scholarly journals Me‐too pharmaceutical products: History, definitions, examples, and relevance to drug shortages and essential medicines lists

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (11) ◽  
pp. 2114-2122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey K. Aronson ◽  
A. Richard Green
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Products ◽  
Essential Medicines ◽  
Drug Shortages ◽  
Essential Medicines Lists

Essential medicines lists for children of WHO, India, South Africa, and EML of China: A comparative study

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 271-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Liu ◽  
Jing Cheng ◽  
Ling-Li Zhang ◽  
You-Ping Li ◽  
Li-Nan Zeng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Essential Medicines ◽  
Essential Medicines Lists

scholarly journals Comparison of essential medicines lists in 137 countries

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (6) ◽  
pp. 394-404C ◽  
Author(s):  
Nav Persaud ◽  
Maggie Jiang ◽  
Roha Shaikh ◽  
Anjli Bali ◽  
Efosa Oronsaye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Essential Medicines ◽  
Essential Medicines Lists

scholarly journals Assessing variation among the national essential medicines lists of 21 high-income countries: a cross-sectional study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e045262
Author(s):  
Michael Sergio Taglione ◽  
Nav Persaud
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Essential Medicine ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
High Income ◽  
Essential Medicines ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Essential Medicine List ◽  
Income Status ◽  
Essential Medicines Lists

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.

scholarly journals Biologic medicine inclusion in 138 national essential medicines lists

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphaël Kraus ◽  
Rae S. M. Yeung ◽  
Nav Persaud
Keyword(s):  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Health Spending ◽  
Essential Medicines ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Biologic Dmards ◽  
Rheumatologic Diseases ◽  
Conventional Dmards ◽  
Country Characteristics ◽  
Essential Medicines Lists ◽  
Per Capita

Abstract Background Essential 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. Methods We 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. Results Eleven 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. Conclusion Biologic 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document