Comparison of essential medicines lists in 137 countries.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Persaud N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6560372 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparison of essential medicines lists in 137 countries.
Persaud Nav N Jiang Maggie M Shaikh Roha R Bali Anjli A Oronsaye Efosa E Woods Hannah H Drozdzal Gregory G Rajakulasingam Yathavan Y Maraj Darshanand D Wadhawan Sapna S Umali Norman N Wang Ri R McCall Marcy M Aronson Jeffrey K JK Plüddemann Annette A Moja Lorenzo L Magrini Nicola N Heneghan Carl C
Bulletin of the World Health Organization 20190404 6
<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the medicines included in national essential medicines lists with the World Health Organization's (WHO's) <i>Model list of essential medicines</i>, and assess the extent to which countries' characteristics, such as WHO region, size and health care expenditure, account for the differences.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched the WHO's Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal for national essential medicines lists. We compared each national list of essential m ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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 Lists that are used to prioritize access to important treatments should not include medicines that have been withdrawn elsewhere because of an unfavourable benefit-to-harm balance; however, countries still list and use medicines that have been withdrawn worldwide.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study was to determine whether the national essential medicines lists of 137 countries include medicines that have been withdrawn in other countries. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We performed an audit of national essential medicines lists for medicines that had been withdrawn. Medicines withdrawn from worldwide markets between 1953 and 2014 were identified using a systematic review of published literature and regulatory documents.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.
| S-EPMC6887519 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4178014 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6688805 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8359480 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEssential medicines lists (EMLs) are intended to reflect the priority health care needs of populations. We hypothesized that biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are underrepresented relative to conventional DMARDs in existing national EMLs. We aimed to survey the extent to which biologic DMARDs are included in EMLs, to determine country characteristics contributing to their inclusion or absence, and to contrast this with conventional DMARD therapies.MethodsWe searched 138 national EMLs for 10 conventional and 14 biologic DMARDs used in the treatment of childhood rheumatologic diseases. Via regression modelling, we determined country characteristics accounting for differences in medicine inclusion between national EMLs.ResultsEleven countries (7.97%) included all 10 conventional DMARDs, 115 (83.33%) ≥5, and all countries listed at least one. Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was associated with the total number of conventional DMARDs included (β11.02 [95% CI 0.39, 1.66]; P = 0.00279). Among biologic DMARDs, 3 countries (2.2%) listed ≥10, 15 (10.9%) listed ≥5, and 47 (34.1%) listed at least one. Ninety-one (65.9%) of countries listed no biologic DMARDs. European region (β1 1.30 [95% CI 0.08, 2.52]; P = 0.0367), life expectancy (β1-0.70 [95% CI -1.22, - 0.18]; P = 0.0085), health expenditure per capita (β1 1.83 [95% CI 1.24, 2.42]; P < 0.001), and conventional DMARDs listed (β1 0.70 [95% CI 0.33, 1.07]; P < 0.001) were associated with the total number of biologic DMARDs included.ConclusionBiologic DMARDs are excluded from most national EMLs. By comparison, conventional DMARDs are widely included. Countries with higher health spending and longer life expectancy are more likely to list biologics.
| S-EPMC8419977 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe evaluated the uptake of medicines licensed as orphan drugs by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or European Medicines Agency (EMA) into the WHO Model list of essential medicines and the WHO Model list of essential medicines for children from 1977 to 2021.MethodsWe collated and analysed data on drug characteristics, reasons for adding or rejecting medicines, and time between regulatory approval and inclusion in the lists. We compared trends in listing orphan drugs before and after revisions to the inclusion criteria of the essential medicines lists in 2001, as well as differences in trends for listing orphan and non-orphan drugs, respectively.FindingsThe proportion of orphan drugs in the essential medicines lists increased from 1.9% (4/208) in 1977 to 14.6% (70/478) in 2021. While orphan drugs for communicable diseases have remained stable over time, we observed a considerable shift towards more orphan drugs for noncommunicable diseases, particularly for cancer. The median period for inclusion in the essential medicines lists after either FDA or EMA first approval was 13.5 years (range: 1-28 years). Limited clinical evidence base and uncertainty about the magnitude of net benefit were the most frequent reasons to reject proposals to add new orphan drugs to the essential medicines lists.ConclusionDespite lack of a global definition of rare diseases, the essential medicines lists have broadened their scope to include medicines for rare conditions. However, the high costs of many listed orphan drugs pose accessibility and reimbursement challenges in resource-constrained settings.
| S-EPMC10753278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 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 findingsAll 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC3365009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Access to medicines is important for long-term care of cardiovascular diseases and hypertension. This study provides a cross-country assessment of availability, prices, and affordability of cardiovascular disease and hypertension medicines to identify areas for improvement in access to medication treatment. Methods and Results We used the World Health Organization online repository of national essential medicines lists (EMLs) for 53 countries to transcribe the information on the inclusion of 12 cardiovascular disease/hypertension medications within each country's essential medicines list. Data on availability, price, and affordability were obtained from 84 surveys in 59 countries that used the World Health Organization's Health Action International survey methodology. We summarized and compared the indicators across lowest-price generic and originator brand medicines in the public and private sectors and by country income groups. The average availability of the select medications was 54% in low- and lower-middle-income countries and 60% in high- and upper-middle-income countries, and was higher for generic (61%) than brand medicines (41%). The average patient median price ratio was 80.3 for brand and 16.7 for generic medicines and was higher for patients in low- and lower-middle-income countries compared with high- and upper-middle-income countries across all medicine categories. The costs of 1 month's antihypertensive medications were, on average, 6.0 days' wage for brand medicine and 1.8 days' wage for generics. Affordability was lower in low- and lower-middle-income countries than high- and upper-middle-income countries for both brand and generic medications. Conclusions The availability and accessibility of pharmaceuticals is an ongoing challenge for health systems. Low availability and high costs are major barriers to the use of and adherence to essential cardiovascular disease and antihypertensive medications worldwide, particularly in low- and lower-middle-income countries.
| S-EPMC7428558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGlobally, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death and disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (WHO EML) is a tool for improving accessibility and availability of medicines. This study compared the 2021 WHO EML CVDs basket of medicines with latest available national essential medicines list (NEMLs) for South Africa and 15 Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries to assess consistency in CVDs medicine listing.MethodsThis descriptive, desktop review study compared SADC NEMLs. A comparator list was extracted by combining cardiovascular medicines listed in the 2021 WHO EML for adults and children. SADC country NEMLs were obtained from the WHO Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal. Consistency of NEMLs was calculated as a percentage coverage of CVD medicines listed in the 2021 WHO EML. SA hospital and primary health care (PHC) level NEMLs were included as separate formularies.ResultsThe SA hospital level NEML scored 70% consistency with the 2021 WHO EML. Tanzania (84%), Namibia (81%) and Angola (79%) scored the highest consistency. The mean consistency for SADC NEMLs was 66%. The lowest scoring country was Eswatini at 26%. The SA PHC NEML scored 35%. The least listed medicines were beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), clopidogrel (43%) and paediatric formulations (furosemide (21%); digoxin (43%)). Individual antihypertensive medicines were most commonly listed. Botswana and Lesotho were the only countries to list a single pill combination (SPC) for the treatment of hypertension.ConclusionsThis comparison indicates that South Africa and most SADC countries are aligned with 2021 WHO EML recommendations. The inclusion of age-appropriate formulations for children as well as ARBs and SPC for the treatment of hypertension may improve patient adherence and cardiovascular outcomes in these countries. More frequent updates to NEMLs should improve consistency. NEMLs were not available for two countries, and these therefore did not form part of this study. Country health expenditure in ranking the consistency of NEMLs was not accounted for. LMICs adopting the essential medicine list strategy should consider imposing minimum consistency thresholds to the WHO EML to improve accessibility and availability of CVD medicines.Trial registrationNot applicable.
| S-EPMC9733348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally despite effective treatments. Along with high-quality health services, essential medicines are a key tool in curbing TB related mortality. Examining relationships between listing TB medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) and population health outcomes related to amenable mortality is one way to assess TB care.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study of 137 countries, we used linear regression to examine the relationship between the number of TB medicines listed on NEMLs and TB related mortality while controlling for country income, region and TB burden.ResultsMost countries listed essential TB medicines to treat latent, drug-sensitive and disseminated TB but few listed enough for multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB) therapy. The total number of TB medicines listed ranged from 1 to 29 (median: 19, interquartile range: 15 to 22). Over 75% of the variation in health outcomes were explained by the number of TB medicines listed, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, region and high-burden MDR-TB status. The number of TB medicines listed was not associated with TB mortality.ConclusionMost countries list essential TB treatments and the variation in TB outcomes is explained by other factors such as GDP.
| S-EPMC8924688 | biostudies-literature