WHO Model list of essential medicines: visions for the future.

The first version of the World Health Organization Model list of essential medicines contained 186 medicines in 1977 and has evolved to include 502 medicines in 2023. Over time, different articles criticized the methods and process for decisions; however, the list holds global relevance as a model list to over 150 national lists. Given the global use of the model list, reflecting on its future role is imperative to understand how the list should evolve and respond to the needs of Member States. In 2023, the model list Expert Committee recommended the World Health Organization (WHO) to initiate a process to revise the procedures for updating the model list and the criteria guiding decisions. Here, we offer an agenda outlining priority areas and a vision for an authoritative model list. The main areas include improving transparency and trustworthiness of the recommendations; strengthening connection to national lists; and continuing the debate on the principles that should guide the model list, in particular the role of cost and price of essential medicines. These reflections are intended to support efforts ensuring the continued impact of this policy tool.

La première version de la Liste modèle des médicaments essentiels de l'OMS, publiée par l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé, répertoriait 186 médicaments en 1977 et s'est enrichie jusqu'à en inclure 502 en 2023. Au fil du temps, différents articles ont critiqué ses méthodes et processus décisionnels; toutefois, elle reste importante au niveau mondial, servant de référence à plus de 150 listes nationales. Compte tenu de l'usage international qui en est fait, il est impératif de réfléchir à sa fonction future afin de comprendre comment elle peut évoluer et répondre aux besoins des États Membres. En 2023, le Comité d'experts chargé de la liste modèle a recommandé à l'OMS de se lancer dans la révision des procédures de mise à jour de cette liste, ainsi que des critères appliqués aux décisions. Dans le présent document, nous proposons un programme qui définit les priorités et les perspectives d'avenir pour que la liste fasse autorité. Parmi les principaux domaines abordés figurent l'amélioration de la transparence et de la fiabilité des recommandations, le renforcement des liens avec les listes nationales et la poursuite du débat sur les principes qui devraient orienter la liste modèle, en particulier le rôle joué par les coûts et les prix des médicaments essentiels. Ces réflexions ont pour but de soutenir les efforts permettant à cet instrument politique de conserver son impact.

La primera versión de la Lista Modelo OMS de Medicamentos Esenciales contenía 186 medicamentos en 1977 y ha evolucionado hasta incluir 502 medicamentos en 2023. Con el tiempo, diferentes artículos criticaron los métodos y el proceso de decisión; sin embargo, la lista conserva su relevancia mundial como lista modelo para más de 150 listas nacionales. Dado el uso global de la lista modelo, es imperativo reflexionar sobre su función futura para comprender cómo debe evolucionar la lista y responder a las necesidades de los Estados Miembros. En 2023, el Comité de Expertos de la lista modelo recomendó a la OMS que iniciara un proceso para revisar los procedimientos de actualización de la lista modelo y los criterios que guían las decisiones. En este documento, se ofrece un programa en el que se describen las áreas prioritarias y la visión de una lista modelo oficial. Entre las principales áreas se incluyen la mejora de la transparencia y la fiabilidad de las recomendaciones, el refuerzo de la conexión con las listas nacionales y la continuación del debate sobre los principios que deben guiar la lista modelo, en particular sobre la función del coste y el precio de los medicamentos esenciales. El objetivo de estas reflexiones es apoyar los esfuerzos que aseguren el impacto continuado de esta herramienta política.

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.

Factors to Consider During Identification and Invitation of Individuals in a Multi-stakeholder Research Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Health research teams increasingly partner with stakeholders to produce research that is relevant, accessible, and widely used. Previous work has covered stakeholder group identification. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop factors for health research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership, with the aim of forming equitable and informed teams. DESIGN: Consensus development. PARTICIPANTS: We involved 16 stakeholders from the international Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium, including patients and the public, providers, payers of health services/purchasers, policy makers, programme managers, peer review editors, and principal investigators. APPROACH: We engaged stakeholders in factor development and as co-authors of this manuscript. Using a modified Delphi approach, we gathered stakeholder views concerning a preliminary list of 18 factors. Over two feedback rounds, using qualitative and quantitative analysis, we concentrated these into ten factors. KEY RESULTS: We present seven highly desirable factors: 'expertise or experience', 'ability and willingness to represent the stakeholder group', 'inclusivity (equity, diversity and intersectionality)', 'communication skills', 'commitment and time capacity', 'financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflict of interest', 'training support and funding needs'. Additionally, three factors are desirable: 'influence', 'research relevant values', 'previous stakeholder engagement'. CONCLUSIONS: We present factors for research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership. Policy makers and guideline developers may benefit from considering the factors in stakeholder identification and invitation. Research funders may consider stipulating consideration of the factors in funding applications. We outline how these factors can be implemented and exemplify how their use has the potential to improve the quality and relevancy of health research.

Effectiveness of treatments for acute and subacute mechanical non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) based on pain and disability outcomes. DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature with network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until 17 October 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults with NS-LBP who experienced pain for less than 6 weeks (acute) or between 6 and 12 weeks (subacute). RESULTS: Forty-six RCTs (n=8765) were included; risk of bias was low in 9 trials (19.6%), unclear in 20 (43.5%), and high in 17 (36.9%). At immediate-term follow-up, for pain decrease, the most efficacious treatments against an inert therapy were: exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.41 to -0.40), heat wrap (SMD -1.38; 95% CI -2.60 to -0.17), opioids (SMD -0.86; 95% CI -1.62 to -0.10), manual therapy (SMD -0.72; 95% CI -1.40 to -0.04) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.97 to -0.09). Similar findings were confirmed for disability reduction in non-pharmacological and pharmacological networks, including muscle relaxants (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.04). Mild or moderate adverse events were reported in the opioids (65.7%), NSAIDs (54.3%) and steroids (46.9%) trial arms. CONCLUSION: With uncertainty of evidence, NS-LBP should be managed with non-pharmacological treatments which seem to mitigate pain and disability at immediate-term. Among pharmacological interventions, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants appear to offer the best harm-benefit balance.

Access to cancer medicines deemed essential by oncologists in 82 countries: an international, cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) identifies priority medicines that are most important to public health. Over time, the EML has included an increasing number of cancer medicines. We aimed to investigate whether the cancer medicines in the EML are aligned with the priority medicines of frontline oncologists worldwide, and the extent to which these medicines are accessible in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This international, cross-sectional survey was developed by investigators from a range of clinical practice settings across low-income to high-income countries, including members of the WHO Essential Medicines Cancer Working Group. A 28-question electronic survey was developed and disseminated to a global network of oncologists in 89 countries and regions by use of a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their national and regional oncology associations or personal networks. The survey was open from Oct 15 to Dec 7, 2020. Fully qualified physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy to adults were eligible to participate in the survey. The primary question asked respondents to select the ten cancer medicines that would provide the greatest public health benefit to their country; subsequent questions explored availability and cost of cancer medicines. Descriptive statistics were used to compare access to medicines between low-income and lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries. FINDINGS: 87 country-level contacts and two regional networks were invited to participate in the survey; 46 (52%) accepted the invitation and distributed the survey. 1697 respondents opened the survey link; 423 were excluded as they did not answer the primary study question and 326 were excluded because of ineligibility. 948 eligible oncologists from 82 countries completed the survey (165 [17%] in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 165 [17%] in upper-middle-income countries, and 618 [65%] in high-income countries). The most commonly selected medicines were doxorubicin (by 499 [53%] of 948 respondents), cisplatin (by 470 [50%]), paclitaxel (by 423 [45%]), pembrolizumab (by 414 [44%]), trastuzumab (by 402 [42%]), carboplatin (by 390 [41%]), and 5-fluorouracil (by 386 [41%]). Of the 20 most frequently selected high-priority cancer medicines, 19 (95%) are currently on the WHO EML; 12 (60%) were cytotoxic agents and 13 (65%) were granted US Food and Drug Administration regulatory approval before 2000. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability of each top 20 medication was 9-54% in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 13-90% in upper-middle-income countries, and 68-94% in high-income countries. The risk of catastrophic expenditure (spending >40% of total consumption net of spending on food) was more common in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, with 13-68% of respondents indicating a substantial risk of catastrophic expenditures for each of the top 20 medications in lower-middle-income countries versus 2-41% of respondents in upper-middle-income countries and 0-9% in high-income countries. INTERPRETATION: These data demonstrate major barriers in access to core cancer medicines worldwide. These findings challenge the feasibility of adding additional expensive cancer medicines to the EML. There is an urgent need for global and country-level policy action to ensure patients with cancer globally have access to high priority medicines. FUNDING: None.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Antimicrobial Resistance: Parallel and Interacting Health Emergencies.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are parallel and interacting health emergencies that provide the opportunity for mutual learning. As their measures and consequences are comparable, the COVID-19 pandemic helps to illustrate the potential long-term impact of AMR, which is less acute but not less crucial. They may also impact each other as there is a push to use existing antimicrobials to treat critically ill COVID-19 patients in the absence of specific treatments. Attempts to manage the spread of COVID-19 may also lead to a slowdown in AMR. Understanding how COVID-19 affects AMR trends and what we can expect if these trends remain the same or worsen will help us to plan the next steps for tackling AMR. Researchers should start collecting data to measure the impact of current COVID-19 policies and programs on AMR.

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.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ultra-Long-Acting, Long-Acting, Intermediate-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: We included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Our results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42017077051.

Kinesio taping for rotator cuff disease.

BACKGROUND: Kinesio Taping (KT) is one of the conservative treatments proposed for rotator cuff disease. KT is an elastic, adhesive, latex-free taping made from cotton, without active pharmacological agents. Clinicians have adopted it in the rehabilitation treatment of painful conditions, however, there is no firm evidence on its benefits. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of KT in adults with rotator cuff disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry to July 27 2020, unrestricted by date and language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including adults with rotator cuff disease. Major outcomes were overall pain, function, pain on motion, active range of motion, global assessment of treatment success, quality of life, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 trials with 1054 participants. Nine studies (312 participants) assessed the effectiveness of KT versus sham therapy and fourteen studies (742 participants) assessed the effectiveness of KT versus conservative treatment. Most participants were aged between 18 and 50 years. Females comprised 52% of the sample. For the meta-analysis, we considered the last available measurement within 30 days from the end of the intervention. All trials were at risk of performance, selection, reporting, attrition, and other biases.  Comparison with sham taping Due to very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether KT improves overall pain, function, pain on motion and active range of motion compared with sham taping. Mean overall pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 2.96 points with sham taping and 3.03 points with KT (3 RCTs,106 participants), with an absolute difference of 0.7% worse, (95% CI 7.7% better to 9% worse) and a relative difference of 2% worse (95% CI 21% better to 24% worse) at four weeks. Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 better function) was 47.1 points with sham taping and 39.05 points with KT (6 RCTs, 214 participants), with an absolute improvement of 8% (95% CI 21% better to 5% worse)and a relative improvement of 15% (95% CI 40% better to 9% worse) at four weeks. Mean pain on motion (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 4.39 points with sham taping and 2.91 points with KT even though not clinically important (4 RCTs, 153 participants), with an absolute improvement of 14.8% (95% CI 22.5% better to 7.1% better) and a relative improvement of 30% (95% CI 45% better to 14% better) at four weeks. Mean active range of motion (shoulder abduction) without pain was 174.2 degrees with sham taping and 184.43 degrees with KT (2 RCTs, 68 participants), with an absolute improvement of 5.7% (95% CI 8.9% worse to 20.3% better) and a relative improvement of 6% (95% CI 10% worse to 22% better) at two weeks. No studies reported global assessment of treatment success. Quality of life was reported by one study but data were disaggregated in subscales. No reliable estimates for adverse events (4 studies; very low-certainty) could be provided due to the heterogeneous description of events in the sample. Comparison with conservative treatments Due to very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain if KT improves overall pain, function, pain on motion and active range of motion compared with conservative treatments. However, KT may improve quality of life (low certainty of evidence).  Mean overall pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 0.9 points with conservative treatment and 0.46 points with KT (5 RCTs, 266 participants), with an absolute improvement of 4.4% (95% CI 13% better to 4.6% worse) and a relative improvement of 15% (95% CI 46% better to 16% worse) at six weeks. Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 better function) was 46.6 points with conservative treatment and 33.47 points with KT (14 RCTs, 499 participants), with an absolute improvement of 13% (95% CI 24% better to 2% better) and a relative improvement of 18% (95% CI 32% better to 3% better) at four weeks. Mean pain on motion (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 4 points with conservative treatment and 3.94 points with KT (6 RCTs, 225 participants), with an absolute improvement of 0.6% (95% CI 7% better to 8% worse) and a relative improvement of 1% (95% CI 12% better to 10% worse) at four weeks. Mean active range of motion (shoulder abduction) without pain was 156.6 degrees with conservative treatment and 159.64 degrees with KT (3 RCTs, 143 participants), with an absolute improvement of 3% (95% CI 11% worse to 17 % better) and a relative improvement of 3% (95% CI 9% worse to 14% better) at six weeks.  Mean of quality of life (0 to 100, 100 better quality of life) was 37.94 points with conservative treatment and 56.64 points with KT (1 RCTs, 30 participants), with an absolute improvement of 18.7% (95% CI 14.48% better to 22.92% better) and a relative improvement of 53% (95% CI 41% better to 65% better) at four weeks.  No studies were found for global assessment of treatment success. No reliable estimates for adverse events (7 studies, very low certainty of evidence) could be provided due to the heterogeneous description of events in the whole sample. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Kinesio taping for rotator cuff disease has uncertain effects in terms of self-reported pain, function, pain on motion and active range of motion when compared to sham taping or other conservative treatments as the certainty of evidence was very low. Low-certainty evidence shows that kinesio taping may improve quality of life when compared to conservative treatment. We downgraded the evidence for indirectness due to differences among co-interventions, imprecision due to small number of participants across trials as well as selection bias, performance and detection bias. Evidence on adverse events was scarce and uncertain. Based upon the data in this review, the evidence for the efficacy of KT seems to demonstrate little or no benefit.