Screening for lung cancer with computed tomography: protocol for systematic reviews for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Canada, and because early cancers are often asymptomatic screening aims to prevent mortality by detecting cancer earlier when treatment is more likely to be curative. These reviews will inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for lung cancer. METHODS: We will update the review on the benefits and harms of screening with CT conducted for the task force in 2015 and perform de novo reviews on the comparative effects between (i) trial-based selection criteria and use of risk prediction models and (ii) trial-based nodule classification and different nodule classification systems and on patients' values and preferences. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (for questions on benefits and harms from 2015; comparative effects from 2012) and Medline, Scopus, and EconLit (for values and preferences from 2012) via peer-reviewed search strategies, clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. Two reviewers will screen all citations (including those in the previous review) and base inclusion decisions on consensus or arbitration by another reviewer. For benefits (i.e., all-cause and cancer-specific mortality and health-related quality of life) and harms (i.e., overdiagnosis, false positives, incidental findings, psychosocial harms from screening, and major complications and mortality from invasive procedures as a result of screening), we will include studies of adults in whom lung cancer is not suspected. We will include randomized controlled trials comparing CT screening with no screening or alternative screening modalities (e.g., chest radiography) or strategies (e.g., CT using different screening intervals, classification systems, and/or patient selection via risk models or biomarkers); non-randomized studies, including modeling studies, will be included for the comparative effects between trial-based and other selection criteria or nodule classification methods. For harms (except overdiagnosis) we will also include non-randomized and uncontrolled studies. For values and preferences, the study design may be any quantitative design that either directly or indirectly measures outcome preferences on outcomes pertaining to lung cancer screening. We will only include studies conducted in Very High Human Development Countries and having full texts in English or French. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another, with the exception of result data on mortality and cancer incidence (for calculating overdiagnosis) where duplicate extraction will occur. If two or more studies report on the same comparison and it is deemed suitable, we will pool continuous data using a mean difference or standardized mean difference, as applicable, and binary data using relative risks and a DerSimonian and Laird model unless events are rare (< 1%) where we will pool odds ratios using Peto's method or (if zero events) the reciprocal of the opposite treatment arm size correction. For pooling proportions, we will apply suitable transformation (logit or arcsine) depending on the proportions of events. If meta-analysis is not undertaken we will synthesize the data descriptively, considering clinical and methodological differences. For each outcome, two reviewers will independently assess within- and across-study risk of bias and rate the certainty of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), and reach consensus. DISCUSSION: Since 2015, additional trials and longer follow-ups or additional data (e.g., harms, specific patient populations) from previously published trials have been published that will improve our understanding of the benefits and harms of screening. The systematic review of values and preferences will allow fulsome insights that will inform the balance of benefits and harms. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022378858.

Recommandations pour des soins préventifs pour promouvoir l'équité en matière de santé.

CONTEXTE: Malgré des investissements importants dans un système de soins de santé public qui comprend des services préventifs, on continue d'observer des disparités évitables en matière de santé au Canada. L'équipe avait pour objectif de formuler des recommandations pour des soins de santé préventifs qui puissent améliorer l'équité en matière de santé par la priorisation des interventions efficaces à l'intention des groupes défavorisés. MÉTHODES: La ligne directrice a été élaborée par un comité composé de spécialistes en soins primaires et de membres de la patientèle, avec la contribution d'un groupe de patientes-et patientspartenaires ayant vécu diverses expériences. Après avoir sélectionné les sujets à prioriser, nous avons recensé les revues systématiques, les essais randomisés et contrôlés récents sur les méthodes de dépistage et d'autres études pertinentes sur l'efficacité du dépistage et de la prise en charge. Nous avons utilisé l'approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) pour formuler les recommandations et avons suivi le guide AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) pour rédiger le rapport. Il en a été de même avec les principes du Guidelines International Network pour la gestion des intérêts concurrents. Les recommandations ont été passées en revue par un comité externe d'experts en contenu avant d'être distribuées à des intervenants à l'échelle nationale pour approbation. RECOMMANDATIONS: Nous avons formulé 15 recommandations concernant le dépistage et d'autres soins préventifs et 1 recommandation de nature politique visant à améliorer l'accès aux soins primaires. Ainsi, nous recommandons de prioriser une stratégie de communication pour le dépistage du cancer colorectal à partir de l'âge de 45 ans et pour l'évaluation du risque de maladie cardiovasculaire pour lutter contre les iniquités en matière de santé et promouvoir la santé. Les interventions particulières qui devraient être déployées pour lutter contre les iniquités comprennent l'autodépistage du virus du papillome humain (VPH) et du VIH, et le test de libération de l'interféron γ pour l'infection tuberculeuse. Le dépistage de la dépression, de la toxicomanie, de la violence conjugale et de la pauvreté devrait également permettre aux personnes touchées d'accéder plus facilement à des interventions éprouvées. Nous recommandons une prise de contact systématique avec des professionnels de la santé en soins primaires pour les personnes défavorisées. INTERPRÉTATION: Les interventions préventives éprouvées peuvent aider à combattre les iniquités en matière de santé si la priorité est accordée aux personnes défavorisées. Les médecins, les organisations de santé et les gouvernements devraient adopter des mesures fondées sur des données probantes et en faire le suivi s'ils veulent promouvoir l'équité en matière de santé partout au Canada.

Gender and racialisation of pharmaceutical sector leaders in Canada: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE/DESIGN: Lacking diversity in pharmaceutical leadership positions could contribute to inequities in medicine access. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to determine the gender and racial identities of individuals who hold leadership positions in the Canadian pharmaceutical sector. PARTICIPANTS: We compiled a list of all Canadian governmental bodies, pharmaceutical companies and insurance providers. We identified individuals who were part of the leadership team, including executives and members of the board of directors. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes of the study were the racialisation and gender of the individuals in leadership positions. The gender and racialisation of an individual were determined by reviewing their name, pronouns and institutional profile through internet searches. Two members of the research team performed the assessment and a third reviewer resolved disagreements. RESULTS: We identified 957 individuals holding leadership positions within the pharmaceutical sector, including 280 drug evaluation committee members, 12 governmental executive officers, 273 insurance company executive and board members and 392 executive and board members. Reviewers identified a total of 375 (39.2% of 957) women holding leadership roles, with most of these positions being held by governmental leaders (52.4% of 292) and a minority by insurance (37.0% of 273) and pharmaceutical (30.9% of 392) leaders. There were a total of 157 (16.4% of 957) racialised leaders, with most of these positions being held by governmental (18.5% of 292) and pharmaceutical (18.1% of 392) leaders, and a minority in insurance companies (11.7% of 273). Across the pharmaceutical sector, there were a total of 48 (5.0% of 957) racialised women and 327 (34.2% of 957) white women. CONCLUSIONS: Leaders within the Canadian pharmaceutical sector are mostly white men, and racialised women hold few leadership roles. Public policy should recognise that these institutions are mostly led by white men and reasons for this disparity could be explored.

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.

Preventive care recommendations to promote health equity.

BACKGROUND: Avoidable disparities in health outcomes persist in Canada despite substantial investments in a publicly funded health care system that includes preventive services. Our objective was to provide preventive care recommendations that promote health equity by prioritizing effective interventions for people experiencing disadvantages. METHODS: The guideline was developed by a primary care provider-patient panel, with input from a patient-partner panel with diverse lived experiences. After selecting priority topics, we searched for systematic reviews and recent randomized controlled trials of screening and other relevant studies of screening accuracy and management efficacy. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations and followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) reporting guidance. We managed competing interests using the Guideline International Network principles. The recommendations were externally reviewed by content experts and circulated for endorsement by national stakeholders. RECOMMENDATIONS: We developed 15 screening and other preventive care recommendations and 1 policy recommendation on improving access to primary care. We recommend prioritized outreach for colorectal cancer screening starting at age 45 years and for cardiovascular disease risk assessment, to help address inequities and promote health. Specific interventions that should be rolled out in ways that address inequities include human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing, HIV self-testing and interferon-γ release assays for tuberculosis infection. Screening for depression, substance use, intimate partner violence and poverty should help connect people experiencing specific disadvantages with proven interventions. We recommend automatic connection to primary care for people experiencing disadvantages. INTERPRETATION: Proven preventive care interventions can address health inequities if people experiencing disadvantages are prioritized. Clinicians, health care organizations and governments should take evidence-based actions and track progress in promoting health equity across Canada.

Effect of Free Medicine Distribution on Health Care Costs in Canada Over 3 Years: A Secondary Analysis of the CLEAN Meds Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few interventions are proven to reduce total health care costs, and addressing cost-related nonadherence has the potential to do so. Objective: To determine the effect of eliminating out-of-pocket medication fees on total health care costs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial using a prespecified outcome took place across 9 primary care sites in Ontario, Canada (6 in Toronto and 3 in rural areas), where health care services are generally publicly funded. Adult patients (≥18 years old) reporting cost-related nonadherence to medicines in the past 12 months were recruited between June 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017, and followed up until April 28, 2020. Data analysis was completed in 2021. Interventions: Access to a comprehensive list of 128 medicines commonly prescribed in ambulatory care with no out-of-pocket costs for 3 years vs usual medicine access. Main Outcome and Measures: Total publicly funded health care costs over 3 years, including costs of hospitalizations. Health care costs were determined using administrative data from Ontario's single-payer health care system, and all costs are reported in Canadian dollars with adjustments for inflation. Results: A total of 747 participants from 9 primary care sites were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 51 [14] years; 421 [56.4%] female). Free medicine distribution was associated with a lower median total health care spending over 3 years of $1641 (95% CI, $454-$2792; P = .006). Mean total spending was $4465 (95% CI, -$944 to $9874) lower over the 3-year period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, eliminating out-of-pocket medication expenses for patients with cost-related nonadherence in primary care was associated with lower health care spending over 3 years. These findings suggest that eliminating out-of-pocket medication costs for patients could reduce overall costs of health care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02744963.

Systematic assessment of opioid advertisements in general medical journals.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically examine the content of opioid-related advertisements. DESIGN: Content analysis and quantitative assessment. SETTING: North America. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers examined advertisements in 2 issues per year from 1996 to 2016 of American Family Physician, Canadian Family Physician, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, JAMA, and the New England Journal of Medicine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of advertisements, nature of the claims made, and quality of cited evidence in the advertisements. RESULTS: Opioid advertisements composed 89 of the 3173 pharmaceutical advertisements in 210 journal issues searched. Seventy-three advertisements were able to be obtained for analysis. Thirty-four (46.6%) did not mention the addictive potential of opioids, and 54 of 73 (74.0%) did not mention the possibility of death. All referenced studies in advertisements were funded by pharmaceutical organizations or had pharmaceutical company employees as authors. No advertisements cited high-quality evidence. CONCLUSION: Many claims of the effectiveness and safety of opioids were published in medical journals through advertisements. Advertisements did not usually mention key negative information about opioids. Although the extent to which these advertisements directly influenced the development of the opioid crisis in North America is unknown, the marked omission of important detrimental effects of opioids may have played a role. Further efforts to restrict opioid marketing may be warranted.

Randomized controlled trial evaluating a virtual parenting intervention for young children at risk of obesity: study protocol for Parenting Addressing Early Years Intervention with Coaching Visits in Toronto (PARENT) trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of overweight (15%) and obesity (6%) in children under 5 years of age in Canada are high, and young children with overweight and obesity are at increased risk of the development of chronic disease(s) in adulthood. Prior research has demonstrated very few published trials on effective obesity prevention interventions in young children at risk of obesity, within primary healthcare settings. The aim of this study is to determine if 18-48-month-old children at risk for obesity, who are randomized to receive the Parents Together program (i.e., intervention group), have reduced body mass index z-score (zBMI), compared to those not receiving the intervention, at a 12-month follow-up. Secondary clinical outcomes between the intervention and control groups will be compared at 12 months. METHODS: A pragmatic, parallel group, 1:1, superiority, randomized control trial (RCT) through the TARGetKids! Practice Based Research Network will be conducted. Young children (ages 18-48 months) who are at increased risk for childhood obesity will be invited to participate. Parents who are enrolled in the intervention group will participate in eight weekly group sessions and 4-5 coaching visits, facilitated by a trained public health nurse. Children and parents who are enrolled in the control group will receive the usual health care. The primary outcome will be compared between intervention arms using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Feasibility and acceptability will be assessed by parent focus groups and interviews, and fidelity to the intervention will be measured using nurse-completed checklists. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This study will aim to reflect the social, cultural, and geographic diversity of children in primary care in Toronto, Ontario, represented by an innovative collaboration among applied child health researchers, community health researchers, and primary care providers (i.e., pediatricians and family physicians in three different models of primary care). Clinical and implementation outcomes will be used to inform future research to test this intervention in a larger number, and diverse practices across diverse geographic settings in Ontario. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03219697. Registered on June 27, 2017.

Effect of free medicine distribution on ability to make ends meet: post hoc quantitative subgroup analysis and qualitative thematic analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Out-of-pocket medication costs can contribute to financial insecurity and many Canadians have trouble affording medicines. This study aimed to determine if the effect of eliminating out-of-pocket medication costs on individual's financial security varied by gender, racialisation, income and location. DESIGN: In this post hoc subgroup analysis of the CLEAN Meds trial, a binary logistic regression model was fitted and a qualitative inductive thematic analysis of comments related to participant's ability to make ends meet was carried out. SETTING: Primary care patients in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients (786) who reported not being able to afford medicines during the previous 12 months. INTERVENTION: Free access to a comprehensive list of essential medicines for 24 months. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Ability to make ends meet or afford basic necessities. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the effect of free medicine distribution by gender (OR for male 0.82; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.33, p=0.76), age (older than 65 years OR 1.28; 95 % CI 0.62 to 2.64, p=0.73), racialisation (OR 0.85; 95 % CI 0.51 to 1.45, p=0.66), household income level (above US$30 000 per year OR 1.08; 95 % CI 0.64 to 1.80, p=0.99) or location (urban OR 0.47; 95 % CI 0.23 to 0.96, p=0.10). The main theme in the qualitative analysis was insufficient income, and there were three related themes: out-of-pocket medication expenses, cost-related non-adherence and the importance of medication coverage. In the intervention group, additional themes identified included improved health, functioning and access to basic needs. CONCLUSIONS: Providing free essential medications improved financial security across subgroups in a trial population who all had trouble affording medicines. Free access to medicines could improve health directly by improving medicine adherence and indirectly by making other necessities more accessible to people who have an insufficient income. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02744963.

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.

Global status of essential medicine selection: a systematic comparison of national essential medicine lists with recommendations by WHO.

OBJECTIVES: Examining the availability of essential medicines is a necessary step to monitor country-level progress towards universal health coverage. We compared the 2017 essential medicine lists (EML) of 137 countries to the WHO Model List to assess differences by drug class and country setting. METHODS: We extracted all medicines prioritised at country level from most recently available national EMLs and compared each national EML with the 2017 WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (MLEM) as the reference standard. We assess EMLs by WHO region and for different types of medicine subgroups (eg, cancer, anti-infectives, cardiac, psychiatric and anaesthesia medicines) using within second-level anatomical therapeutic class (ATC) drug classes of the ATC Index. RESULTS: We included 406 medicines from WHO's 2017 MLEM to compare to 137 concurrent national EMLs. We found a median of 315 (range from 44 to 983) medicines listed on national EMLs. The global median F1 score was 0.59 (IQR 0.47-0.70, maximum possible score indicating alignment with MLEM is 1). The F1 score was the highest (ie, most similar to MLEM) in the South-East Asia region and the lowest in the European region (ie, most dissimilar to MLEM). The F1 score was highest for stomatological preparations (median: 1.00), gynaecological-anti-infectives and antiseptics (median: 1.00), and medicated dressings (median: 1.00), and lowest for 9 anatomical or pharmacological groups (median: 0.00, eg, treatments for bone diseases, digestive enzymes). CONCLUSIONS: Most countries are expected to improve their national health coverage by 2030 offering access to essential medicines, but our results revealed substantial gaps in selection of medicines at the national level compared with those recommended by WHO. It is crucial that governments consider investing in those effective medicines that are now neglected and continue monitoring progress towards essential medicine access as part of universal health coverage.

Biologic medicine inclusion in 138 national essential medicines lists.

BACKGROUND: Essential medicines lists (EMLs) are intended to reflect the priority health care needs of populations. We hypothesized that biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are underrepresented relative to conventional DMARDs in existing national EMLs. We aimed to survey the extent to which biologic DMARDs are included in EMLs, to determine country characteristics contributing to their inclusion or absence, and to contrast this with conventional DMARD therapies. METHODS: We searched 138 national EMLs for 10 conventional and 14 biologic DMARDs used in the treatment of childhood rheumatologic diseases. Via regression modelling, we determined country characteristics accounting for differences in medicine inclusion between national EMLs. RESULTS: Eleven countries (7.97%) included all 10 conventional DMARDs, 115 (83.33%) ≥5, and all countries listed at least one. Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was associated with the total number of conventional DMARDs included (ß11.02 [95% CI 0.39, 1.66]; P = 0.00279). Among biologic DMARDs, 3 countries (2.2%) listed ≥10, 15 (10.9%) listed ≥5, and 47 (34.1%) listed at least one. Ninety-one (65.9%) of countries listed no biologic DMARDs. European region (ß1 1.30 [95% CI 0.08, 2.52]; P = 0.0367), life expectancy (ß1-0.70 [95% CI -1.22, - 0.18]; P = 0.0085), health expenditure per capita (ß1 1.83 [95% CI 1.24, 2.42]; P < 0.001), and conventional DMARDs listed (ß1 0.70 [95% CI 0.33, 1.07]; P < 0.001) were associated with the total number of biologic DMARDs included. CONCLUSION: Biologic DMARDs are excluded from most national EMLs. By comparison, conventional DMARDs are widely included. Countries with higher health spending and longer life expectancy are more likely to list biologics.

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.

Assessing variation among the national essential medicines lists of 21 high-income countries: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: Essential medicines lists have been created and used globally in countries that range from low-income to high-income status. The aim of this paper is to compare the essential medicines list of high-income countries with each other, the WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines and the lists of countries of other income statuses. DESIGN: High-income countries were defined by World Bank classification. High-income essential medicines lists were assessed for medicine inclusion and were compared with the subset of high-income countries, the WHO's Model List and 137 national essential medicines lists. Medicine lists were obtained from the Global Essential Medicines database. Countries were subdivided by income status, and the groups' most common medicines were compared. Select medicines and medicine classes were assessed for inclusion among high-income country lists. RESULTS: The 21 high-income countries identified were most like each other when compared with other lists. They were more like upper middle-income countries and least like low-income countries. There was significant variability in the number of medicines on each list. Less than half (48%) of high-income countries included a newer diabetes medicines in their list. Most countries (71%) included naloxone while every country including at least one opioid medicine. More than half of the lists (52%) included a medicine that has been globally withdrawn or banned. CONCLUSION: Essential medicines lists of high-income countries are similar to each other, but significant variations in essential medicine list composition and specifically the number of medications included were noted. Effective medicines were left off several countries' lists, and globally recalled medicines were included on over half the lists. Comparing the essential medicines lists of countries within the same income status category can provide a useful subset of lists for policymakers and essential medicine list creators to use when creating or maintaining their lists.