Insights from the WHO and National Lists of Essential Medicines: Focus on Pediatric Diabetes Care in Africa.
Access to essential medicines in pediatric endocrinology and diabetes is limited in resource-limited countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) maintains two non-binding lists of essential medicines (EMLs) which are often used as a template for developing national EMLs.
We compared a previously published master list of medicines for pediatric endocrinology and diabetes with the WHO EMLs and national EMLs for countries within the WHO African region. To better understand actual access to medicines by patients, we focused on diabetes and surveyed pediatric endocrinologists from 5 countries and assessed availability and true cost for insulin and glucagon.
Most medicines that are essential in pediatric endocrinology and diabetes were included in the national EMLs. However, essential medicines, such as fludrocortisone, were present in less than 30% of the national EMLs despite being recommended by the WHO. Pediatric endocrinologists from the 5 focus countries reported significant variation in terms of availability and public access to insulin, as well as differences between urban and rural areas. Except for Botswana, glucagon was rarely available. There was no significant relationship between Gross National Income and the number of medicines included in the national EMLs.
Governments in resource-limited countries could take further steps to improve EMLs and access to medicines such as improved collaboration between health authorities, the pharmaceutical industry, patient groups, health professionals, and capacity-building programs such as Paediatric Endocrinology Training Centres for Africa.
Rowlands A
，Ameyaw E
，Rutagarama F
，Dipesalema J
，Majaliwa ES
，Mbogo J
，Ogle GD
，Chanoine JP
... -
《-》
Comparison of antibiotics included in national essential medicines lists of 138 countries using the WHO Access, Watch, Reserve (AWaRe) classification: a cross-sectional study.
The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines classified antibiotics into Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) categories for the treatment of 31 priority bacterial infections as a tool to facilitate antibiotic stewardship and optimal use. We compared the listing of antibiotics on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) to those in the 2019 WHO Model List and the AWaRe classification database to determine the degree to which NEMLs are in alignment with the AWaRe classification framework recommended by WHO.
In this cross-sectional study, we obtained up-to-date (data after 2017) NEMLs from our Global Essential Medicines (GEM) database, WHO online resources, and individual countries' websites. From the 2019 WHO Model List we extracted, as a reference standard, a list of 37 antibiotics (44 unique antibiotics after accounting for combination drugs or therapeutically equivalent drugs as specified by WHO) that were considered essential in treating 31 of the most common and severe clinical infectious syndromes (priority infections). From the WHO AWaRe Classification Database, which contains commonly used antibiotics globally, we extracted a list of 122 AWaRe antibiotics listed by at least one country in the GEM database. We then assessed individual countries' NEMLs for listing of the 44 essential and 122 commonly used antibiotics, overall and according to AWaRe classification group. We also evaluated and summarised the listing of both first-choice and second-choice treatments for the 31 priority infections. A total coverage score was calculated for each country by assigning a treatment score of 0-3 for each priority infection on the basis of whether first-choice and second-choice treatments, according to the 2019 WHO Model List, were included in the country's NEML. Coverage scores were then compared against the score of the 2019 WHO Model List and across World Bank income groups and WHO regions.
As of July 7, 2020, we had up-to-date NEMLs for 138 countries. Of the 44 unique essential antibiotics, 24 were Access, 15 were Watch, and five were Reserve. The median number of total essential antibiotics listed across the 138 NEMLs was 26 (IQR 21-32). 102 (74%) countries listed at least 22 (50%) of the 44 essential antibiotics. The median number of total AWaRe antibiotics listed by the 138 countries was 35 (IQR 29-46), of Access antibiotics was 18 (16-21), of Watch antibiotics was 16 (11-22), and of Reserve antibiotics was one (0-2). 56 (41%) countries did not list any essential Reserve antibiotics. 131 (95%) countries had coverage scores of at least 60, equivalent to at least 75% of the score of the 2019 WHO Model List, which was 80. Nine (7%) countries listed fewer than 12 of 24 essential Access antibiotics, and seven (5%) did not list sufficient first-choice and second-choice treatments for priority infections (ie, they had coverage scores lower than 60). Of the 31 priority infections, acute neonatal meningitis and high-risk febrile neutropenia did not have enough listed treatments, with 82 (59%) countries listing no treatment for acute neonatal meningitis and 84 (61%) countries listing only a first-choice treatment, only a second-choice treatment, or no treatment for high-risk febrile neutropenia. Coverage scores differed between countries on the basis of World Bank income groups (p=0·025).
Our findings highlight potential changes to the antibiotics included in NEMLs that would increase adherence to international guidance aimed at effectively treating infectious diseases while addressing antimicrobial resistance.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit.
Adekoya I
，Maraj D
，Steiner L
，Yaphe H
，Moja L
，Magrini N
，Cooke G
，Loeb M
，Persaud N
... -
《-》
Relation between opioid consumption and inclusion of opioids in 137 national essential medicines lists.
Opioids are deemed essential medicines by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, many countries have inadequate access to them. Whether including opioids in national essential medicines lists (EMLs) influences national opioid consumption has not been evaluated.
We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine whether the listing of opioids in national EMLs was associated with consumption. We quantified the numbers and types of all opioids included in 137 national EMLs, for comparison with opioids in the WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines. Using the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) consumption statistics for 2015-2017, we assessed the relation between annual mean opioid consumption (mg/person) and the numbers of opioids included in EMLs, controlling for region, population, healthcare expenditure, life expectancy, gross domestic product, human development and corruption.
Five opioids were included in the 20th edition of the WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines: codeine, fentanyl, loperamide, methadone and morphine. On average, countries' lists included significantly (p<0.05) more opioids than the WHO's Model List. However, there were wide variations in the numbers (median 6 opioids; IQR: 5-9) and types (n=33) of opioids included in national EMLs. Morphine (95%), fentanyl (83%) and codeine (69%) were the most commonly included opioids. Most national EMLs were out of date (median publication date: 2011, IQR: 2009-2013). After adjusting for country characteristics, there was no relation between mean opioid consumption and the number of opioids in EMLs.
Including opioids in national EMLs was not associated with consumption. National EMLs should be regularly updated to reflect the availability of opioids and the populations' needs for managing pain.
Richards GC
，Aronson JK
，Heneghan C
，Mahtani KR
，Koshiaris C
，Persaud N
... -
《BMJ Global Health》
Global status of essential medicine selection: a systematic comparison of national essential medicine lists with recommendations by WHO.
Examining the availability of essential medicines is a necessary step to monitor country-level progress towards universal health coverage. We compared the 2017 essential medicine lists (EML) of 137 countries to the WHO Model List to assess differences by drug class and country setting.
We extracted all medicines prioritised at country level from most recently available national EMLs and compared each national EML with the 2017 WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (MLEM) as the reference standard. We assess EMLs by WHO region and for different types of medicine subgroups (eg, cancer, anti-infectives, cardiac, psychiatric and anaesthesia medicines) using within second-level anatomical therapeutic class (ATC) drug classes of the ATC Index.
We included 406 medicines from WHO's 2017 MLEM to compare to 137 concurrent national EMLs. We found a median of 315 (range from 44 to 983) medicines listed on national EMLs. The global median F1 score was 0.59 (IQR 0.47-0.70, maximum possible score indicating alignment with MLEM is 1). The F1 score was the highest (ie, most similar to MLEM) in the South-East Asia region and the lowest in the European region (ie, most dissimilar to MLEM). The F1 score was highest for stomatological preparations (median: 1.00), gynaecological-anti-infectives and antiseptics (median: 1.00), and medicated dressings (median: 1.00), and lowest for 9 anatomical or pharmacological groups (median: 0.00, eg, treatments for bone diseases, digestive enzymes).
Most countries are expected to improve their national health coverage by 2030 offering access to essential medicines, but our results revealed substantial gaps in selection of medicines at the national level compared with those recommended by WHO. It is crucial that governments consider investing in those effective medicines that are now neglected and continue monitoring progress towards essential medicine access as part of universal health coverage.
Piggott T
，Nowak A
，Brignardello-Petersen R
，Cooke GS
，Huttner B
，Schünemann HJ
，Persaud N
，Magrini N
，Moja L
... -
《BMJ Open》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
