Cargando…

Global status of essential medicine selection: a systematic comparison of national essential medicine lists with recommendations by WHO

OBJECTIVES: 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. M...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Piggott, Thomas, Nowak, Artur, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, Cooke, Graham S, Huttner, Benedikt, Schünemann, Holger J, Persaud, Nav, Magrini, Nicola, Moja, Lorenzo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8845216/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35144950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053349
_version_ 1784651624566751232
author Piggott, Thomas
Nowak, Artur
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
Cooke, Graham S
Huttner, Benedikt
Schünemann, Holger J
Persaud, Nav
Magrini, Nicola
Moja, Lorenzo
author_facet Piggott, Thomas
Nowak, Artur
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
Cooke, Graham S
Huttner, Benedikt
Schünemann, Holger J
Persaud, Nav
Magrini, Nicola
Moja, Lorenzo
author_sort Piggott, Thomas
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8845216
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88452162022-03-01 Global status of essential medicine selection: a systematic comparison of national essential medicine lists with recommendations by WHO Piggott, Thomas Nowak, Artur Brignardello-Petersen, Romina Cooke, Graham S Huttner, Benedikt Schünemann, Holger J Persaud, Nav Magrini, Nicola Moja, Lorenzo BMJ Open Global Health OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8845216/ /pubmed/35144950 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053349 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Global Health
Piggott, Thomas
Nowak, Artur
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
Cooke, Graham S
Huttner, Benedikt
Schünemann, Holger J
Persaud, Nav
Magrini, Nicola
Moja, Lorenzo
Global status of essential medicine selection: a systematic comparison of national essential medicine lists with recommendations by WHO
title Global status of essential medicine selection: a systematic comparison of national essential medicine lists with recommendations by WHO
title_full Global status of essential medicine selection: a systematic comparison of national essential medicine lists with recommendations by WHO
title_fullStr Global status of essential medicine selection: a systematic comparison of national essential medicine lists with recommendations by WHO
title_full_unstemmed Global status of essential medicine selection: a systematic comparison of national essential medicine lists with recommendations by WHO
title_short Global status of essential medicine selection: a systematic comparison of national essential medicine lists with recommendations by WHO
title_sort global status of essential medicine selection: a systematic comparison of national essential medicine lists with recommendations by who
topic Global Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8845216/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35144950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053349
work_keys_str_mv AT piggottthomas globalstatusofessentialmedicineselectionasystematiccomparisonofnationalessentialmedicinelistswithrecommendationsbywho
AT nowakartur globalstatusofessentialmedicineselectionasystematiccomparisonofnationalessentialmedicinelistswithrecommendationsbywho
AT brignardellopetersenromina globalstatusofessentialmedicineselectionasystematiccomparisonofnationalessentialmedicinelistswithrecommendationsbywho
AT cookegrahams globalstatusofessentialmedicineselectionasystematiccomparisonofnationalessentialmedicinelistswithrecommendationsbywho
AT huttnerbenedikt globalstatusofessentialmedicineselectionasystematiccomparisonofnationalessentialmedicinelistswithrecommendationsbywho
AT schunemannholgerj globalstatusofessentialmedicineselectionasystematiccomparisonofnationalessentialmedicinelistswithrecommendationsbywho
AT persaudnav globalstatusofessentialmedicineselectionasystematiccomparisonofnationalessentialmedicinelistswithrecommendationsbywho
AT magrininicola globalstatusofessentialmedicineselectionasystematiccomparisonofnationalessentialmedicinelistswithrecommendationsbywho
AT mojalorenzo globalstatusofessentialmedicineselectionasystematiccomparisonofnationalessentialmedicinelistswithrecommendationsbywho