Dataset Information

How to address medicines shortages: Findings from a cross-sectional study of 24 countries.

ABSTRACT: Shortages of medicines have become a major public health challenge. The aim of this study was to survey national measures to manage and combat these shortages. A questionnaire survey was conducted with public authorities involved in the Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information (PPRI) network. Reponses relating to measures as of March / April 2020 were received from 24 countries (22 European countries, Canada and Israel). In 20 countries, manufacturers are requested to notify - usually on an obligatory basis - upcoming and existing shortages, which are recorded in a register. Further measures include a regular dialogue with relevant stakeholders (18 countries), financial sanctions for manufacturers in cases of non-supply and/or non-compliance with reporting or stocking requirements (15 countries) and simplified regulatory procedures (20 countries). For defined medicines, supply reserves have been established (14 countries), and legal provisions allow the issuing of export bans (10 countries). Some measures have been introduced since the end of 2019 and countries are planning and discussing further action. While governments reacted by taking national measures, the COVID-19 crisis might serve as an opportunity to join forces in cross-country collaboration and develop joint (e.g. European) solutions to address the shortage issue in a sustainable manner. A practical first step could be to work on a harmonisation of the national registers.

SUBMITTER: Vogler S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7505130 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How to address medicines shortages: Findings from a cross-sectional study of 24 countries.

Vogler Sabine S Fischer Stefan S

Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 20200921 12

Shortages of medicines have become a major public health challenge. The aim of this study was to survey national measures to manage and combat these shortages. A questionnaire survey was conducted with public authorities involved in the Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information (PPRI) network. Reponses relating to measures as of March / April 2020 were received from 24 countries (22 European countries, Canada and Israel). In 20 countries, manufacturers are requested to notify - usuall ...[more]

PMID: 33032846

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveIn Africa, the number of patients with hypertension is expected to reach 216.8 million by 2030. Large-scale data on antihypertensive medications used in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are scarce.Here, we describe antihypertensive drug strategies and identify treatment factors associated with blood pressure (BP) control in 12 Sub-Saharan countries.SettingOutpatient consultations for hypertension in urban tertiary cardiology centres of 29 hospitals from 17 cities across 12 SSA countries between January 2014 and November 2015.ParticipantsPatients ≥18 years of age with hypertension were enrolled at any visit during outpatient consultations in the cardiology departments MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We collected BP levels, demographic characteristics and antihypertensive treatment use (including traditional medicine) of patients with hypertension attending outpatient visits. BP control was defined as seated office BP <140/90 mm Hg. We used logistic regression with a random effect on countries to assess factors of BP control.ResultsOverall, 2198 hypertensive patients were included and a total of 96.6% (n=2123) were on antihypertensive medications. Among treated patients, 653 (30.8%) patients received a monotherapy by calcium channel blocker (n=324, 49.6%), renin-angiotensin system blocker (RAS) (n=126, 19.3%) or diuretic (n=122, 18.7%). Two-drug strategies were prescribed in 927 (43.6%) patients including mainly diuretics and RAS (n=327, 42% of two-drug strategies). Prescriptions of three-drugs or more were used in 543 (25.6%) patients. Overall, among treated patients, 1630 (76.7%) had uncontrolled BP, of whom 462 (28.3%) had BP levels ≥180/110 mm Hg, mainly in those on monotherapy. After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, the use of traditional medicine was the only factor significantly associated with uncontrolled BP (OR 1.72 (1.19 to 2.49) p<0.01).ConclusionOur study provided large-scale data on antihypertensive prescriptions in the African continent. Among patients declared adherent to drugs, poor BP control was significantly associated with the use of traditional medicine.

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:BackgroundIt is known that drug shortages represent a major challenge for all stakeholders involved in the process, but there is little evidence regarding insights into patients' awareness and perspectives. This study aimed to investigate the patients-perceived drug shortages experience and their view on outcomes in different European hospital settings. Furthermore, we wanted to explore information preferences on drug shortages.MethodsA retrospective, cross sectional, a mixed method study was conducted in six European hospital settings. One hospital (H) from each of this country agreed to participate: Bosnia and Herzegovina (H-BiH), Croatia (H-CR), Germany (H-GE), Greece (H-GR), Serbia (H-SE) and Poland (H-PO). Recruitment and data collection was conducted over 27 months from November 2017 until January 2020. Overall, we surveyed 607 patients which completed paper-based questionnaire. Questions related to: general information (demographic data), basic knowledge on drug shortages, drug shortages experienced during hospitalization and information preferences on drug shortage. Differences between hospital settings were analyzed using Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. For more complex contingency tables, Monte Carlo simulations (N = 2000) were applied for Fisher's test. Post-hoc hospital-wise analyses were performed using Fisher's exact tests. False discovery rate was controlled using the Bonferroni method. Analyses were performed using R: a language and environment for statistical computing (v 3.6.3).Results6 % of patients reported experiences with drug shortages while hospitalized which led to a deterioration of their health. The majority of affected patients were hospitalized at hematology and/or oncology wards in H-BiH, H-PO and H-GE. H-BiH had the highest number of affected patients (18.1 %, N = 19/105, p < 0.001) while the fewest patients were in H-SE (1 %, N = 1/100, p = 0.001). In addition, 82.5 %, (N = 501/607) of respondents wanted to be informed of alternative treatment options if there was a drug shortage without a generic substitute available. Majority of these patients (66.4 %, N = 386/501) prefer to be informed by a healthcare professional.ConclusionsAlthough drug shortages led to serious medical consequences, our findings show that most of the patients did not perceive shortages as a problem. One possible interpretation is that good hospital management practices by healthcare professionals helped to mitigate the perceived impact of shortages. Our study highlights the importance of a good communication especially between patients and healthcare professionals in whom our patients have the greatest trust.

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsThis 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.Findings87 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.InterpretationThese 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.FundingNone.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To examine risk perception, beliefs about migraine medications and medical adherence among pregnant and breastfeeding women with migraine. DESIGN AND SETTING:Cross-sectional study conducted in Norway from October 2013 to February 2014. Data were collected via an anonymous, electronic questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS:Women with migraine, either pregnant or having delivered within the previous 18 months. MAIN OUTCOMES:Women's perception of teratogenic risk (numeric rating scale 0-10) was obtained for 14 different drugs/substances, including medications commonly used in the acute treatment of migraine. Women's perspectives on migraine drug therapy were assessed by 10 statements from the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ-Specific) and six pregnancy/breastfeeding-specific statements. Adherence to migraine treatment during pregnancy and breastfeeding period was assessed by maternal self-report. RESULTS:The study population included 401 women with migraine, of which 140 were pregnant and 261 were new mothers. More than 70% of the women reported use of migraine medications during pregnancy. Still, the majority severely overestimated the risk associated with migraine medications and were concerned about using medications to manage their migraine during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Almost 9 out of 10 women had at some point deliberately avoided using migraine medications during their pregnancy. Women reporting use of migraine medications, however, were more positive and overestimated to a lesser extent the risks of using such medications in pregnancy compared with their counterparts. CONCLUSIONS:Women with migraine severely overestimated the risk associated with migraine pharmacotherapy in pregnancy. The majority of women were concerned about use of migraine medications during pregnancy and breastfeeding and reported non-adherence to needed treatment. More attention should be focused on women's beliefs and concerns regarding migraine pharmacotherapy during pregnancy and breastfeeding in order to improve management of disease, reduce unfounded concerns and enhance adherence to needed treatment.

Dataset Information

How to address medicines shortages: Findings from a cross-sectional study of 24 countries.

Publications

How to address medicines shortages: Findings from a cross-sectional study of 24 countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets