Uncertainty In Long-term Relative Effectiveness Of Medicines In Health Technology Assessment: Comparing Assessments Of Medicines For Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Cystic Fibrosis, And Hypercholesterolemia.

OBJECTIVES: Uncertainty regarding the long-term relative effectiveness is an important factor in health technology assessment (HTA) of medicines. This study investigated how different HTA bodies address this uncertainty in their assessments. METHODS: 49 HTA reports from six national HTA bodies, assessing nine medicines for spinal muscular atrophy, cystic fibrosis, and hypercholesterolemia, were included. In these reports, 81 relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and 45 cost-effectiveness assessments (CEAs) were performed on an indication level. We collected information on included trials, assessment outcomes, uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness, proposed managed entry agreements (MEAs), and reassessments. RESULTS: Uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness was an important consideration in almost all CEAs (91%) and three quarters of REAs (74%), despite differences in methodologies between HTA bodies. There were considerable differences in the amount and type of long-term effectiveness data included by HTA bodies due to timing and inclusion criteria. In total 23 MEAs were proposed of which 14 were linked to uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness. Additionally, 13 reassessments were performed of which four led to an increase in patient access because of more available long-term effectiveness data. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness is an important challenge for HTA bodies. There are large differences in the acceptance of evidence between HTA bodies which leads to heterogeneity in the inclusion of available long-term effectiveness data for decision-making. In cases with large uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness, outcome-based agreements and reassessments are used by HTA bodies, but differently between HTA bodies and indications.

International regulatory and publicly-funded initiatives to advance drug repurposing.

Introduction: Although drug repurposing holds great potential in addressing unmet needs, successful practical implementation is challenging and has been less widespread than anticipated. Regulators may play a critical role in addressing this, and recent years have seen the conception of regulator-initiated and publicly-funded repurposing initiatives, with significant regulator involvement. Methods: International regulators and public funders (n = 8) were interviewed to obtain insight in how repurposing can be advanced from a regulatory perspective. Transcripts were thematically analyzed. Results: Most initiatives employed a broad concept of repurposing. While patient access was the main focus, label extension remained the gold standard. Commonly perceived barriers were a lack of regulatory expertise, limited downstream drug development, insufficient financial incentives, inadequate awareness of challenges, and poor collaboration. Ways for regulators to facilitate repurposing include early and accessible involvement fostering education, collaboration, and awareness. Increased stakeholder engagement, including internationally, was recommended. Legislative changes may enable the current repurposing ecosystem to evolve. Discussion: Regulators may play a central role in advancing repurposing by reconsidering their responsibilities within the current regulatory framework, both in mitigating repurposing pitfalls and actively encouraging repurposing initiatives by industry and non-traditional drug developers.

Creating win-win-win situations with managed entry agreements? Prioritizing gene and cell therapies within the window of opportunity.

Outcome-based reimbursement models are gaining attention for managing the clinical uncertainties and financial impact of gene and cell therapies. Little guidance exists on how such models can create win-win-win situations, benefiting health-care payers, health-technology developers and patients. Our innovative approach prospectively prioritizes therapies for which a 'window of opportunity' might occur through the analysis of health-technology assessments and product characteristics. Within this window, one size does not fit all, and depending on the extent of clinical uncertainty and potential added benefit levels, different win-win-win situations exist in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Dutch Horizon scanning data prioritized etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix) and mozafancogene autotemcel for their potential to benefit from outcome-based reimbursement models. These insights extend beyond gene and cell therapies, and could help to provide sustainable health care and patient access to innovative therapies.

Healthcare decision-making for tumour-agnostic therapies in Europe: lessons learned.

The tumour-agnostic authorisations of larotrectinib and entrectinib shifted the paradigm for indication setting. European healthcare decision-makers agreed on their therapeutic potential but diverged primarily in identified uncertainties concerning basket trial designs and endpoints, prognostic value of neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions, and resistance mechanisms. In addition, assessments of relevant comparators, unmet medical needs (UMNs), and implementation of NTRK-testing strategies diverged. In particular, the tumour-specific reimbursement recommendations and guidelines do not reflect tumour-agnostic thinking. These differences indicate difficulties experienced in these assessments and provide valuable lessons for future disruptive therapies. As we discuss here, early multistakeholder dialogues concerning minimum evidence requirements and involving clinicians are essential.

Innovations in pharmaceutical policies and learnings for sustainable access to affordable medicines.

Sustainable access to affordable medicines remains a public health issue globally, including for high-income countries. To foster the debate on avenues for the future, the fifth PPRI Conference held in Vienna on 25 and 26 April 2024 will offer a forum for the debate on innovating pharmaceutical policymaking to develop and implement futureproof policy options, which are able to address current and future challenges. The Conference invites a broad audience of stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, payers, patients, industry and health professionals. The conference topics are organised in three strands: Strand 1 on 'Local challenges, global learnings' aims to contribute to lively discussions on the implementation of pharmaceutical policies across the globe. Best-practice examples will be presented, supplemented by case studies of less effective policies which can offer rich learnings. Strand 2 on 'Strengthening the evidence base' is the place for presentations and discussions on topics such as health technology assessments, managed entry agreements and real-world data. Strand 3 'Futureproofing pharmaceutical policies' is particularly dedicated to explore innovation in policymaking to achieve sustainable access to affordable medicines.

Illustrating the financial consequences of outcome-based payment models from a payers perspective- the case of autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel (Libmeldy®).

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate the financial consequences of implementing different managed entry agreements ((MEA) for the Dutch healthcare system for autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel (AA, Libmeldy®), while also providing a first systematic guidance on how to construct MEAs to aid future reimbursement decision-making and create patient access to high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies. METHODS: Three payment models were compared: (1) an arbitrary 60% price discount, (2) an outcome-based spread payment with discounts, and (3) an outcome-based spread payment linked to a willingness to pay model with discounts. Financial consequences were estimated for full responders (A), patients responding according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in HTA reports (B), and unstable responders (C). The associated costs for an average patient during the timeframe of the payment agreement, the total budget impact, and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years of the patient population were calculated. RESULTS: When patients responded according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in HTA reports (Scenario B), implementing outcome-based reimbursement models (models 2 and 3) had lower associated budget impacts while gaining similar benefits compared to the discount (Scenario 1, €8,9 million to €6,6 million vs. €9.2 million). In the case of unstable responders (Scenario C), costs for payers are lower in the outcome-based scenarios (€4.1 million and €3.0 million, Scenario 2.C and 3.C, respectively) compared to implementing the discount (€9.2 million, Scenario 1.C). CONCLUSION: Outcome-based models can mitigate the financial risk of reimbursing AA. This can be considerably beneficial over simple discounts when clinical performance was similar to or worse than predicted.

The impact of scheduling ketamine as an internationally controlled substance on anaesthesia care in Sub-Saharan Africa: a case study and key informant interviews.

BACKGROUND: Access to anaesthesia and surgical care is a major problem for people living in Sub-Saharan Africa. In this region, ketamine is critical for the provision of anaesthesia care. However, efforts to control ketamine internationally as a controlled substance may significantly impact its accessibility. This research therefore aims to estimate the importance of ketamine for anaesthesia and surgical care in Sub-Saharan Africa and assess the potential impact on access to ketamine if it were to be scheduled. METHODS: This research is a mixed-methods study, comprising of a cross-sectional survey at the hospital level in Rwanda, and key informant interviews with experts on anaesthesia care in Sub-Saharan Africa. Data on availability of four anaesthetic agents were collected from hospitals (n = 54) in Rwanda. Semi-structured interviews with 10 key informants were conducted, collecting information on the importance of ketamine, the potential impact of scheduling ketamine internationally, and opinions on misuse of ketamine. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: The survey conducted in Rwanda found that availability of ketamine and propofol was comparable at around 80%, while thiopental and inhalational agents were available at only about half of the hospitals. Significant barriers impeding access to anaesthesia care were identified, including a general lack of attention given to the specialty by governments, a shortage of anaesthesiologists and migration of trained anaesthesiologists, and a scarcity of medicines and equipment. Ketamine was described as critical for the provision of anaesthesia care as a consequence of these barriers. Misuse of ketamine was not believed to be an issue by the informants. CONCLUSION: Ketamine is critical for the provision of anaesthesia care in Sub-Saharan Africa, and its scheduling would have a significantly negative impact on its availability for anaesthesia care.

Monitoring Access to Child Medicines: Introducing a Standardized Set of Age-Appropriate Medicines.

Monitoring access to pediatric medicines as part of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) agenda for 2030 requires surveying age-appropriate medicines. This study aimed to develop tracer sets of essential age-appropriate medicines for use in SDG indicator 3.b.3 or in conjunction with other methodologies for monitoring access to medicines. Two sets of medicines were developed, one for young children (1 month to 5 years) and one for school-aged children (5-12 years). Priority diseases were selected based on the global burden of disease and linked to active ingredients of first choice according to treatment guidelines and the World Health Organization (WHO) Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (EMLc). To ensure clinical relevance, the Delphi technique was employed to identify areas of (dis)agreement among clinical pediatric experts. During two consultation rounds, experts were invited to indicate (dis)agreement. Five experts per age group were largely in agreement with the initial selections, but various therapeutic alternatives were suggested for addition. A second consultation round with five experts did not lead to major adjustments. The final sets included 26 treatment options for both groups. Specific age-appropriate formulations were selected from the WHO EMLc 2023. These two globally representative tracer sets of medicines consider the particular needs of children and could aid countries in the critical monitoring of accessibility to pediatric medicines.

Availability and stock-outs of paediatric antiretroviral treatment formulations at health facilities in Kenya and Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: The large number of deaths among children with HIV is driven by poor antiretroviral treatment (ART) coverage among this cohort. The aim of the study was to assess the availability and stock-outs of paediatric and adult ART formulations in Kenya and Uganda across various regions and types of health facilities. METHODS: A survey on availability and stock-outs of paediatric ART at health facilities was adapted from the standardized Health Action International-WHO Medicine Availability Monitoring Tool. All preferred and limited-use formulations, and three phased-out formulations according to the 2021 WHO optimal formulary list were included in the survey, as well as a selection of adult ART formulations suitable for older children, adolescents, and adults. Availability data were collected in June-July 2022 and stock-out data were obtained over the previous year from randomly selected public and private-not-for-profit (PNFP) facilities registered to dispense paediatric ART across six districts per country. All data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: In total, 144 health facilities were included (72 per country); 110 were public and 34 PNFP facilities. Overall availabilities of preferred paediatric ART formulations were 52.2% and 63.5% in Kenya and Uganda, respectively, with dolutegravir (DTG) 10 mg dispersible tablets being available in 70.2% and 77.4% of facilities, respectively, and abacavir/lamivudine dispersible tablets in 89.8% and 98.2% of facilities. Of note, availability of both formulations was low (37.5% and 62.5%, respectively) in Kenyan PNFP facilities. Overall availabilities of paediatric limited-use products were 1.1% in Kenya and 1.9% in Uganda. At least one stock-out of a preferred paediatric ART formulation was reported in 40.0% of Kenyan and 74.7% of Ugandan facilities. Nevirapine solution stock-outs were reported in 43.1% of Ugandan facilities, while alternative formulations for postnatal HIV prophylaxis were not available. CONCLUSIONS: Recommended DTG-based first-line ART for children across all ages was reasonably available at health facilities in Kenya and Uganda, with the exception of Kenyan PNFP facilities. Availability of paediatric ART formulations on the limited-use list was extremely low across both countries. Stock-outs were reported regularly, with the high number of reported stock-outs of neonatal ART formulations in Uganda being most concerning.

Added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 1995 and 2020: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs, explore their association, and investigate potential discrepancies between added benefit and revenues across different approval pathways of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Oncology drugs and their indications approved by the EMA between 1995 and 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Added benefit was evaluated using ratings published by seven organisations: health technology assessment agencies from the United States, France, Germany, and Italy, two medical oncology societies, and a drug bulletin. All retrieved ratings were recategorised using a four point ranking scale to indicate negative or non-quantifiable, minor, substantial, or major added benefit. Revenue data were extracted from publicly available financial reports and compared with published estimates of research and development (R&D) costs. Finally, the association between added benefit and revenue was evaluated. All analyses were performed within the overall study cohort, and within subgroups based on the EMA approval pathway: standard marketing authorisation, conditional marketing authorisation, and authorisation under exceptional circumstances. RESULTS: 131 oncology drugs with 166 indications were evaluated for their added benefit by at least one organisation within the required timeframe, yielding a total of 458 added benefit ratings; 189 (41%) were negative or non-quantifiable. The median time to offset the median R&D costs ($684m, £535m, €602m, adjusted to 2020 values) was three years; 50 of 55 (91%) drugs recovered these costs within eight years. Drugs with higher added benefit ratings generally had greater revenues. Negative or non-quantifiable added benefit ratings were more frequent for conditional marketing authorisations and authorisations under exceptional circumstances than for standard marketing authorisations (relative risk 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.89). Conditional marketing authorisations generated lower revenues and took longer to offset R&D costs than standard marketing authorisations (four years compared with three years). CONCLUSIONS: While revenues seem to align with added benefit, most oncology drugs recover R&D costs within a few years despite providing little added benefit. This is particularly true for drugs approved through conditional marketing authorisations, which inherently appear to lack comprehensive evidence. Policy makers should evaluate whether current regulatory and reimbursement incentives effectively promote development of the most effective drugs for patients with the greatest needs.

A literature review of quality assessment and applicability to HTA of risk prediction models of coronary heart disease in patients with diabetes.

This literature review had two objectives: to identify models for predicting the risk of coronary heart diseases in patients with diabetes (DM); and to assess model quality in terms of risk of bias (RoB) and applicability for the purpose of health technology assessment (HTA). We undertook a targeted review of journal articles published in English, Dutch, Chinese, or Spanish in 5 databases from 1st January 2016 to 18th December 2022, and searched three systematic reviews for the models published after 2012. We used PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool) to assess RoB, and used findings from Betts et al. 2019, which summarized recommendations and criticisms of HTA agencies on cardiovascular risk prediction models, to assess model applicability for the purpose of HTA. As a result, 71 % and 67 % models reporting C-index showed good discrimination abilities (C-index >= 0.7). Of the 26 model studies and 30 models identified, only one model study showed low RoB in all domains, and no model was fully applicable for HTA. Since the major cause of high RoB is inappropriate use of analysis method, we advise clinicians to carefully examine the model performance declared by model developers, and to trust a model if all PROBAST domains except analysis show low RoB and at least one validation study conducted in the same setting (e.g. country) is available. Moreover, since general model applicability is not informative for HTA, novel adapted tools may need to be developed.

Tools for assessing quality of studies investigating health interventions using real-world data: a literature review and content analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify existing appraisal tools for non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) and to compare the criteria that the tools provide at the quality-item level. DESIGN: Literature review through three approaches: systematic search of journal articles, snowballing search of reviews on appraisal tools and grey literature search on websites of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search: Medline; Snowballing: starting from three articles (D'Andrea et al, Quigley et al and Faria et al); Grey literature: websites of European HTA agencies listed by the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Appraisal tools were searched through April 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included a tool, if it addressed quality concerns of NRSIs and was published in English (unless from grey literature). A tool was excluded, if it was only for diagnostic, prognostic, qualitative or secondary studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent researchers searched, screened and reviewed all included studies and tools, summarised quality items and scored whether and to what extent a quality item was described by a tool, for either methodological quality or reporting. RESULTS: Forty-nine tools met inclusion criteria and were included for the content analysis. Concerns regarding the quality of NRSI were categorised into 4 domains and 26 items. The Research Triangle Institute Item Bank (RTI Item Bank) and STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) were the most comprehensive tools for methodological quality and reporting, respectively, as they addressed (n=20; 17) and sufficiently described (n=18; 13) the highest number of items. However, none of the tools covered all items. CONCLUSION: Most of the tools have their own strengths, but none of them could address all quality concerns relevant to NRSIs. Even the most comprehensive tools can be complemented by several items. We suggest decision-makers, researchers and tool developers consider the quality-item level heterogeneity, when selecting a tool or identifying a research gap. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF registration DOI (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KCSGX).

Adoption of new medicines in primary care: A comparison between the uptake of new oral anticoagulants and diabetes medicines.

AIMS: To gain insight in the uptake and practice variation in the prescription of 2 new medicine groups for common conditions in primary care (direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs] and incretin-based therapies) from introduction, around 2007, to 2019 and the correlation between the adoption of those medicines in primary care. METHODS: Prescription data from general practices in the Dutch Nivel Primary Care Database from 2007 to 2019 were used. The percentage of patients with prescriptions for DOACs of all patients with prescriptions for DOACs and vitamin K antagonists was calculated per practice per year, as was the percentage of patients prescribed incretin-based therapies as a proportion of all patients with diabetes medication. Multilevel models were used to estimate practice variation for DOACs and incretin-based therapies, expressed as intraclass correlation coefficients. Linear regression analysis was used to study the association between the prescription of DOACs and incretin-based therapies. RESULTS: Per year, 46-424 general practices and 179 933-1 654 376 patients were included. In 2019, the mean percentage of patients per practice using DOACs or incretin-based therapies was 54.9 and 9.7%, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient decreased from 0.75 to 0.024 for DOACs and from 0.33 to 0.074 for incretin-based medicines during the study period. No clear correlation was found between the prescription of DOACs and incretin-based therapies. CONCLUSION: DOACs and incretin-based therapies have different adoption profiles and practice variation is large, especially in the years before these medicines were introduced in guidelines. Early adopters of both medicine classes differ.

A systematic review of policies regulating or removing mark-ups in the pharmaceutical supply and distribution chain.

The regulation of mark-ups throughout the pharmaceutical supply and distribution chain may be a valuable approach to control prices of medicines and to achieve broader access to medicines. As part of a wider review, we aimed to systematically determine whether policies regulating mark-ups are effective in managing the prices of pharmaceutical products. We searched for studies published between January 1, 2004 and October 10, 2019, comparing policies on regulating mark-ups against other interventions or a counterfactual. Eligible study designs included randomized trials, and non-randomized or quasi-experimental studies such as interrupted time-series (ITS), repeated measures (RM), and controlled before-after studies. Studies were eligible if they included at least one of the following outcomes: price (or expenditure as a proxy for price and volume), volume, availability or affordability of pharmaceutical products. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. A total of 32,011 records were retrieved, seven of which were eligible for inclusion for this review. The limited body of evidence cautiously suggests that policies regulating mark-ups may be effective in reducing medicine prices and pharmaceutical expenditures. However, the design of mark-up regulations is a critical factor for their potential success. Additional research is required to confirm the effects of these policies on the availability, affordability or usage patterns of medicines and in low- and middle-income countries.

Alignment in the registration, selection, procurement and reimbursement of essential medicines for childhood cancers in South Africa.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of a health system in providing access to medicines is in part determined by the alignment of several core pharmaceutical processes. For South Africa's public health sector, these include the registration of medicines, selection and subsequent procurement through national tenders. Registration, selection and reimbursement are key processes in the private sector. This study assessed the alignment of forementioned processes for essential paediatric oncology medicines in South Africa. METHODS: A selection of priority chemotherapeutics, antiemetics and analgesics in the treatment of five prevalent childhood cancers in South Africa was compared with those listed in 1) the WHO Essential Medicines List for Children (WHO EMLc) 2021, 2) the registered health products database of South Africa, 3) the relevant South African National Essential Medicines Lists (NEML), 4) bid packs and awarded tenders for oncology medicines for 2020 and 2022 and 5) oncology formularies from the leading Independent Clinical Oncology Network (ICON) and two private sector medical aid schemes. Consistency between these sources was assessed descriptively. RESULTS: There was full alignment for 25 priority chemotherapeutics for children between the NEML, the products registered in South Africa and those included on tender. Due to unsuccessful procurement, access to seven chemotherapeutics was potentially constrained. For antiemetics and analgesics, eight of nine active ingredients included on the WHO EMLc were also registered in South Africa and on its NEML. An exploratory assessment of private sector formularies showed many gaps in ICON's formulary and two medical scheme formularies (listing 33% and 24% of the chemotherapeutics, respectively). CONCLUSION: Despite good alignment in public sector pharmaceutical processes, access constraints to essential chemotherapeutics for children may stem from unsuccessful tenders. Private sector formularies show major gaps; however, it is unclear how this translates to access in clinical practice.

Marketing of medicines in primary care: An analysis of direct marketing mailings and advertisements.

INTRODUCTION: Marketing materials from pharmaceutical companies attempt to create a positive image of marketed, often new, medicines. To gain more insight in strategies pharmaceutical companies use to influence primary care practitioners' attitudes towards marketed medicines, we investigated the use of persuasion strategies in direct marketing mailings and advertisements from pharmaceutical companies sent to general practitioners. METHODS: General practitioners in the Netherlands were recruited to collect all direct marketing mailings, meaning all leaflets, letters and other information sent by pharmaceutical industries to the practice during one month (June 2022). Direct marketing mailings and advertisements in collected medical journals concerning medicines or diseases (together called marketing materials) were analysed according to presence of one of the seven common persuasion strategies, i.e. reciprocity, consistency/commitment, social proof, liking, authority, scarcity and unity; as well as marketed medicine and year of introduction. RESULTS: Twenty general practices collected 68 unique marketing materials concerning 37 different medicines. Direct factor Xa inhibitors (n = 12), glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues (n = 5) and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (n = 4) were the most frequently marketed medicines. The median year of introduction of all marketed medicines was 2012. All seven persuasion strategies were identified, with liking (64.7% of all materials) and authority (29.4%) as most prominent strategies, followed by social proof (17.6%), unity (14.7%), scarcity (13.2%), reciprocity (11.8%) and consistency/commitment (2.9%). In addition to those strategies, we identified emotional pressure (30.9%) as one commonly used new strategy. CONCLUSION: Marketing materials sent to general practices use a wide range of persuasion strategies in an attempt to influence prescription behaviour. Primary care practitioners should be aware of these mechanisms through which pharmaceutical companies try to influence their attitudes towards new medicines.

Perspectives on how to build bridges between regulation, health technology assessment and clinical guideline development: a qualitative focus group study with European experts.

OBJECTIVE: Improving synergy among regulation, health technology assessment (HTA) and clinical guideline development is relevant as these independent processes are building on shared evidence-based grounds. The two objectives were first to assess how convergence of evidentiary needs among stakeholders may be achieved, and second, to determine to what extent convergence can be achieved. DESIGN: Qualitative study using eight online dual-moderator focus groups. SETTING: Discussions had a European focus and were contextualised in four case studies on head and neck cancer, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis and myelodysplastic syndromes. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two experienced (over 10 years) European regulators, HTA representatives and clinicians participated in the discussion. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received information on the case study and research topic in advance. An introductory background presentation and interview guide for the moderators were used to steer the discussion. RESULTS: Convergence may be achieved through improved communication institutionalised in multistakeholder early dialogues, shared definitions and shared methods. Required data sets should be inclusive rather than aligned. Deliberation and decision-making should remain independent. Alignment could be sought for pragmatic clinical trial designs and patient registries. Smaller and lower-income countries should be included in these efforts. CONCLUSION: Actors in the field expressed that improving synergy among stakeholders always involves trade-offs. A balance needs to be found between the convergence of processes and the institutional remits or geographical independence. A similar tension exists between the involvement of more actors, for example, patients or additional countries, and the level of collaboration that may be achieved. Communication is key to establishing this balance.

Barriers to accessing internationally controlled essential medicines in sub-saharan Africa: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Access to internationally controlled essential medicines (ICEMs), medicines that are listed on both the World Health Organization's Essential Medicines List and one of three international drug control conventions, remains problematic in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Previous reviews have focused only on specific ICEMs or ICEM-related healthcare fields, but none have focused on all ICEMs as a distinct class. This scoping review therefore aims to identify the barriers to accessing ICEMs across all relevant healthcare fields in SSA. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted across indexing platforms Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science of studies published between January 1 2012 and February 1 2022. Articles were eligible if they mentioned barriers to accessing ICEMs and/or ICEM-related healthcare fields, if studies were conducted in SSA, or included data on an SSA country within a multi-country study. The review was guided by the Access to Medicines from a Health System Perspective framework. RESULTS: The search identified 5519 articles, of which 97 met the inclusion criteria. Many barriers to access were reported and were common across the ICEMs drug class. Main barriers were: at the individual level, the lack of knowledge about ICEMs; at the health service delivery level, low availability, stockouts, affordability, long distances to health facilities, insufficient infrastructure to store and distribute ICEMs, and lack of ICEM knowledge and training among healthcare workers; at the health sector level, lack of prioritisation of ICEM-related healthcare fields by governments and subsequent insufficient budget allocation. Cross-cutting, governance-related barriers pertained to lack of proper quantification systems, cumbersome procurement processes, and strict national laws controlling ICEMs, leading to overly restrictive prescription practices. CONCLUSION: This review showed that there are a multitude of barriers to accessing ICEMs in SSA across all health system levels. Many of the barriers identified are applicable to all ICEMs, highlighting the importance of tackling barriers for this entire class of drugs together.

Sustainable Development Goal indicator for measuring availability and affordability of medicines for children: a proof-of-concept study.

OBJECTIVES: To complement Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicator 3.b.3 that monitors access to medicines for all, a corresponding child-specific methodology was developed tailored to the health needs of children. This methodology could aid countries in monitoring accessibility to paediatric medicines in a validated manner and on a longitudinal basis. We aimed to provide proof of concept of this adapted methodology by applying the method to historical datasets. METHOD: A core set of child-appropriate medicines was selected for two groups of children: children aged 1-59 months and children aged 5-12 years. To enable calculation of affordability of medicines for children, the number of units needed for treatment was created, incorporating the recommended dosage and duration of treatment for the specific age group. The adapted methodology was applied to health facility survey data from Burundi (2013), China (2012) and Haiti (2011) for one age group. SDG indicator 3.b.3 scores and (mean) individual facility scores were calculated per country and sector. RESULTS: We were able to calculate SDG indicator 3.b.3 based on historical data from Burundi, China and Haiti with the adapted methodology. In this case study, all individual facilities failed to reach the 80% benchmark of accessible medicines, resulting in SDG indicator 3.b.3 scores of 0% for all 3 countries. Mean facility scores ranged from 22.2% in Haiti to 40.3% in Burundi for lowest-price generic medicines. Mean facility scores for originator brands were 0%, 16.5% and 9.9% for Burundi, China and Haiti, respectively. The low scores seemed to stem from the low availability of medicines. CONCLUSION: The child-specific methodology was successfully applied to historical data from Burundi, China and Haiti, providing proof of concept of this methodology. The proposed validation steps and sensitivity analyses will help determine its robustness and could lead to further improvements.