Dataset Information

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that elevate cardiovascular risk: an examination of sales and essential medicines lists in low-, middle-, and high-income countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

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.

Methods and findings

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%.

Conclusions

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 Diclofenac has a risk very similar to rofecoxib, which was withdrawn from worldwide markets owing to cardiovascular toxicity.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.

SUBMITTER: McGettigan P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3570554 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that elevate cardiovascular risk: an examination of sales and essential medicines lists in low-, middle-, and high-income countries.

McGettigan Patricia P Henry David D

PLoS medicine 20130212 2

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>Data on the relative risk (RR ...[more]

PMID: 23424288

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: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: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.

Project description:Falsified and substandard drugs are a global health problem, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) that have weak pharmacovigilance and drug regulatory systems. Poor quality medicines have important health consequences, including the potential for treatment failure, development of antimicrobial resistance, and serious adverse drug reactions, increasing healthcare costs and undermining the public's confidence in healthcare systems. This article presents a review of the methods employed for the analysis of pharmaceutical formulations. Technologies for detecting substandard and falsified drugs were identified primarily through literature reviews. Key-informant interviews with experts augmented our methods when warranted. In order to aid comparisons, technologies were assigned a suitability score for use in LMIC ranging from 0-8. Scores measured the need for electricity, need for sample preparation, need for reagents, portability, level of training required, and speed of analysis. Technologies with higher scores were deemed the most feasible in LMICs. We categorized technologies that cost $10,000 USD or less as low cost, $10,000-100,000 USD as medium cost and those greater than $100,000 USD as high cost technologies (all prices are 2013 USD). This search strategy yielded information on 42 unique technologies. Five technologies were deemed both low cost and had feasibility scores between 6-8, and an additional four technologies had medium cost and high feasibility. Twelve technologies were deemed portable and therefore could be used in the field. Many technologies can aid in the detection of substandard and falsified drugs that vary from the simplest of checklists for packaging to the most complex mass spectrometry analyses. Although there is no single technology that can serve all the requirements of detecting falsified and substandard drugs, there is an opportunity to bifurcate the technologies into specific niches to address specific sections within the workflow process of detecting products.

Project description:The incidence and mortality of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) in low and middle income countries (LMICs) have been increasing, while access to CVDs medicines is suboptimal. We assessed selection of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of CVDs on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) of LMICs and potential determinants for selection.Only operational NEMLs were considered eligible for this study. A selection of medicines listed under "cardiovascular medicines" or "blood products and plasma substitutes" in the NEMLs were included if they were present on international guidelines for the prevention and treatment of CVDs (hyperlipidemia, hypertension, platelet inhibition, ischemic stroke, stable ischemic heart disease, acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, peripheral arterial disease and acute limb ischemia). The number and diversity of essential medicines selected for CVDs were studied. Moreover, determinants of selection of essential medicines for CVDs at a national level were explored. Data analysis was done using univariate linear regression and non-parametric tests.All medicine groups listed by the international guidelines were selected by the majority of the 34 countries studied with the exception of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors which appeared on less than half of the NEMLs studied (41% of countries). The total number of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases (median 24 (range 16-50)) differed significantly across income levels (median range: 19.5-25, p?=?0.014) and across regions (median range: 20-32, p?=?0.049). When recommendations of the international guidelines were considered, over 75% of the NEMLs contained essential medicines for the majority of CVDs.The main medicine classes for the management of CVDs were represented on NEMLs. Consequently, for the majority of CVDs, evidence-based guideline-recommended treatment is possible as far as selection of essential medicines is concerned. Selection will therefore not be the limiting step in access to medicines for cardiovascular diseases.

Project description:BackgroundAsthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cause a considerable burden of morbidity and mortality in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Access to safe, effective, quality-assured, and affordable essential medicines is variable. We aimed to review the existing literature relating to the availability, cost, and affordability of WHO's essential medicines for asthma and COPD in LMICs.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was done by searching seven databases to identify research articles published between Jan 1, 2010, and June 30, 2022. Studies on named essential medicines for asthma and COPD in LMICs were included and review articles were excluded. Two authors (MS and HT) screened and extracted data independently, and assessed bias using Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools. The main outcome measures were availability (WHO target of 80%), cost (compared with median price ratio [MPR]), and affordability (number of days of work of the lowest paid government worker). The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021281069.FindingsOf 4742 studies identified, 29 met the inclusion criteria providing data from 60 LMICs. All studies had a low risk of bias. Six of 58 countries met the 80% availability target for short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs), three of 48 countries for inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), and zero of four for inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting beta-agonist (ICS-LABA) combination inhalers. Costs were reported by 12 studies: the range of MPRs was 1·1-351 for SABAs, 2·6-340 for ICSs, and 24 for ICS-LABAs in the single study reporting this. Affordability was calculated in ten studies: SABA inhalers typically cost around 1-4 days' wages, ICSs 2-7 days, and ICS-LABAs at least 6 days. The included studies showed heterogeneity.InterpretationEssential medicines for treating asthma and COPD were largely unavailable and unaffordable in LMICs. This was particularly true for inhalers containing corticosteroids.FundingWHO and Wellcome Trust.

Dataset Information

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that elevate cardiovascular risk: an examination of sales and essential medicines lists in low-, middle-, and high-income countries.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that elevate cardiovascular risk: an examination of sales and essential medicines lists in low-, middle-, and high-income countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets