WHO's essential medicines and AWaRe: recommendations on first- and second-choice antibiotics for empiric treatment of clinical infections.

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) prioritizes medicines that have significant global public health value. The EML can also deliver important messages on appropriate medicine use. Since 2017, in response to the growing challenge of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics on the EML have been reviewed and categorized into three groups: Access, Watch, and Reserve, leading to a new categorization called AWaRe. These categories were developed taking into account the impact of different antibiotics and classes on antimicrobial resistance and the implications for their appropriate use. The 2023 AWaRe classification provides empirical guidance on 41 essential antibiotics for over 30 clinical infections targeting both the primary health care and hospital facility setting. A further 257 antibiotics not included on the EML have been allocated an AWaRe group for stewardship and monitoring purposes. This article describes the development of AWaRe, focussing on the clinical evidence base that guided the selection of Access, Watch, or Reserve antibiotics as first and second choices for each infection. The overarching objective was to offer a tool for optimizing the quality of global antibiotic prescribing and reduce inappropriate use by encouraging the use of Access antibiotics (or no antibiotics) where appropriate. This clinical evidence evaluation and subsequent EML recommendations are the basis for the AWaRe antibiotic book and related smartphone applications. By providing guidance on antibiotic prioritization, AWaRe aims to facilitate the revision of national lists of essential medicines, update national prescribing guidelines, and supervise antibiotic use. Adherence to AWaRe would extend the effectiveness of current antibiotics while helping countries expand access to these life-saving medicines for the benefit of current and future patients, health professionals, and the environment.

Uptake of orphan drugs in the WHO essential medicines lists.

Objective: We evaluated the uptake of medicines licensed as orphan drugs by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or European Medicines Agency (EMA) into the WHO Model list of essential medicines and the WHO Model list of essential medicines for children from 1977 to 2021. Methods: We collated and analysed data on drug characteristics, reasons for adding or rejecting medicines, and time between regulatory approval and inclusion in the lists. We compared trends in listing orphan drugs before and after revisions to the inclusion criteria of the essential medicines lists in 2001, as well as differences in trends for listing orphan and non-orphan drugs, respectively. Findings: The proportion of orphan drugs in the essential medicines lists increased from 1.9% (4/208) in 1977 to 14.6% (70/478) in 2021. While orphan drugs for communicable diseases have remained stable over time, we observed a considerable shift towards more orphan drugs for noncommunicable diseases, particularly for cancer. The median period for inclusion in the essential medicines lists after either FDA or EMA first approval was 13.5 years (range: 1-28 years). Limited clinical evidence base and uncertainty about the magnitude of net benefit were the most frequent reasons to reject proposals to add new orphan drugs to the essential medicines lists. Conclusion: Despite lack of a global definition of rare diseases, the essential medicines lists have broadened their scope to include medicines for rare conditions. However, the high costs of many listed orphan drugs pose accessibility and reimbursement challenges in resource-constrained settings.

How to tailor recommendations on the treatment of multi-drug resistant Gram-negative infections at country level integrating antibiotic stewardship principles within the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT framework.

Promoting the optimal use of antibiotics through evidence-based recommendations should be regarded as a crucial step in the global fight against antimicrobial resistance. Within this scope, several guidelines and guidance documents for antibiotic therapy have been published in recent years. All documents underline the limitations of existing evidence and remark on the need for tailoring recommendations at the national level, based on local epidemiology, availability of diagnostics and drugs, and antimicrobial stewardship principles. The GRADE-ADOLOPMENT methodology is an evidence-based methodology that allows the adoption, adaptation, and update of existing recommendations to specific settings without performing de novo systematic reviews and grading of the evidence. However, procedures to integrate this evidence with stewardship principles, countries' surveillance data, and capacity in terms of diagnostics and antibiotics' availability have never been defined. This Personal View provides the first example of a country's calibration of international evidence-based guidance documents on treating infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. A panel of experts convened by the Italian Medicine Agency (AIFA) used the GRADE methodology for systematically extracting and evaluating 100 recommendations on the treatment of infections due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria from 11 guidance documents and 24 systematic reviews. The ADOLOPMENT procedure was used to calibrate the existing recommendations to the national context, leading to the adoption of 64, the adaptation of 27, and the rejection of nine recommendations. We discuss the technical details of the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT application, the calibration process, and the human resources required to support such an effort. This Personal View also covers the challenges of integrating antibiotic stewardship principles in evidence-based recommendations for treating infections with very limited therapeutic and diagnostic options. The details presented here could support the easy transferability of the methodology to other countries and settings, particularly where the incidence of antibiotic-resistant infections is high.

Exploratory data on the clinical efficacy of monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern.

Background: Recent in-vitro data have shown that the activity of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) varies according to the variant of concern (VOC). No studies have compared the clinical efficacy of different mAbs against Omicron VOC. Methods: The MANTICO trial is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical efficacy of early treatments with bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, and sotrovimab in outpatients aged 50 or older with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. As the patient enrolment was interrupted for possible futility after the onset of the Omicron wave, the analysis was performed according to the SARS-CoV-2 VOC. The primary outcome was coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progression (hospitalisation, need of supplemental oxygen therapy, or death through day 14). Secondary outcomes included the time to symptom resolution, assessed using the product-limit method. Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard model were used to assess the association with predictors. Log rank test was used to compare survival functions. Results: Overall, 319 patients were included. Among 141 patients infected with Delta, no COVID-19 progression was recorded, and the time to symptom resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups (Log-rank Chi-square 0.22, p 0.90). Among 170 patients infected with Omicron (80.6% BA.1 and 19.4% BA.1.1), two COVID-19 progressions were recorded, both in the bamlanivimab/etesevimab group, and the median time to symptom resolution was 5 days shorter in the sotrovimab group compared with the bamlanivimab/etesevimab and casirivimab/imdevimab groups (HR 0.53 and HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36-0.77 and 95% CI 0.30-0.67, p<0.01). Conclusions: Our data suggest that, among adult outpatients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection due to Omicron BA.1 and BA.1.1, early treatment with sotrovimab reduces the time to recovery compared with casirivimab/imdevimab and bamlanivimab/etesevimab. In the same population, early treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab may maintain a role in preventing COVID-19 progression. The generalisability of trial results is substantially limited by the early discontinuation of the trial and firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Funding: This trial was funded by the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA). The VOC identification was funded by the ORCHESTRA (Connecting European Cohorts to Increase Common and Effective Response to SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic) project, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 101016167. Clinical trial number: NCT05205759.

[Harmonizing development, approval and access of drugs for rare diseases in Europe.] / Verso un modello integrato di sviluppo, approvazione e accesso dei farmaci per malattie rare in Europa.

In the past few decades, the regulatory system has changed its approach to speed up the assessment and approval of drugs for the treatment of serious and orphan diseases. However, too early assessments may fail to provide solid evidence to define the therapeutic value of drugs and their fair price. As for rare diseases, patients' expectations amplify such criticalities due to the lack of therapeutic alternatives. The revision of the EU regulation on orphan medicinal products represents an opportunity to promote greater integration between the development and approval of drugs with their subsequent access. For this reason, we propose: 1) establishing a process for evaluating the comparative efficacy and quantification of the therapeutic benefit of a drug at a European level, while addressing incentives towards rarer diseases to support their development and marketing; 2) downsizing the impact of orphan drugs on general sustainability, considering that incentives supporting their development and marketing cannot transform them into new 'blockbusters'. In this perspective, a European procurement - initially intended for drugs for ultra-rare diseases - could improve access by all EU countries through simplifying the burdensome procedures for the pharmaceutical industry; 3) enhancing the contribution of post-authorization research from a public-private partnership perspective to steer the development of drugs already approved towards rarer pathologies or mutations of little commercial interest.

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. 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.

Global access to affordable direct oral anticoagulants.

Poor control of cardiovascular disease accounts for a substantial proportion of the disease burden in developing countries, but often essential anticoagulant medicines for preventing strokes and embolisms are not widely available. In 2019, direct oral anticoagulants were added to the World Health Organization's WHO Model list of essential medicines. The aims of this paper are to summarize the benefits of direct oral anticoagulants for patients with cardiovascular disease and to discuss ways of increasing their usage internationally. Although the cost of direct oral anticoagulants has provoked debate, the affordability of introducing these drugs into clinical practice could be increased by: price negotiation; pooled procurement; competitive tendering; the use of patent pools; and expanded use of generics. In 2017, only 14 of 137 countries that had adopted national essential medicines lists included a direct oral anticoagulant on their lists. This number could increase rapidly if problems with availability and affordability can be tackled. Once the types of patient likely to benefit from direct oral anticoagulants have been clearly defined in clinical practice guidelines, coverage can be more accurately determined and associated costs can be better managed. Government action is required to ensure that direct oral anticoagulants are covered by national budgets because the absence of reimbursement remains an impediment to achieving universal coverage. Tackling cardiovascular disease with the aid of direct oral anticoagulants is an essential component of efforts to achieve the World Health Organization's target of reducing premature deaths due to noncommunicable disease by 25% by 2025.

L'absence de lutte efficace contre les maladies cardiovasculaires contribue grandement à la charge de morbidité pesant sur les pays en développement. Pourtant, les anticoagulants essentiels permettant d'éviter les accidents vasculaires cérébraux et les embolies sont souvent difficiles à obtenir. En 2019, les anticoagulants oraux directs ont été ajoutés à la Liste modèle des médicaments essentiels publiée par l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé. Le présent document vise à résumer les avantages des anticoagulants oraux directs pour les patients souffrant d'une maladie cardiovasculaire, et à évoquer les moyens d'encourager leur utilisation au niveau international. Bien que le coût des anticoagulants oraux directs ait fait débat, intégrer ces médicaments dans la pratique clinique les rendrait plus abordables grâce à diverses méthodes: négociation des prix; achats groupés; appels d'offres concurrentiels; communautés de brevets; et recours accru aux alternatives génériques. En 2017, seulement 14 des 137 pays ayant adopté des listes nationales de médicaments essentiels y avaient inclus des anticoagulants oraux directs. Ce chiffre pourrait augmenter rapidement si les problèmes de disponibilité et d'accessibilité peuvent être résolus. Dès que les profils des patients susceptibles d'être traités par des anticoagulants oraux directs sont clairement établis dans les directives de pratique clinique, la couverture peut être définie avec plus de précision et les dépenses correspondantes, mieux gérées. Les gouvernements doivent s'assurer que ces médicaments sont bien pris en compte dans les budgets nationaux, car l'absence de remboursement demeure un obstacle à la couverture maladie universelle. La lutte contre les maladies cardiovasculaires à l'aide des anticoagulants oraux directs est un élément essentiel des efforts destinés à atteindre l'objectif de l'OMS: faire baisser de 25% d'ici 2025 les décès prématurés dus aux maladies non transmissibles de 25% d'ici 2025.

El mal control de las enfermedades cardiovasculares representa una proporción importante de la carga de enfermedades en los países en desarrollo, y a menudo los medicamentos anticoagulantes esenciales para prevenir los accidentes cerebrovasculares y las embolias no son fácilmente accesibles. En 2019, los anticoagulantes orales directos se añadieron a la lista modelo de medicamentos esenciales de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Los objetivos del presente artículo son resumir los beneficios de los anticoagulantes orales directos para los pacientes con enfermedades cardiovasculares y discutir las formas de aumentar su uso a nivel internacional. Aunque el coste de los anticoagulantes orales directos ha suscitado debate, la asequibilidad de introducir estos medicamentos en la práctica clínica podría aumentarse al: negociar precios; hacer adquisiciones conjuntas; hacer licitaciones competitivas; utilizar consorcios de patentes; y ampliar el uso de genéricos. En 2017, solo 14 de los 137 países que habían adoptado listas nacionales de medicamentos esenciales incluían un anticoagulante oral directo en sus listas. Este número podría aumentar rápidamente si se pueden abordar los problemas de disponibilidad y asequibilidad. Cuando los tipos de pacientes que pueden beneficiarse de los anticoagulantes orales directos se hayan definido claramente en las directrices de la práctica clínica, la cobertura podrá determinarse con mayor precisión y los costes asociados podrán gestionarse mejor. Es necesario que los gobiernos actúen para garantizar que los anticoagulantes orales directos estén cubiertos por los presupuestos nacionales, ya que la ausencia de reembolso sigue siendo un impedimento para lograr la cobertura universal. La lucha contra las enfermedades cardiovasculares con la ayuda de los anticoagulantes orales directos es un componente esencial de los esfuerzos por alcanzar el objetivo de la OMS de reducir las muertes prematuras debidas a enfermedades no transmisibles en un 25 % para 2025.

Progress towards antibiotic use targets in eight high-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare antibiotic sales in eight high-income countries using the 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) Access, Watch and Reserve (AWaRe) classification and the target of 60% consumption of Access category antibiotics. METHODS: We analysed data from a commercial database of sales of systemic antibiotics in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America over the years 2013-2018. We classified antibiotics according to the 2019 AWaRe categories: Access, Watch, Reserve and Not Recommended. We measured antibiotic sales per capita in standard units (SU) per capita and calculated Access group sales as a percentage of total antibiotic sales. FINDINGS: In 2018, per capita antibiotic sales ranged from 7.4 SU (Switzerland) to 20.0 SU (France); median sales of Access group antibiotics were 10.9 SU per capita (range: 3.5-15.0). Per capita sales declined moderately over 2013-2018. The median percentage of Access group antibiotics was 68% (range: 22-77 %); the Access group proportion increased in most countries between 2013 and 2018. Five countries exceeded the 60% target; two countries narrowly missed it (> 55% in Germany and Italy). Sales of Access antibiotics in Japan were low (22%), driven by relatively high sales of oral cephalosporins and macrolides. CONCLUSION: We have identified changes to prescribing that could allow countries to achieve the WHO target. The 60% Access group target provides a framework to inform national antibiotic policies and could be complemented by absolute measures and more ambitious values in specific settings.

Comparison of antibiotics included in national essential medicines lists of 138 countries using the WHO Access, Watch, Reserve (AWaRe) classification: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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). INTERPRETATION: 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. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit.

Antibiotic Use Among Hospitalized Children and Neonates in China: Results From Quarterly Point Prevalence Surveys in 2019.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a significant clinical problem in pediatric practice in China. Surveillance of antibiotic use is one of the cornerstones to assess the quality of antibiotic use and plan and assess the impact of antibiotic stewardship interventions. Methods: We carried out quarterly point prevalence surveys referring to WHO Methodology of Point Prevalence Survey in 16 Chinese general and children's hospitals in 2019 to assess antibiotic use in pediatric inpatients based on the WHO AWaRe metrics and to detect potential problem areas. Data were retrieved via the hospital information systems on the second Monday of March, June, September and December. Antibiotic prescribing patterns were analyzed across and within diagnostic conditions and ward types according to WHO AWaRe metrics and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification. Results: A total of 22,327 hospitalized children were sampled, of which 14,757 (66.1%) were prescribed ≥1 antibiotic. Among the 3,936 sampled neonates (≤1 month), 59.2% (n = 2,331) were prescribed ≥1 antibiotic. A high percentage of combination antibiotic therapy was observed in PICUs (78.5%), pediatric medical wards (68.1%) and surgical wards (65.2%). For hospitalized children prescribed ≥1 antibiotic, the most common diagnosis on admission were lower respiratory tract infections (43.2%, n = 6,379). WHO Watch group antibiotics accounted for 70.4% of prescriptions (n = 12,915). The most prescribed antibiotic ATC classes were third-generation cephalosporins (41.9%, n = 7,679), followed by penicillins/ß-lactamase inhibitors (16.1%, n = 2,962), macrolides (12.1%, n = 2,214) and carbapenems (7.7%, n = 1,331). Conclusion: Based on these data, overuse of broad-spectrum Watch group antibiotics is common in Chinese pediatric inpatients. Specific interventions in the context of the national antimicrobial stewardship framework should aim to reduce the use of Watch antibiotics and routine surveillance of antibiotic use using WHO AWaRe metrics should be implemented.

The Global Landscape of Treatment Standards for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and disability for women worldwide. There is substantial variation in treatment outcomes, which is function of multiple variables, including access to treatment. Treatment standards can promote quality and improve survival; thus, their development should be a priority for the cancer-control planning. METHODS: We extracted the guidelines for the treatment of BC from a systematic review of the literature. We evaluated the development process, the methodology, and the recommendations formulated and surveyed the country resource stratification. Metrics of health-system capacity were selected to study the guidelines context appropriateness. RESULTS: We analyzed 49 distinct guidelines for BC, mostly in English language (n = 23), developed in upper-middle and high-income countries of the European and American regions (n = 39). A resource-stratified approach was identified in a quarter of the guidelines (n = 11), mostly from resource-constrained settings. Only one-half of the guidelines reached a gender balance of the authorship, and 10.2% were based on a multidisciplinary steering committee. A number of efforts and solutions of resource adaptations were recognized, mostly in low- and middle-income countries. Overall, the national guidelines appeared not sensitive enough of the local health-system capacity in formulating recommendations, with possible exception for the radiation therapy availability. CONCLUSION: This global landscape of treatment standards for BC demonstrates that the majority is not context appropriate. Research on the formulation of cancer treatment standards is highly warranted, along with novel platforms for developing and disseminating resource-appropriate guidance.

High global consumption of potentially inappropriate fixed dose combination antibiotics: Analysis of data from 75 countries.

Antibiotic fixed dose combinations (FDCs) can have clinical advantages such as improving effectiveness and adherence to therapy. However, high use of potentially inappropriate FDCs has been reported, with implications for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and toxicity. We used a pharmaceutical database, IQVIA-Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System (IQVIA-MIDAS®), to estimate sales of antibiotic FDCs from 75 countries in 2015. Antibiotic consumption was estimated using standard units (SU), defined by IQVIA as a single tablet, capsule, ampoule, vial or 5ml oral suspension. For each FDC antibiotic, the approval status was assessed by either registration with the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) or inclusion on the World Health Organization (WHO) Essential Medicines List (EML). A total of 119 antibiotic FDCs were identified, contributing 16.7 x 109 SU, equalling 22% of total antibiotic consumption in 2015. The most sold antibiotic FDCs were amoxicillin-clavulanic acid followed by trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and ampicillin/cloxacillin. The category with the highest consumption volume was aminopenicillin/ß-lactamase inhibitor +/- other agents. The majority of antibiotic FDCs (92%; 110/119) were not approved by the US FDA. Of these, the most sold were ampicillin/cloxacillin, cefixime/ofloxacin and metronidazole/spiramycin. More than 80% (98/119) of FDC antibiotics were not compatible with the 2017 WHO EML. The countries with the highest numbers of FDC antibiotics were India (80/119), China (25/119) and Vietnam (19/119). There is high consumption of FDC antibiotics globally, particularly in middle-income countries. The majority of FDC antibiotic were not approved by either US FDA or WHO EML. International initiatives such as clear guidance from the WHO EML on which FDCs are not appropriate may help to regulate the manufacturing and sales of these antibiotics.

Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 - Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results.

BACKGROUND: World Health Organization expert groups recommended mortality trials of four repurposed antiviral drugs - remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: We randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry. RESULTS: At 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration. CONCLUSIONS: These remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.).