Biologic medicine inclusion in 138 national essential medicines lists

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.

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

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.

Associations between essential medicines and health outcomes for cardiovascular disease

Background National essential medicines lists are used to guide medicine reimbursement and public sector medicine procurement for many countries therefore medicine listings may impact health outcomes. Methods Countries’ national essential medicines lists were scored on whether they listed proven medicines for ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and hypertensive heart disease. In this cross sectional study linear regression was used to measure the association between countries’ medicine coverage scores and healthcare access and quality scores. Results There was an association between healthcare access and quality scores and health expenditure for ischemic heart disease (p ≤ 0.001), cerebrovascular disease (p ≤ 0.001) and hypertensive heart disease (p ≤ 0.001). However, there was no association between medicine coverage scores and healthcare access and quality scores for ischemic heart disease (p = 0.252), cerebrovascular disease (p = 0.194) and hypertensive heart disease (p = 0.209) when country characteristics were accounted for. Conclusions Listing more medicines on national essential medicines lists may only be one factor in reducing mortality from cardiovascular disease and improving healthcare access and quality scores.

Associations Between Essential Medicines and Health Outcomes for Cardiovascular Disease

Background: National essential medicines lists are used to guide medicine reimbursement and public sector medicine procurement for many countries therefore medicine listings may impact health outcomes.Methods: Countries’ national essential medicines lists were scored on whether they listed proven medicines for ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and hypertensive heart disease. Linear regression was used to measure the association between countries’ medicine coverage scores and healthcare access and quality scores. Results: There was an association between healthcare access and quality scores and health expenditure for ischemic heart disease (p=<0.001), cerebrovascular disease (p=<0.001) and hypertensive heart disease (p=<0.001). However, there was no association between medicine coverage scores and healthcare access and quality scores for ischemic heart disease (p=0.252), cerebrovascular disease (p=0.194) and hypertensive heart disease (p=0.209) when country characteristics were accounted for. Conclusion: Listing more medicines on national essential medicines lists may only be one factor in reducing mortality from cardiovascular disease and improving healthcare access and quality scores.

Relation between opioid consumption and inclusion of opioids in 137 national essential medicines lists

IntroductionOpioids 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsFive 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.ConclusionsIncluding 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.

A comparison of national essential medicines lists in the Americas

Objectives. To compare national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) from countries in the Region of the Americas and to identify potential opportunities for improving those lists. Methods. In June of 2017, NEMLs from 31 countries in the Americas were abstracted from documents included in a World Health Organization (WHO) repository. The lists from the Americas were compared to each other and to NEMLs from outside of the Americas, as well as with the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, 20th edition (“WHO Model List”) and the list of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) Regional Revolving Fund for Strategic Public Health Supplies (“Strategic Fund”). Results. The number of differences between the NEMLs from the Americas and the WHO Model List were similar within those countries (median: 295; interquartile range (IQR): 265 to 347). The NEMLs from the Americas were generally similar to each other. While the NEMLs from the Americas coincided well with the Strategic Fund list, some medicines were not included on any of those NEMLs. All the NEMLs in the Americas included some medicines that were withdrawn due to adverse effects by a national regulatory body (median: 8 withdrawn medicines per NEML; IQR: 4 to 12). Conclusions. The NEMLs in the Americas were fairly similar to each other and to the WHO Model List and the Strategic Fund list. However, some areas of treatment and some specific medicines were identified that the countries should reassess when revising their NEMLs.