Global Burden Disease Estimates for Major Depressive Disorders (MDD): A review of diagnostic instruments used in studies of prevalence.

Global Burden of Disease (GBD) estimates have significant policy implications nationally and internationally. Disease burden metrics, particularly for depression, have played a critical role in raising governmental awareness of mental health and in calculating the economic cost of depression. Recently, the World Health Organization ranked depression as the single largest contributor to global disability. The main aim of this paper was to assess the basis upon which GBD prevalence estimates for major depressive disorder (MDD) were made. We identify the instruments used in the 2019 GBD estimates and provide a descriptive assessment of the five most frequently used instruments. The majority of country studies, 356/566 (62.9%), used general mental health screeners or structured/semi-structured interview guides, 98/566 (17.3%) of the studies used dedicated depression screeners, and 112 (19.8%) used other tools for assessing depression. Thus, most of the studies used instruments that were not designed to make a diagnosis of depression or assess depression severity. Our results are congruent with and extend previous research that has identified critical flaws in the data underpinning the GBD estimates for MDD. Despite the widespread promotion of these prevalence estimates, caution is needed before using them to inform public policy and mental health interventions. This is particularly important in lower-income countries where resources are scarce.

Access to and utilisation of antimicrobials among forcibly displaced persons in Uganda, Yemen and Colombia: a pilot cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Identifying key barriers to accessing quality-assured and affordable antimicrobials among forcibly displaced persons in Uganda, Yemen and Colombia and investigating their (1) utilisation patterns of antibiotics, (2) knowledge about antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and (3) perception of the quality of antimicrobials received. DESIGN: Pilot cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Data were collected from five health facilities in the Kiryandongo refugee settlement (Bweyale, Uganda), three camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the Dar Sad district (Aden, Yemen) and a district with a high population of Venezuelan migrants (Kennedy district, Bogotá, Colombia). Data collection took place between February and May 2021. The three countries were selected due to their high number of displaced people in their respective continents. PARTICIPANTS: South Sudanese refugees in Uganda, IDPs in Yemen and Venezuelan migrants in Colombia. OUTCOME MEASURE: The most common barriers to access to quality-assured and affordable antimicrobials. RESULTS: A total of 136 participants were enrolled in this study. Obtaining antimicrobials through informal pathways, either without a doctor's prescription or through family and friends, was common in Yemen (27/50, 54.0%) and Colombia (34/50, 68.0%). In Yemen and Uganda, respondents used antibiotics to treat (58/86, 67.4%) and prevent (39/86, 45.3%) a cold. Knowledge of AMR was generally low (24/136, 17.6%). Barriers to access included financial constraints in Colombia and Uganda, prescription requirements in Yemen and Colombia, and non-availability of drugs in Uganda and Yemen. CONCLUSION: Our multicentred research identified common barriers to accessing quality antimicrobials among refugees/IDPs/migrants and common use of informal pathways. The results suggest that knowledge gaps about AMR may lead to potential misuse of antimicrobials. Due to the study's small sample size and use of non-probability sampling, the results should be interpreted with caution, and larger-scale assessments on this topic are needed. Future interventions designed for similar humanitarian settings should consider the interlinked barriers identified.

Audit of essential medicine listing and registration status of medicines on standard treatment guidelines in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda: Case study of malaria, tuberculosis, hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Objectives: To determine alignment between national and World Health Organization (WHO) treatment recommendations, medicines prioritisation in country's essential medicines list (EML), and medicines availability in National drug register. Design: An audit of medicines for malaria, tuberculosis, hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus listed in the national standard treatment guidelines (STGs) of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, as of March 2021, against WHO treatment guidelines, and respective country EML and National drug register. Setting: Not applicable. Participants: None. Main outcome measures: Proportion of medicine in country's STGs that align with WHO treatment recommendations, country's EML and country's drug register. Results: Some disease areas had two sets of treatment guidelines - national STGs and disease-specific treatment guidelines (DSGs) developed at different times with different recommended medicines. Both STGs and DSGs included medicines not recommended by the WHO or not listed on the country EML and drug register. Non-WHO-recommended medicines accounted for 17/68 (25%), 10/57 (18%) and 3/30 (10%) of all STG medicines in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, respectively. For tuberculosis, the numbers and proportion of STG medicines listed on the respective national EMLs were 2/6 (33%), 15/19 (79%) and 4/5 (80%) in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. All tuberculosis medicines included in Kenya's and Uganda's STGs were registered compared with only 12/19 (63%) tuberculosis medicines in Tanzania's STG. Conclusions: Alignment between treatment guidelines, EMLs and drug registers is crucial for effective national pharmaceutical policy. Research is needed to understand the inclusion of medicines on STGs and DSGs which fall outside WHO treatment guidelines; the non-alignment of some STGs and DSGs, and STGs and DSGs including medicines which are not on country EML and drug register.

A critical appraisal of the quality of data submitted by sub-Saharan African cancer registries to GLOBOCAN 2020.

Objectives: (a) To critically appraise the quality of data submitted by sub-Saharan African (SSA) cancer registries to GLOBOCAN 2020 and (b) compare the quality of data of the registries common to GLOBOCAN 2008 and 2020. Design: Critical appraisal of cancer registry data quality using the Parkin and Bray framework. Setting and Participants: GLOBOCAN 2020 cancer registry estimates for 46 countries in SSA. Forty-three registries in 31 (SSA) countries were identified from the GLOBCAN 2020 supplementary documents, of which data from 28 registries in 23 sub-Saharan African countries were publicly available. Main outcomes measures: Data quality for 15 variables in four domains (comparability, validity, timeliness and completeness) were appraised using the Parkin and Bray framework. Results from the appraisal of GLOBOCAN 2020 sources were compared with previous findings for GLOBOCAN 2008. Results: Compared with GLOBOCAN 2008, GLOBOCAN 2020 country coverage had increased from 21 to 31 countries with 15 countries having no established registries. Out of a total possible score of 15 for data quality, 18 of the 28 publicly available GLOBOCAN 2020 registries fulfilled a score of 5 or more compared with seven registries in GLOBOCAN 2008. Of the 17 registries common to GLOBOCAN 2008 and 2020, nine showed an improvement in data quality. Conclusion: Country coverage and data quality have improved since GLOBOCAN 2008, however, overall data quality and coverage remain poor. GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates should be used with caution when allocating resources.

Regulatory enforcement of the marketing of fixed-dose combinations in India: a case study of systemic antibiotics.

BACKGROUND: In India, states have licensed the manufacture of large numbers of fixed-dose combination (FDC) drugs without the required prior approval of the central regulator. This paper describes two major regulatory initiatives to address the problem, which began in 2007 and 2013, and examines whether they have been sufficient to remove centrally unapproved systemic antibiotic FDCs from the market. METHODS: Information was extracted from documents published by the central regulator and the ministry of health, including the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM), and court judgments, and analysed alongside sales volume data for 2008-2020 using PharmaTrac market dataset. RESULTS: The regulatory initiatives permitted 68 formulations to be given de facto approvals ('No Objection Certificates') outside the statutory regime, banned 46 FDCs and restricted one FDC. Market data show that FDCs as a proportion of total antibiotic sales increased from 32.9 in 2008 to 37.3% in 2020. The total number of antibiotic FDC formulations on the market fell from 574 (2008) to 395 (2020). Formulations with a record of prior central approval increased from 86 (2008) to 94 (2020) and their share of the antibiotic FDC sales increased from 32.0 to 55.3%. In 2020, an additional 23 formulations had been permitted de facto approval, accounting for 10.6% of the antibiotic FDC sales. Even in 2020, most marketed formulations (70.4%, 278/395) were unapproved or banned, and comprised a 15.9% share of the antibiotic FDC sales. The share of NLEM-listed antibiotic FDC sales increased from 21.2 (2008) to 26.7% (2020). CONCLUSION: The initiatives had limited impact. Regulatory enforcement has been slow and weak, with many unapproved, and even banned, FDCs remaining on the market.

A pipeline analysis of advanced therapy medicinal products.

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are innovative biological products categorised as either gene, somatic cell, tissue-engineered or combined therapies. As of March 2022, 12 ATMPs are marketed in the EU and UK. We identified 482 unique ATMPs within 616 technology records from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Innovation Observatory database, 4 of which are currently marketed. These 482 ATMPs were identified in 583 clinical trials. Of the 616 records, 57.1% were for gene therapies and 1.6% were for combined therapies. Records covered various indications, including 130 haematological malignancies and 60 genetic disorders. Marketing authorisation intelligence was included in 14% of records.

Bridging the gap? Local production of medicines on the national essential medicine lists of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Essential medicines (EMs) are those that satisfy the basic healthcare needs of the population. However, access to EMs remains a global health challenge. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the East African Community (EAC) manufacturing plan 2017-2027 support local production of EMs as a strategy to improve access to medicines. The aim of this study was to determine for each therapeutic class on the national essential medicine lists (NEMLs) of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, the number of EMs produced in each country. METHODS: In 2018, we analysed NEMLs and national drug registers (NDRs) in each country to identify local manufacturers and local products by EM status. For each local manufacturer we determined the number of EM products and individual EMs, and analysed EMs in each therapeutic class by registration status and whether produced locally. RESULTS: There were nine companies manufacturing locally in Kenya, four in Tanzania and six in Uganda. Most local medicine products were non-EM products. Of the 946 locally produced products in Kenya, 310 were EM products; of the 97 locally produced products in Tanzania, 39 were EM products; and of the 181 locally produced products in Uganda, 100 were EM products. Many local EM products were duplicate. Only a small proportion of EMs on each NEML were produced locally: 21% (92/430) in Kenya, 5% (24/510) in Tanzania, and 10% (55/526) in Uganda. Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda had no local EM products in 13/32, 17/28 and 15/32 therapeutic classes, respectively. The proportion of EMs that were registered varied across the countries from 327 (76%) in Kenya, 269 (53%) in Tanzania, and 319 (60%) in Uganda. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of auditing NDRs and NEMLs for local production to inform regional and national local manufacturing strategies. EMs should be prioritized for local production and drug registration to ensure that production is aligned with local health needs.

Systemic antibiotic sales and WHO recommendations, India.

Objective: To analyse sales of fixed-dose combination and single antibiotics in India in relation to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations and national regulatory efforts to control antibiotic sales. Methods: We extracted data on sales volumes of systemic antibiotics in India from a market research company sales database. We compared the market share of antibiotic sales in 2020 by WHO AWaRe (Access, Watch and Reserve) category and for those under additional national regulatory controls. We also analysed sales of fixed-dose combinations that were: formally approved for marketing or had a no-objection certificate; on the national essential medicines list; and on the WHO list of not-recommended antibiotics. Findings: There were 78 single and 112 fixed-dose combination antibiotics marketed in India, accounting for 7.6 and 4.5 billion standard units of total sales, respectively. Access, Watch and Reserve antibiotics comprised 5.8, 5.6 and 0.1 billion standard units of total market sales, respectively. All additionally controlled antibiotics were Watch and Reserve antibiotics (23.6%; 2.9 billion standard units of total sales). Fixed-dose combinations on the WHO not-recommended list were marketed in 229 formulations, with 114 formulations (49.8%) having no record of formal approval or no-objection certificate. While there were no not-recommended fixed-dose combinations on the national list of essential medicines, 13 of the top-20 selling antibiotic fixed-dose combinations were WHO not-recommended. Conclusion: The sale of Watch group drugs, and antibiotics banned or not approved, needs active investigation and enforcement in India. The evidence base underpinning formal approvals and no-objection certificates for not-recommended fixed-dose combinations should be audited.

Registration and local production of essential medicines in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Universal access to high quality essential medicines is critical to sustainable development (SDG 3.8). However low- and middle-income countries struggle to ensure access to all medicines on their national essential medicines lists (EML). Market registration is the first step in determining both access and availability yet the extent to which essential medicines are registered for use at country level is not known. Companies apply for a marketing authorisation, however low price or lack of a market is a disincentive. Local production has been promoted to ensure availability of essential medicines but research in this area is also limited. METHODS: The study took place between 2011 and 2015. We systematically examined the registration status of medicines and vaccines listed in the Ugandan 2012 EML and conducted 20 interviews with regulators, ministry of health representatives, donors, and pharmaceutical producers and analysed quality assurance issues affecting registration, procurement, and local production of medicines in Uganda. In 2017 we conducted a further three interviews to clarify issues around non-registration of essential medicines highlighted by our analysis. RESULTS: Of the 566 essential medicines and vaccines nearly half (49%; 275/566) had no registered product in 2012. Of the 3130 registered products, just over a quarter (28%; 880/3130) were listed on the EML. Six local producers had registered 138 products of which 40 corresponded to 32 unique essential medicines. Interviews highlighted alternative routes to availability other than registration. Local producers faced considerable barriers to achieving international quality standards required for international procurement of medicines for the domestic market. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring and audit of the registration of essential and non-essential medicines should be a priority nationally and, regionally through harmonisation of registration requirements in the East African Community. National and regional manufacturing plans should consider local production of unregistered essential medicines.

Registration of antimicrobials, Kenya, Uganda and United Republic of Tanzania, 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of essential and non-essential antimicrobial medicines that are registered on the drug registers in Kenya, Uganda and United Republic of Tanzania. METHODS: We categorized all antimicrobials on the national drug registers and essential medicines lists of the three countries using the British National Formulary. We also categorized all antibiotics according to the World Health Organization access, watch and reserve (AWaRe) classification. We calculated the proportions of essential and non-essential antimicrobials that were registered by antimicrobial class and AWaRe classification. FINDINGS: In 2018, Kenya had 2105 registered antimicrobials, Uganda had 1563 and the United Republic of Tanzania had 1327. Of these medicines, 1353 (64.3%) were non-essential in Kenya, 798 (51.1%) in Uganda and 706 (53.2%) in the United Republic of Tanzania. Kenya had 160 antimicrobials on its national essential medicines lists, Uganda had 187 and the United Republic of Tanzania had 182; of these, 33 (20.7%), 50 (26.7%) and 52 (28.6%) were not registered, respectively. High proportions of antimycobacterial and antiparasitic medicines were not registered. Of essential access antibiotics, 14.3% (4/28) were not registered in Kenya, 8.6% (3/35) in Uganda and 20.5% (8/39) in the United Republic of Tanzania, nor were 25.0% (3/12) of watch antibiotics in Kenya, 14.3% (2/14) in Uganda and 19.1% (4/21) in the United Republic of Tanzania. CONCLUSION: Suboptimal registration of essential antimicrobials and over-registration of non-essential antimicrobials may encourage inappropriate use, especially since non-essential antimicrobials do not appear on national treatment guidelines. Countries should prioritize registration of the antimicrobial medicines on their essential medicines lists.

Will HPV vaccination prevent cervical cancer?

We conducted a critical appraisal of published Phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer in women. Our analysis shows the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy in these data. There were 12 randomised control trials (RCTs) of Cervarix and Gardasil. The trial populations did not reflect vaccination target groups due to differences in age and restrictive trial inclusion criteria. The use of composite and distant surrogate outcomes makes it impossible to determine effects on clinically significant outcomes. It is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop. Although there is evidence that vaccination prevents cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) this is not a clinically important outcome (no treatment is given). Trials used composite surrogate outcomes which included CIN1. High efficacy against CIN1+ (CIN1, 2, 3 and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS)) does not necessarily mean high efficacy against CIN3+ (CIN3 and AIS), which occurs much less frequently. There are too few data to clearly conclude that HPV vaccine prevents CIN3+. CIN in general is likely to have been overdiagnosed in the trials because cervical cytology was conducted at intervals of 6-12 months rather than at the normal screening interval of 36 months. This means that the trials may have overestimated the efficacy of the vaccine as some of the lesions would have regressed spontaneously. Many trials diagnosed persistent infection on the basis of frequent testing at short intervals, i.e. less than six months. There is uncertainty as to whether detected infections would clear or persist and lead to cervical changes.

Registration of antimicrobials, Kenya, Uganda and United Republic of Tanzania, 2018

Objective. To determine the proportion of essential and non-essential antimicrobial medicines that are registered on the drug registers in Kenya, Uganda and United Republic of Tanzania.Methods We categorized all antimicrobials on the national drug registers and essential medicines lists of the three countries using the British National Formulary. We also categorized all antibiotics according to the World Health Organization access, watch and reserve (AWaRe) classification. We calculated the proportions of essential and non-essential antimicrobials that were registered by antimicrobial class and AWaRe classification. Findings In 2018, Kenya had 2105 registered antimicrobials, Uganda had 1563 and the United Republic of Tanzania had 1327. Of these medicines, 1353 (64.3%) were non-essential in Kenya, 798 (51.1%) in Uganda and 706 (53.2%) in the United Republic of Tanzania. Kenya had 160 antimicrobials on its national essential medicines lists, Uganda had 187 and the United Republic of Tanzania had 182; of these, 33 (20.7%), 50 (26.7%) and 52 (28.6%) were not registered, respectively. High proportions of antimycobacterial and antiparasitic medicines were not registered. Of essential access antibiotics, 14.3% (4/28) were not registered in Kenya, 8.6% (3/35) in Uganda and 20.5% (8/39) in the United Republic of Tanzania, nor were 25.0% (3/12) of watch antibiotics in Kenya, 14.3% (2/14) in Uganda and 19.1% (4/21) in the United Republic of Tanzania. Conclusion Suboptimal registration of essential antimicrobials and over-registration of non-essential antimicrobials may encourage inappropriate use, especially since non-essential antimicrobials do not appear on national treatment guidelines. Countries should prioritize registration of the antimicrobial medicines on their essential medicines lists

The use of validated and nonvalidated surrogate endpoints in two European Medicines Agency expedited approval pathways: A cross-sectional study of products authorised 2011-2018.

BACKGROUND: In situations of unmet medical need or in the interests of public health, expedited approval pathways, including conditional marketing authorisation (CMA) and accelerated assessment (AA), speed up European Medicines Agency (EMA) marketing authorisation recommendations for medicinal products. CMAs are based on incomplete benefit-risk assessment data and authorisation remains conditional until regulator-imposed confirmatory postmarketing measures are fulfilled. For products undergoing AA, complete safety and efficacy data should be available, and postauthorisation measures may include only standard requirements of risk management and pharmacovigilance plans. In the pivotal trials supporting products assessed by expedited pathways, surrogate endpoints reduce drug development time compared with waiting for the intended clinical outcomes. Whether surrogate endpoints supporting products authorised through CMA and AA pathways reliably predict clinical benefits of therapy has not been studied systematically. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which surrogate endpoints are used and to assess whether their validity had been confirmed according to published hierarchies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) to identify the primary endpoints in the pivotal trials supporting products authorised through CMA or AA pathways during January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2018. We excluded products that were vaccines, topical, reversal, or bleeding prophylactic agents or withdrawn within the study time frame. Where pivotal trials reported surrogate endpoints, we conducted PubMed searches for evidence of validity for predicting clinical outcomes. We used 2 published hierarchies to assess validity level. Surrogates with randomised controlled trials supporting the surrogate-clinical outcome relationship were rated as 'validated'. Fifty-one products met the inclusion criteria; 26 underwent CMAs, and 25 underwent AAs. Overall, 26 products were for oncology indications, 10 for infections, 8 for genetic disorders, and 7 for other systems disorders. Five products (10%), all AAs, were authorised based on pivotal trials reporting clinical outcomes, and 46 (90%) were authorised based on surrogate endpoints. No studies were identified that validated the surrogate endpoints. Among a total of 49 products with surrogate endpoints reported, most were rated according to the published hierarchies as being 'reasonably likely' (n = 30; 61%) or of having 'biological plausibility' (n = 46; 94%) to predict clinical outcomes. EPARs did not consistently explain the nature of the pivotal trial endpoints supporting authorisations, whether surrogate endpoints were validated or not, or describe the endpoints to be reported in the confirmatory postmarketing studies. Our study has limitations: we may have overlooked relevant validation studies; the findings apply to 2 expedited pathways and may not be generalisable to products authorised through the standard assessment pathway. CONCLUSIONS: The pivotal trial evidence supporting marketing authorisations for products granted CMA or AA was based dominantly on nonvalidated surrogate endpoints. EPARs and summary product characteristic documents, including patient information leaflets, need to state consistently the nature and limitations of endpoints in pivotal trials supporting expedited authorisations so that prescribers and patients appreciate shortcomings in the evidence about actual clinical benefit. For products supported by nonvalidated surrogate endpoints, postauthorisation measures to confirm clinical benefit need to be imposed by the regulator on the marketing authorisation holders.

Availability of brands of six essential medicines in 124 pharmacies in Maharashtra.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to assess the availability and rational use of six essential medicines in private retail outlets in Maharashtra state. The study focuses on the range of brands for each medicine, and the availability of these brands in the pharmacies. The medicines were chosen because they are included in the World Health Organization's (WHO) essential medicines list (EML), the Indian national and Maharashtra state medicines list, and are all included in existing Indian public health initiatives and national disease control programmes. METHODS: Data was gathered on the availability of the medicines and the range and frequency of brands in 124 private retail pharmacies between January and May 2012. As there is currently no centralised database in India of available pharmaceutical brands, we collected data on the range of products of the 6 essential medicines available in the Indian market by consulting three open access Indian pharmaceutical databases, CIMS India, Medindia, and Medguide, and the commercial database, Pharmatrac; we compared this data with the results of the survey. The six essential medicines used in this study are: artemisinin (malaria), lamivudine (HIV/AIDS), rifampicin (tuberculosis control), oxytocin (reproductive health), fluoxetine (mental health) and metformin (diabetes). RESULTS: The study found that for each of the selected medicines there were multiple approved products listed in Indian databases, 2186 in total. The Pharmatrac database lists only 1359 brands of the selected medicines; 978 (72%) of these had zero sales in 2011-2012. Our survey found very low availability of the brands: 17% Pharmatrac marketed brands (163/978) and 12% of all Pharmatrac brands (163/1359) were available. Metformin was the only medicine with high availability in the study pharmacies at 91%, Rifampacin was the second highest at 64.5%; the other four medicines were available in less than half the pharmacies. A small number of brands were dominating the market. CONCLUSION: the survey shows that market competition has generated a large number of brands of the six study medicines but this has not translated into sufficient availability of these medicines in the study pharmacies. The data calls for a review of available brands, taking into consideration levels of sale and grounds for approval, and the setting up of a centralised database of registered pharmaceutical products.

Prescribing indicators at primary health care centers within the WHO African region: a systematic analysis (1995-2015).

BACKGROUND: Rational medicine use is essential to optimize quality of healthcare delivery and resource utilization. We aim to conduct a systematic review of changes in prescribing patterns in the WHO African region and comparison with WHO indicators in two time periods 1995-2005 and 2006-2015. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, Africa-Wide Nipad, Africa Journals Online (AJOL), Google scholar and International Network for Rational Use of Drugs (INRUD) Bibliography databases to identify primary studies reporting prescribing indicators at primary healthcare centres (PHCs) in Africa. This was supplemented by a manual search of retrieved references. We assessed the quality of studies using a 14-point scoring system modified from the Downs and Black checklist with inclusions of recommendations in the WHO guidelines. RESULTS: Forty-three studies conducted in 11 African countries were included in the overall analysis. These studies presented prescribing indicators based on a total 141,323 patient encounters across 572 primary care facilities. The results of prescribing indicators were determined as follows; average number of medicines prescribed per patient encounter = 3.1 (IQR 2.3-4.8), percentage of medicines prescribed by generic name =68.0 % (IQR 55.4-80.3), Percentage of encounters with antibiotic prescribed =46.8 % (IQR 33.7-62.8), percentage of encounters with injection prescribed =25.0 % (IQR 18.7-39.5) and the percentage of medicines prescribed from essential medicines list =88.0 % (IQR 76.3-94.1). Prescribing indicators were generally worse in private compared with public facilities. Analysis of prescribing across two time points 1995-2005 and 2006-2015 showed no consistent trends. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing indicators for the African region deviate significantly from the WHO reference targets. Increased collaborative efforts are urgently needed to improve medicine prescribing practices in Africa with the aim of enhancing the optimal utilization of scarce resources and averting negative health consequences.

Aid conditionalities, international Good Manufacturing Practice standards and local production rights: a case study of local production in Nepal.

BACKGROUND: Local pharmaceutical production has been endorsed by the WHO as a means of addressing health priorities of developing countries. However, local producers of essential medicines must comply with international pharmaceutical standards in order to be eligible to compete in donor tenders. These standards determine production rights for on-patent and off-patent medicines, and guide international procurement of medicines. We reviewed the literature on the impact of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) on local production; a gap analysis from the literature review indicated a need for further research. Over sixty interviews were conducted with people involved in the Nepali pharmaceutical production and distribution chain from 2006 to 2009 on the GMP areas of relevance: regulatory capacity, staffing, funding and training, resourcing of GMP, inspectors' interpretation of the rules and compliance. RESULTS: Although Nepal producers have increased their overall share of the domestic market, only the public manufacturer, Royal Drugs, focuses on medicines for public health programmes; private producers engage mainly in brand competition for private markets, not essential medicines. Nepali regulators and producers state that implementation of GMP standards is hindered by low regulatory capacity, insufficient training of staff in the industry, financial constraints and lack of investment for upgrading capital. The transition period to mandatory compliance with WHO GMP rules is lengthy. Less than half of private producers had WHO GMP in 2013. Producers are not directly affected by international harmonisation of standards as they do not export medicines and the Nepali regulator does not enforce the WHO standards strictly. Without an international GMP certificate they cannot tender for donor dependent health programmes. CONCLUSIONS: In Nepal, local private manufacturers focus mainly on brand competition for private consumption not essential medicines, the government preferentially procures essential medicines from the only public producer while donor funded programmes rely on international manufacturers compliant with international GMP standards. We also found evidence of private hospitals bypassing national medicines approvals process. Policies in support of local pharmaceutical production in developing countries as a source of essential medicines need to examine carefully how GMP regulations impact on regulators, local industry and production of essential medicines in practice.

Social networks and health policy: the case of misoprostol and the WHO model essential medicine list.

The WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) was established to help countries prioritise medicines according to their health care needs. Selection for the List is based on rigorous scrutiny of public health relevance, evidence on efficacy and safety, and comparative cost effectiveness. The WHO ideal is that a medicine and its efficacy are based on science, but in reality a medicine has a social life and the acceptance of a pharmaceutical intervention involves the interaction of a wide array of governmental and civil society organisations, and industry. Misoprostol is a medicine widely used for both abortion and prevention of postpartum haemorrhage in low income countries. Although the evidence for the latter is highly contested it was nevertheless added to the WHO EML in 2011. We use social network analysis to examine the social, political and economic field surrounding the WHO EML applications and health policy. We describe a chronology of the drug's use and of the applications to the WHO EML and carry out a social network analysis of the organisations and individuals involved in the applications, research and dissemination. The research identified a network of 238 organisations and individuals involved in the promotion of misoprostol for postpartum haemorrhage and present at the time of the WHO EML applications. There is a strong interdependency between the funding bodies, civil society organisations, researchers and clinician organisations. The research was part of an EU FP7 funded project on Accessing Medicines in Africa and South Asia (2010-2013).