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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |