Essential cancer medicines and cancer outcomes: Cross-sectional study of 124 countries.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide. Alongside other interventions, access to certain medicines may decrease cancer-associated mortality. Listing medicines on national essential medicines lists may improve health outcomes. We examine the association between cancer mortality amenable to care and the listing of cancer medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) of 124 countries. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we determined the number of medicines used to treat eight cancers on NEMLs and used multiple linear regression to analyze the association between cancer health outcome scores and the number of medicines on NEMLs while controlling for GDP. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted using selected medicines. FINDINGS: The number of cancer medicines on NEMLs was not associated with cancer health outcome scores when GDP was controlled for non-melanoma skin (p = 0.224), uterine (p = 0.221), breast (p = 0.145), Hodgkin's lymphoma (p = 0.697), colon (p = 0.299), leukemia (p = 0.103), cervical (p = 0.834), and testicular cancers (p = 0.178). INTERPRETATION: There was a weak association between listing medicines for eight cancers in NEMLs and amenable mortality. Further studies are required to explore association between cancer health outcomes and other factors such as actual availability of medicines listed, access to surgeries, accurate diagnosis, radiotherapy, and early detection.

Essential tuberculosis medicines and health outcomes in countries with a national essential medicines list.

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally despite effective treatments. Along with high-quality health services, essential medicines are a key tool in curbing TB related mortality. Examining relationships between listing TB medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) and population health outcomes related to amenable mortality is one way to assess TB care. Methods: In this cross-sectional study of 137 countries, we used linear regression to examine the relationship between the number of TB medicines listed on NEMLs and TB related mortality while controlling for country income, region and TB burden. Results: Most countries listed essential TB medicines to treat latent, drug-sensitive and disseminated TB but few listed enough for multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB) therapy. The total number of TB medicines listed ranged from 1 to 29 (median: 19, interquartile range: 15 to 22). Over 75% of the variation in health outcomes were explained by the number of TB medicines listed, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, region and high-burden MDR-TB status. The number of TB medicines listed was not associated with TB mortality. Conclusion: Most countries list essential TB treatments and the variation in TB outcomes is explained by other factors such as GDP.

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.

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.

Essential diabetes medicines and health outcomes in 127 countries.

AIM: Diabetes is the ninth leading cause of death. Improving access to diabetes medicines may decrease mortality. Diabetes medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) vary considerably. We examine the association between diabetes population health outcomes relating to mortality and the listing of diabetes medicines on national essential medicine lists for 127 countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study. We determined the number of diabetes medicines on NEMLs and used multiple linear regression to analyse the association between diabetes health outcomes and the number of medicines on NEMLs. We used linear regression to assess the association between diabetes health outcomes and the listing of or not listing of medicines that were listed by 25-75% of countries. Diabetes prevalence, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and mean expenditure per person with diabetes were controlled for in all analyses. RESULTS: The total number of diabetes medicines listed on NEMLs ranged from 0 to 16 (median: 4; interquartile range: 3-6). Diabetes health outcome scores were associated with the number of diabetes medicines on NEMLs [1.3-point increase (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.5-2.1) for every additional medicine on NEMLs; P = .002] and GDP per capita [19.5-point increase (95% CI 5.4-33.6) for every 10-fold increase in GDP; P = .003]. Diabetes expenditure was not associated with health outcome scores (P = .23). Increases in diabetes health outcomes score were associated with the listing of glimepiride (7.9-point increase, 95% CI 2.3-13.5, P = .006) and glipizide (5.8-point increase, 95% CI 0.03-11.6, P = .049) on NEMLs. CONCLUSIONS: Listing of diabetes medicines on NEMLs has the potential to improve population health outcomes related to mortality in countries with diverse incomes and diabetes prevalence without necessarily increasing diabetes health expenditure.

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.

A comparison of national essential medicines lists in the Americas

[ABSTRACT]. 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.

[RESUMEN]. Objetivos. Comparar las listas nacionales de medicamentos esenciales (LNME) de países de la Región de las Américas e identificar oportunidades potenciales de mejorarlas. Métodos. En junio de 2017, se extrajeron las LNME de 31 países de la Región de documentos incluidos en un repositorio de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Se compararon estas listas entre sí y con listas de fuera de la Región, así como con la Lista Modelo de Medicamentos Esenciales de la OMS (20ª edición) y la lista del Fondo Rotatorio Regional para Suministros Estratégicos de Salud Pública de la Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Resultados. El número de diferencias entre las LNME de la Región y la Lista Modelo de la OMS fue similar dentro de esos países (mediana: 295; rango intercuartil (RIC): 265 a 347). Las LNME de la Región en general fueron similares entre sí. Si bien las LNME de la Región mostraron una coincidencia adecuada con la lista del Fondo Rotatorio, algunos medicamentos no estaban incluidos en ninguna de las primeras. Todas las LNME de la Región incluían algunos medicamentos que habían sido retirados del mercado por las autoridades regulatorias nacionales debido a efectos adversos (mediana: 8 medicamentos retirados en cada lista; RIC: 4 a 12). Conclusiones. Las LNME en la Región de las Américas son bastante similares entre sí y con la Lista Modelo de la OMS y la lista del Fondo Rotatorio de la OPS. Sin embargo, se identificaron algunas áreas terapéuticas y algunos medicamentos específicos que los países deberían reevaluar al revisar sus LNME.

[RESUMO]. Objetivos. Comparar as listas nacionais de medicamentos essenciais (LNME) dos países da Região das Américas e identificar oportunidades potenciais de melhoria. Métodos. Em junho de 2017, as LNME de 31 países das Américas foram obtidas de documentos incluídos em um repositório da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS). As listas foram comparadas entre si, com listas de fora da Região, com a Lista Modelo de Medicamentos Essenciais da OMS (20ª edição) e com a lista do Fundo Rotativo Regional para Fornecimentos Estratégicos de Saúde Pública da Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde (Fundo Estratégico). Resultados. As LNME dos países das Américas eram semelhantes entre si e apresentaram um número semelhante de diferenças em relação à Lista Modelo da OMS (mediana: 295; intervalo interquartil: 265-347). Embora as LNME nas Américas fossem altamente consistentes com a lista do Fundo Estratégico, alguns dos medicamentos do Fundo não apareciam em nenhuma dessas LNME. Todas as LNME nas Américas incluíam medicamentos retirados do mercado por algum organismo regulador nacional devido a efeitos adversos (mediana: 8 medicamentos retirados por LNME; intervalo interquartil: 4-12). Conclusões. As LNME nas Américas são bastante semelhantes entre si e próximas da Lista Modelo da OMS e da lista do Fundo Estratégico. Contudo, foram identificadas algumas áreas terapêuticas e alguns medicamentos específicos que os países deveriam reavaliar ao rever as suas LNME.

Comparison of essential medicines lists in 137 countries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the medicines included in national essential medicines lists with the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Model list of essential medicines, and assess the extent to which countries' characteristics, such as WHO region, size and health care expenditure, account for the differences. METHODS: We searched the WHO's Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal for national essential medicines lists. We compared each national list of essential medicines with both the 2017 WHO model list and other national lists. We used linear regression to determine whether differences were dependent on WHO Region, population size, life expectancy, infant mortality, gross domestic product and health-care expenditure. FINDINGS: We identified 137 national lists of essential medicines that collectively included 2068 unique medicines. Each national list contained between 44 and 983 medicines (median 310: interquartile range, IQR: 269 to 422). The number of differences between each country's essential medicines list and WHO's model list ranged from 93 to 815 (median: 296; IQR: 265 to 381). Linear regression showed that only WHO region and health-care expenditure were significantly associated with the number of differences (adjusted R2 : 0.33; P < 0.05). Most medicines (1248; 60%) were listed by no more than 10% (14) of countries. CONCLUSION: The substantial differences between national lists of essential medicines are only partly explained by differences in country characteristics and thus may not be related to different priority needs. This information helps to identify opportunities to improve essential medicines lists.

Exploring the experiences of people in Ontario, Canada who have trouble affording medicines: a qualitative concept mapping study.

OBJECTIVES: The experiences of people who report cost-related medicine non-adherence are not well documented. We aimed to present experiences relating to accessing medicines reported by the participants in a randomised controlled trial of free medicine distribution. METHODS: The trial consisted of primary care patients from a large urban family practice and three rural family practices who reported cost-related medicine non-adherence. Participants were randomly allocated to continue their poor access (control) or to receive free and easily accessible medicines (intervention). As part of data collection for the first year of the trial, participants were asked closed and open-ended questions to assess their adherence to medication, health outcomes and their experiences in relation to medicine accessibility. We conducted a qualitative concept mapping study in which we analysed and summarised participants' responses to the open-ended question on a concept map to visually present their experiences relating to accessing medicines. RESULTS: Of the 524 trial participants contacted, 198 (38%) responded to the open-ended question. The concept map contains clusters that represent eight types of experiences of participants related to medicine access including stress, relationship with doctor, health impact, quality of life, sacrificing other essentials, medicines are expensive, financial impact and adherence. These experiences fall under two major themes, experiences relating to personal finances and experiences relating to well-being, which are bridged by a central cluster of adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences shared by the participants demonstrate that access to medicines impacts people's finances and well-being as well as their adherence to prescribed medicines. These results indicate that effects on personal finances and general well-being should be measured for interventions and policy changes aimed at improving medicine access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This article is linked to the Carefully Selected and Easily Accessible at No Charge Medicines (CLEAN Meds) randomised controlled trial (trial registration number: NCT02744963).