Disclosure, transparency, and accountability: a qualitative survey of public sector pharmaceutical committee conflict of interest policies in the World Health Organization South-East Asia Region.

BACKGROUND: Weak governance over public sector pharmaceutical policy and practice limits access to essential medicines, inflates pharmaceutical prices, and wastes scarce health system resources. Pharmaceutical systems are technically complex and involve extensive interactions between the private and public sectors. For members of public sector pharmaceutical committees, relationships with the private sector can result in conflicts of interest, which may introduce commercial biases into decision-making, potentially compromising public health objectives and health system sustainability. We conducted a descriptive, qualitative study of conflict of interest policies and practices in the public pharmaceutical sector in ten countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) South-East Asia Region (SEAR) (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Timor-Leste) between September 2020 and March 2021. RESULTS: We identified 45 policy and regulatory documents and triangulated documentary data with 21 expert interviews. Key informants articulated very different governance priorities and conflict of interest concerns depending on the features of their country's pharmaceutical industry, market size, and national economic objectives related to the domestic pharmaceutical industry. Public sector pharmaceutical policies and regulations consistently contained provisions for pharmaceutical committee members to disclose relevant interests, but contained little detail about what should be declared, when, and how often, nor whether disclosures are evaluated and by whom. Processes for preventing or managing conflicts of interest were less well developed than those for disclosure except for a few key procurement processes. Where processes for managing conflicts of interest were specified, the dominant strategy was to recuse committee members with a conflict of interest from relevant work. Policies rarely specified that committee members should divest or otherwise be free from conflicts of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Robust processes for conflict of interest prevention and management could ensure the integrity of decision-making and build public trust in pharmaceutical processes to achieve public health objectives. Upstream approaches including supportive legislative frameworks, the creation of oversight bodies, and strengthening regulatory institutions can also contribute to building cultures of transparency, accountability, and trust.

Defining pharmaceutical systems strengthening: concepts to enable measurement.

Pharmaceutical products are indispensable for improving health outcomes. An extensive body of work on access to and use of medicines has resulted in an assortment of tools measuring various elements of pharmaceutical systems. Until now however, there has been little attempt to conceptualize a pharmaceutical system as an entity and define its strengthening in a way that allows for measuring systems strengthening. The narrow focus of available tools limits their value in ascertaining which interventions result in stronger, more resilient systems. We sought to address this shortcoming by revisiting the current definitions, frameworks and assessment tools related to pharmaceutical systems. We conducted a comprehensive literature review and consulted with select pharmaceutical experts. On the basis of our review, we propose that a pharmaceutical system consists of all structures, people, resources, processes, and their interactions within the broader health system that aim to ensure equitable and timely access to safe, effective, quality pharmaceutical products and related services that promote their appropriate and cost-effective use to improve health outcomes. We further propose that pharmaceutical systems strengthening is the process of identifying and implementing strategies and actions that achieve coordinated and sustainable improvements in the critical components of a pharmaceutical system to make it more responsive and resilient and to enhance its performance for achieving better health outcomes. Finally, we established that, in addition to system performance and resilience, seven components of the pharmaceutical system are critical for measuring pharmaceutical systems strengthening: pharmaceutical products and related services; policy, laws and governance; regulatory systems; innovation, research and development, manufacturing, and trade; financing; human resources; and information. This work adds clarity to the concept of pharmaceutical systems and their strengthening by proposing holistic definitions on the basis of systems thinking. It provides a practical starting point for measuring the progress of pharmaceutical systems strengthening.

Pediatric treatment 2.0: ensuring a holistic response to caring for HIV-exposed and infected children.

Treatment 2.0 is an initiative launched by UNAIDS and WHO in 2011 to catalyze the next phase of treatment scale-up for HIV. The initiative defines strategic activities in 5 key areas, drugs, diagnostics, commodity costs, service delivery and community engagement in an effort to simplify treatment, expand access and maximize program efficiency. For adults, many of these activities have already been turned into treatment policies. The recent WHO recommendation to use a universal first line regimen regardless of gender, pregnancy and TB status is a treatment simplification very much in line with Treatment 2.0. But despite that fact that Treatment 2.0 encompasses all people living with HIV, we have not seen the same evolution in policy development for children. In this paper we discuss how Treatment 2.0 principles can be adapted for the pediatric population. There are several intrinsic challenges. The need for distinct treatment regimens in children of different ages makes it hard to define a one size fits all approach. In addition, the fact that many providers are reluctant to treat children without the advice of specialists can hamper decentralization of service delivery. But at the same time, there are opportunities that can be availed now and in the future to scale up pediatric treatment along the lines of Treatment 2.0. We examine each of the five pillars of Treatment 2.0 from a pediatric perspective and present eight specific action points that would result in simplification of pediatric treatment and scale up of HIV services for children.