Dataset Information

Essential psychiatric medicines: wrong selection, high consumption and social problems.

ABSTRACT: The World Health Organization Essential Medicines List (WHO-LIST) and national essential medicines lists differ because many countries face significant challenges, such as product availability, cost, product quality and epidemiological disease profiles. In Brazil, governments pay for drugs that are included on the federal, state and municipal government (REMUME) lists. The extent to which municipal lists differ from state and national lists and from the WHO-LIST is unclear. We investigate the use of the WHO-LISTas a tool with which to evaluate the selection process for the essential psychiatric medicines in the public system coverage list of Brazilian communities (cities) and the use of the target drugs.Municipal health secretaries were interviewed regarding the selection process for REMUMEs and the antidepressants and benzodiazepines included in REMUMEs and reference lists. We calculated the use of REMUME drugs that appeared or did not appear on reference lists according to the defined daily dose (DDD) per 10,000 inhabitants.Local physicians and pharmacists without specific training or explicit criteria developed the REMUMEs. Of the 13 drugs and 24 products (i.e., the different dosages of these 13 drugs) in the REMUMEs, 8 drugs and 10 products were included in at least one reference list and in one municipal list; 4 drugs and 6 products were included in at least one reference list but in none of the municipal lists; and 7 drugs and 8 products were included in at least one municipal list but in none of the reference lists. The antidepressants that appeared in at least one municipal list but in none of the reference lists represented 25.1 % (mean 60.9 DDD/10,000 inhabitants-day) of the usage. The benzodiazepines that appeared in at least one of the municipal lists but in none of the reference lists represented 14.7 % mean 18.5 DDD/10,000 inhabitants-day) of the usage.Brazilian cities have no rigorous processes for selecting the drugs that appear on their lists, and drugs that do not appear on the reference lists represent a significant proportion of antidepressant and benzodiazepine use, resulting in public health and social problems.

SUBMITTER: Fulone I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4719662 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectiveTo explore the perspectives of a diverse group of stakeholders engaged in medicines decision making around what constitutes an "essential" medicine, and how the Essential Medicines List (EML) concept functions in a high income country context.MethodsIn-depth qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 Australian stakeholders, recognised as decision makers, leaders or advisors in the area of medicines reimbursement or supply chain management. Participants were recruited from government, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical wholesale/distribution companies, medicines non-profit organisations, academic health disciplines, hospitals, and consumer groups. Perspectives on the definition and application of the EML concept in a high income country context were thematically analysed using grounded theory approach.FindingsStakeholders found it challenging to describe the EML concept in the Australian context because many perceived it was generally used in resource scarce settings. Stakeholders were unable to distinguish whether nationally reimbursed medicines were essential medicines in Australia. Despite frequent generic drug shortages and high prices paid by consumers, many struggled to describe how the EML concept applied to Australia. Instead, broad inclusion of consumer needs, such as rare and high cost medicines, and consumer involvement in the decision making process, has led to expansive lists of nationally subsidised medicines. Therefore, improved communication and coordination is needed around shared interests between stakeholders regarding how medicines are prioritised and guaranteed in the supply chain.ConclusionsThis study showed that decision-making in Australia around reimbursement of medicines has strayed from the fundamental utilitarian concept of essential medicines. Many stakeholders involved in medicine reimbursement decisions and management of the supply chain did not consider the EML concept in their approach. The wide range of views of what stakeholders considered were essential medicines, challenges whether the EML concept is out-dated or underutilised in high income countries.

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.

Dataset Information

Essential psychiatric medicines: wrong selection, high consumption and social problems.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets