMLs were compared for listing of priority NCD interventions.ResultsAcross 137 countries with national EMLs, the median percentage of 20 Best Buys interventions listed was 90% (IQR 80-95) and 31 Package of essential noncommunicable disease interventions (PEN) interventions listed was 94% (IQR 90-97), of 9 HEARTS interventions was 100% (IQR 89-100), and of the 43 unique interventions across the three priority lists was 88% (IQR 84-93). Less than 80% of the 43 interventions were listed by 22 (16%) countries and less than half of the interventions were listed by 2 countries: Angola (35%) and Cambodia (23%). Interventions listed on the fewest number of national EMLs were: influenza vaccine, HPV vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, cervical cancer chemotherapy, codeine, promethazine, senna, and oxygen.ConclusionMost NCD interventions have been prioritized in national policy in most cases. The majority of priority medicines for NCDs described within key WHO NCD technical packages are listed on nearly all national EMLs across 137 countries of all income levels. Most NCD interventions have been prioritized in national policy in most cases, but in some countries and for select interventions such as the HPV vaccine, prioritization may be reviewed.

Project description:Background: The pursuit of health equity is a priority in Ethiopia, especially with regards to maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH). To date, there has been little characterization of the 'problem' of health inequity, and the normative assumptions implicit in the representation of the problem. Yet, such insights have implications for shaping the framing, incentivization, and implementation of health policies and their wider impact. Objective: In this article, we characterize how health (in)equity is represented as a policy issue, how this representation came about, and the underlying assumptions. Methods: We draw from Bacchi's 'what is the problem represented to be' approach to explore how national-level actors in the health sector constitute the problem. The data for our analysis encompass 23 key informant interviews with national health sector actors working in leadership positions on MNCH in Ethiopia, and six policy documents. Findings were derived from thematic and content analysis. Results: Health inequity is a normalized and inevitable concern that is regarded as actionable (can be altered) but not fully resolvable (can never be fully achieved). Operationally, health equity is viewed as a technocratic matter, reflected in the widespread use of metrics to motivate and measure progress. These representations are shaped by Ethiopia's rapid expansion of health services into rural areas during the 2000s leading to the positive international attention and funding the country received for improved MNCH indicators. Expanding the coverage and efficiency of health service provision, especially in rural areas, is associated with economic productivity. Conclusion: The metrication of health equity may detract from the fairness, justice, and morality underpinnings of the concept. The findings of this study point to the implications of global pressures in terms of maximizing health investments, and call into question how social, political, and economic determinants of health are addressed through broader development agendas.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Essential medicines lists and related policies are intended to meet the priority health needs of populations and their implementation is associated with more appropriate use of medicines. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that countries carefully select the medicines to be included in their national essential medicines lists. Lists that are used to prioritize access to important treatments should not include medicines that have been withdrawn elsewhere because of an unfavourable benefit-to-harm balance; however, countries still list and use medicines that have been withdrawn worldwide. The objective of this study was to determine whether the national essential medicines lists of 137 countries include medicines that have been withdrawn in other countries. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We performed an audit of national essential medicines lists for medicines that had been withdrawn. Medicines withdrawn from worldwide markets between 1953 and 2014 were identified using a systematic review of published literature and regulatory documents. The reviewers used sources including the WHO's database of drugs, PubMed, and the websites of regulatory agencies to obtain information regarding adverse effects associated with the medicines, the year of first withdrawal, markets of withdrawal, and the level of evidence supporting each withdrawal. We recorded the number of countries with a withdrawn medicine included in their national medicines list, the number of withdrawn medicines included in each nation's list, and the number of national essential medicines including each withdrawn medicine. 97 medicines were withdrawn in at least one country but still included in one more national essential medicines list. Of 137 countries with a national essential medicines list, 136 lists included at least one withdrawn medicine, with 54% of the lists containing 5 or fewer withdrawn medicines, and 27% including 10 or more withdrawn medicines. 11 medicines were withdrawn worldwide but still included on at least one national essential medicines list. Countries with longer essential medicines lists had more withdrawn medicines included in their lists. CONCLUSIONS:This study found that withdrawn medicines are included in all but one national essential medicines list, representing a need for more stringent processes for selecting and removing medicines on these lists. Countries may wish to apply special scrutiny to medicines withdrawn in other nations when selecting medicines to include on their lists.

Project description:BackgroundAccess to life-saving medicines for maternal health remains a major challenge in numerous developing nations. Periodic and continuous assessment of access to lifesaving commodities is of enormous importance to measure progress and ensure sustainable supply. This study aimed to assess the availability and affordability of priority lifesaving maternal medicines in Addis Ababa in January 2021.MethodsAn institutional-based cross-sectional study design was employed to assess 33 representative private pharmacies, public health facilities, NGO and private hospitals providing maternal health care and dispensing medicines from January 12 to 27, 2021 in Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. WHO and Health Action International procedures were followed to determine sample size, sampling of health facilities, and data collection. WHO and UNFPA priority lifesaving maternal health medicines included in the Ethiopia essential medicine list were included in the study. Data were cleaned and entered into SPSS version 25 for analysis.ResultThe overall mean availability of maternal health medicines was fairly high, 59% (range 6%-94%), as per the WHO availability index. Among the four sectors, the private pharmacy had the lowest availability (40%), while the mean availability in private hospitals, public and NGO/mission sector facilities were 70%, 72% and 72% respectively. Medicines used only for the management of maternal health conditions had lower availability (47%) compared to commodities used for the broader indication (65%). Compared based on source, the average availability of maternal health medicines which could be sourced locally was (68%) higher than imported medicines (55%). Affordability was not an issue in the public sector, public facilities offered maternal health medicines at no cost to the client. On the other hand, the private hospitals dispensed only 13% of the medicines at affordable prices followed by the private pharmacies (17%) and NGO/Mission facilities (29%). Furthermore, key challenges to access maternal health medicines were frequent stockouts in the public sector and the high cost of medicines in the private sector.ConclusionEven though it was below the recommended 80% availability, fairly high availability with variabilities across sectors was observed. Except in the public sector, maternal health medicines were unaffordable in Addis Ababa.

Project description:ObjectiveEssential medicines lists have been created and used globally in countries that range from low-income to high-income status. The aim of this paper is to compare the essential medicines list of high-income countries with each other, the WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines and the lists of countries of other income statuses.DesignHigh-income countries were defined by World Bank classification. High-income essential medicines lists were assessed for medicine inclusion and were compared with the subset of high-income countries, the WHO's Model List and 137 national essential medicines lists. Medicine lists were obtained from the Global Essential Medicines database. Countries were subdivided by income status, and the groups' most common medicines were compared. Select medicines and medicine classes were assessed for inclusion among high-income country lists.ResultsThe 21 high-income countries identified were most like each other when compared with other lists. They were more like upper middle-income countries and least like low-income countries. There was significant variability in the number of medicines on each list. Less than half (48%) of high-income countries included a newer diabetes medicines in their list. Most countries (71%) included naloxone while every country including at least one opioid medicine. More than half of the lists (52%) included a medicine that has been globally withdrawn or banned.ConclusionEssential medicines lists of high-income countries are similar to each other, but significant variations in essential medicine list composition and specifically the number of medications included were noted. Effective medicines were left off several countries' lists, and globally recalled medicines were included on over half the lists. Comparing the essential medicines lists of countries within the same income status category can provide a useful subset of lists for policymakers and essential medicine list creators to use when creating or maintaining their lists.