A systematic review of policies regulating or removing mark-ups in the pharmaceutical supply and distribution chain.

The regulation of mark-ups throughout the pharmaceutical supply and distribution chain may be a valuable approach to control prices of medicines and to achieve broader access to medicines. As part of a wider review, we aimed to systematically determine whether policies regulating mark-ups are effective in managing the prices of pharmaceutical products. We searched for studies published between January 1, 2004 and October 10, 2019, comparing policies on regulating mark-ups against other interventions or a counterfactual. Eligible study designs included randomized trials, and non-randomized or quasi-experimental studies such as interrupted time-series (ITS), repeated measures (RM), and controlled before-after studies. Studies were eligible if they included at least one of the following outcomes: price (or expenditure as a proxy for price and volume), volume, availability or affordability of pharmaceutical products. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. A total of 32,011 records were retrieved, seven of which were eligible for inclusion for this review. The limited body of evidence cautiously suggests that policies regulating mark-ups may be effective in reducing medicine prices and pharmaceutical expenditures. However, the design of mark-up regulations is a critical factor for their potential success. Additional research is required to confirm the effects of these policies on the availability, affordability or usage patterns of medicines and in low- and middle-income countries.

Commercial Immunoglobulin Products Contain Neutralizing Antibodies Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Spike Protein.

BACKGROUND: Patients with antibody deficiency respond poorly to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and are at risk of severe or prolonged infection. They are given long-term immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IRT) prepared from healthy donor plasma to confer passive immunity against infection. Following widespread COVID-19 vaccination alongside natural exposure, we hypothesized that immunoglobulin preparations will now contain neutralizing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike antibodies, which confer protection against COVID-19 disease and may help to treat chronic infection. METHODS: We evaluated anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody in a cohort of patients before and after immunoglobulin infusion. Neutralizing capacity of patient samples and immunoglobulin products was assessed using in vitro pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization assays, the latter investigating multiple batches against current circulating Omicron variants. We describe the clinical course of 9 patients started on IRT during treatment of COVID-19. RESULTS: In 35 individuals with antibody deficiency established on IRT, median anti-spike antibody titer increased from 2123 to 10 600 U/mL postinfusion, with corresponding increase in pseudovirus neutralization titers to levels comparable to healthy donors. Testing immunoglobulin products directly in the live-virus assay confirmed neutralization, including of BQ1.1 and XBB variants, but with variation between immunoglobulin products and batches.Initiation of IRT alongside remdesivir in patients with antibody deficiency and prolonged COVID-19 infection (median 189 days, maximum >900 days with an ancestral viral strain) resulted in clearance of SARS-CoV-2 at a median of 20 days. CONCLUSIONS: Immunoglobulin preparations now contain neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that are transmitted to patients and help to treat COVID-19 in individuals with failure of humoral immunity.

Systematic review on the use of biologics in adult-onset still's disease.

This systematic review (SR) describes the efficacy and safety of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for patients with adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD). Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one retrospective case series of multiple interventions, and 17 case series of single interventions met the inclusion criteria for this SR. Comparisons of biologic therapy in AOSD were only available against conventional DMARDs in one RCT and against placebo in two RCTs. There was a lack of common assessment criteria, meaning treatment efficacy across studies could not be compared. Uncontrolled retrospective case series suggested that bDMARDs have an effect for patients with AOSD, but these studies did not provide comparative data to show whether bDMARDs were more effective than other interventions or, whether any bDMARD was more effective than another bDMARD. However, there was evidence that bDMARDs could reduce steroid dose. Safety data from all included studies showed that bDMARDs appear to be a safe alternative to conventional DMARDs. This SR has highlighted the need for larger comparative studies in AOSD and has shown the need to standardize the definition of therapeutic response in AOSD. This would allow comparisons between studies in order to gain clarity on which bDMARDs may be more effective treatments for AOSD.

Evidence on the effectiveness of policies promoting price transparency - A systematic review.

Policies promoting price transparency may be an important approach to control medicine prices and achieve better access to medicines. As part of a wider review, we aimed to systematically determine whether policies promoting price transparency are effective in managing the prices of pharmaceutical products. We searched for studies published between January 1, 2004 and October 10, 2019, comparing policies promoting price transparency against other interventions or a counterfactual. Eligible study designs included randomized trials, and non-randomized or quasi-experimental studies such as interrupted time-series (ITS), repeated measures (RM), and controlled before-after studies. Studies were eligible if they included at least one of the following outcomes: price (or expenditure as a proxy for price and volume), volume, availability or affordability of pharmaceutical products. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. A total of 32011 records were retrieved, two of which were eligible for inclusion. Although based on evidence from a single study, public disclosure of medicine prices may be effective in reducing prices of medicines short-term, with benefits possibly sustained long-term. Evidence on the impact of a cost-feedback approach to prescribers was inconclusive. No evidence was found for impact on the outcomes volume, availability or affordability. The overall lack of evidence on policies promoting price transparency is a clear call for further research.

A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas*

[RESUMO]. A declaração dos Principais Itens para Relatar Revisões Sistemáticas e Meta-análises (PRISMA), publicada em 2009, foi desenvolvida para ajudar revisores sistemáticos a relatar de forma transparente por que a revisão foi feita, os métodos empregados e o que os autores encontraram. Na última década, os avanços na metodo- logia e terminologia de revisões sistemáticas exigiram a atualização da diretriz. A declaração PRISMA 2020 substitui a declaração de 2009 e inclui novas orientações para relato que refletem os avanços nos métodos para identificar, selecionar, avaliar e sintetizar estudos. A estrutura e apresentação dos itens foram modifi- cadas para facilitar a implementação. Neste artigo, apresentamos a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 de 27 itens, uma lista de checagem expandida que detalha as recomendações para relato para cada item, a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 para resumos e os fluxogramas revisados para novas revisões e para atualização de revisões.

[ABSTRACT]. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate imple- mentation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

[RESUMEN]. La declaración PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), publicada en 2009, se diseñó para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistemáticas a documentar de manera transparente el porqué de la revisión, qué hicieron los autores y qué encontraron. Durante la última década, ha habido muchos avances en la metodología y terminología de las revisiones sistemáticas, lo que ha requerido una actualización de esta guía. La declaración PRISMA 2020 sustituye a la declaración de 2009 e incluye una nueva guía de presentación de las publicaciones que refleja los avances en los métodos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y la presentación de los ítems ha sido modificada para facilitar su implementación. En este artículo, presentamos la lista de verificación PRISMA 2020 con 27 ítems, y una lista de verificación ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones en la publicación de cada ítem, la lista de verificación del resumen estructurado PRISMA 2020 y el diagrama de flujo revisado para revisiones sistemáticas.

Economic Burden of Chronic Hand Eczema: A Review.

There has been no extensive synthesis of studies evaluating the cost of chronic hand eczema (CHE). This review evaluated the societal costs, healthcare resource utilisation, missed work time and job loss due to CHE. MEDLINE and 16 other databases and websites were searched in October 2020 for studies meeting prespecified inclusion criteria. Studies conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand or the Americas were included. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, and full-text papers published in English between 2000 and 2020, for relevance. Data extraction was carried out by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. All data were based on costs between 2001 and 2013 but have been inflated to 2020 prices and converted to US dollars and Euros. A total of 30 studies (reported in 33 publications) were included in the synthesis. Mean total societal costs per year per patient ranged from $2549 (€1813) to $10,883 (€7738). Pharmacological therapy was, on average, $28.34 (€20.15) per month in Italy and $36.49 (€25.94) per month for emollients in Switzerland. Yearly treatment costs were $599.05 (€425.92) for drugs, including topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, other topical treatments and oral treatments, and $178.40 for emollients, in Germany. CHE was associated with hospitalisation costs ranging from $81.86 (€58.20) per patient per month (US) to $105.04 (€74.68) per patient per month (Italy) and $639.59 (€454.75) per year (Germany). Up to 57% of patients took sick leave and up to 25% reported job loss/job change due to CHE. This review confirms the significant cost burden of CHE. Given the paucity of studies estimating the monetary costs of absenteeism, presenteeism and job loss associated with CHE, current mean societal costs are likely underestimated. Uncontrolled disease may also lead to increased costs to patients and society.

[The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas]. / A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

La declaración PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), publicada en 2009, se diseñó para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistemáticas a documentar de manera transparente el porqué de la revisión, qué hicieron los autores y qué encontraron. Durante la última década, ha habido muchos avances en la metodología y terminología de las revisiones sistemáticas, lo que ha requerido una actualización de esta guía. La declaración PRISMA 2020 sustituye a la declaración de 2009 e incluye una nueva guía de presentación de las publicaciones que refleja los avances en los métodos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y la presentación de los ítems ha sido modificada para facilitar su implementación. En este artículo, presentamos la lista de verificación PRISMA 2020 con 27 ítems, y una lista de verificación ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones en la publicación de cada ítem, la lista de verificación del resumen estructurado PRISMA 2020 y el diagrama de flujo revisado para revisiones sistemáticas.

A suggested data structure for transparent and repeatable reporting of bibliographic searching.

Academic searching is integral to research activities: (1) searching to retrieve specific information, (2) to expand our knowledge iteratively, (3) and to collate a representative and unbiased selection of the literature. Rigorous searching methods are vital for reliable, repeatable and unbiased searches needed for these second and third forms of searches (exploratory and systematic searching, respectively) that form a core part of evidence syntheses. Despite the broad awareness of the importance of transparency in reporting search activities in evidence syntheses, the importance of searching has been highlighted only recently and has been the explicit focus of reporting guidance (PRISMA-S). Ensuring bibliographic searches are reported in a way that is transparent enough to allow for full repeatability or evaluation is challenging for a number of reasons. Here, we detail these reasons and provide for the first time a standardised data structure for transparent and comprehensive reporting of search histories. This data structure was produced by a group of international experts in informatics and library sciences. We explain how the data structure was produced and describe its components in detail. We also demonstrate its practical applicability in tools designed to support literature review authors and explain how it can help to improve interoperability across tools used to manage literature reviews. We call on the research community and developers of reference and review management tools to embrace the data structure to facilitate adequate reporting of academic searching in an effort to raise the standard of evidence syntheses globally.

A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas / The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews / Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas

RESUMO A declaração dos Principais Itens para Relatar Revisões Sistemáticas e Meta-análises (PRISMA), publicada em 2009, foi desenvolvida para ajudar revisores sistemáticos a relatar de forma transparente por que a revisão foi feita, os métodos empregados e o que os autores encontraram. Na última década, os avanços na metodologia e terminologia de revisões sistemáticas exigiram a atualização da diretriz. A declaração PRISMA 2020 substitui a declaração de 2009 e inclui novas orientações para relato que refletem os avanços nos métodos para identificar, selecionar, avaliar e sintetizar estudos. A estrutura e apresentação dos itens foram modificadas para facilitar a implementação. Neste artigo, apresentamos a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 de 27 itens, uma lista de checagem expandida que detalha as recomendações para relato para cada item, a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 para resumos e os fluxogramas revisados para novas revisões e para atualização de revisões.

ABSTRACT The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

RESUMEN La declaración PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), publicada en 2009, se diseñó para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistemáticas a documentar de manera transparente el porqué de la revisión, qué hicieron los autores y qué encontraron. Durante la última década, ha habido muchos avances en la metodología y terminología de las revisiones sistemáticas, lo que ha requerido una actualización de esta guía. La declaración PRISMA 2020 sustituye a la declaración de 2009 e incluye una nueva guía de presentación de las publicaciones que refleja los avances en los métodos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y la presentación de los ítems ha sido modificada para facilitar su implementación. En este artículo, presentamos la lista de verificación PRISMA 2020 con 27 ítems, y una lista de verificación ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones en la publicación de cada ítem, la lista de verificación del resumen estructurado PRISMA 2020 y el diagrama de flujo revisado para revisiones sistemáticas.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. / Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.

Evidence-based searching for health technology assessment: keeping up to date with SuRe Info.

BACKGROUND: Evidence syntheses of all types have their foundation in literature searches. Literature searching is developing in line with the growing use of evidence synthesis and is also informed, as a field of work, by the spirit of being evidence-based. Increasing numbers of research papers about information retrieval are being published, and keeping up to date with the latest developments in this ever more wide-ranging field is demanding. METHODS: Summarized Research in Information Retrieval for HTA (SuRe Info) is a Web site (http://www.sure-info.org) that summarizes research-based information on effective and efficient evidence identification for the different aspects of health technology assessment (HTA) and evidence synthesis. This paper describes the rationale, processes, and challenges of producing SuRe Info and insights into the pace of development in the field of evidence-based information retrieval. The paper also provides scenarios suggesting how SuRe Info can help searchers in their daily work and with specific questions. RESULTS: SuRe Info currently comprises seventeen chapters, falling into two categories: (i) chapters about general search methods relating to all types of research and (ii) chapters summarizing the methods to use when searching for specific aspects of HTA (as defined in the HTA Core Model® by the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA)). CONCLUSIONS: SuRe Info is not a substitute for methods handbooks, but by providing an overview of current research evidence for major issues in information retrieval in HTA, it helps searchers in this field to keep abreast of the latest research.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

An evaluation of Cochrane Crowd found that crowdsourcing produced accurate results in identifying randomized trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Filtering the deluge of new research to facilitate evidence synthesis has proven to be unmanageable using current paradigms of search and retrieval. Crowdsourcing, a way of harnessing the collective effort of a "crowd" of people, has the potential to support evidence synthesis by addressing this information overload created by the exponential growth in primary research outputs. Cochrane Crowd, Cochrane's citizen science platform, offers a range of tasks aimed at identifying studies related to health care. Accompanying each task are brief, interactive training modules, and agreement algorithms that help ensure accurate collective decision-making.The aims of the study were to evaluate the performance of Cochrane Crowd in terms of its accuracy, capacity, and autonomy and to examine contributor engagement across three tasks aimed at identifying randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Crowd accuracy was evaluated by measuring the sensitivity and specificity of crowd screening decisions on a sample of titles and abstracts, compared with "quasi gold-standard" decisions about the same records using the conventional methods of dual screening. Crowd capacity, in the form of output volume, was evaluated by measuring the number of records processed by the crowd, compared with baseline. Crowd autonomy, the capability of the crowd to produce accurate collectively derived decisions without the need for expert resolution, was measured by the proportion of records that needed resolving by an expert. RESULTS: The Cochrane Crowd community currently has 18,897 contributors from 163 countries. Collectively, the Crowd has processed 1,021,227 records, helping to identify 178,437 reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for Cochrane's Central Register of Controlled Trials. The sensitivity for each task was 99.1% for the RCT identification task (RCT ID), 99.7% for the RCT identification task of trials from ClinicalTrials.gov (CT ID), and 97.7% for the identification of RCTs from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP ID). The specificity for each task was 99% for RCT ID, 98.6% for CT ID, and 99.1% for CT ICTRP ID. The capacity of the combined Crowd and machine learning workflow has increased fivefold in 6 years, compared with baseline. The proportion of records requiring expert resolution across the tasks ranged from 16.6% to 19.7%. CONCLUSION: Cochrane Crowd is sufficiently accurate and scalable to keep pace with the current rate of publication (and registration) of new primary studies. It has also proved to be a popular, efficient, and accurate way for a large number of people to play an important voluntary role in health evidence production. Cochrane Crowd is now an established part of Cochrane's effort to manage the deluge of primary research being produced.

Which are the most sensitive search filters to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE?

OBJECTIVE: The Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews contains search filters to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Ovid MEDLINE: one maximizing sensitivity and another balancing sensitivity and precision. These filters were originally published in 1994 and were adapted and updated in 2008. To determine the performance of these filters, the authors tested them and thirty-six other MEDLINE filters against a large new gold standard set of relevant records. METHODS: We identified a gold standard set of RCT reports published in 2016 from the Cochrane CENTRAL database of controlled clinical trials. We retrieved the records in Ovid MEDLINE and combined these with each RCT filter. We calculated their sensitivity, relative precision, and f-scores. RESULTS: The gold standard comprised 27,617 records. MEDLINE searches were run on July 16, 2019. The most sensitive RCT filter was Duggan et al. (sensitivity=0.99). The Cochrane sensitivity-maximizing RCT filter had a sensitivity of 0.96 but was more precise than Duggan et al. (0.14 compared to 0.04 for Duggan). The most precise RCT filters had 0.97 relative precision and 0.83 sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The Cochrane Ovid MEDLINE sensitivity-maximizing RCT filter can continue to be used by Cochrane reviewers and to populate CENTRAL, as it has very high sensitivity and a slightly better precision relative to more sensitive filters. The results of this study, which used a very large gold standard to compare the performance of all known RCT filters, allows searchers to make better informed decisions about which filters to use for their work.

Systematic reviews of ten pharmaceutical pricing policies - a research protocol.

BACKGROUND: High prices of pharmaceutical products are an increasing challenge in high- and low-income countries. Governments in many countries have implemented pricing policies to ensure affordability of medicines to patients and healthcare systems. The World Health Organization published in 2015 the Guideline on Country Pharmaceutical Pricing Policies, which was based on a series of evidence reviews in the preceding years.As part of the ongoing update of this guideline, we present a protocol for 10 systematic literature reviews on pharmaceutical pricing policies to be covered by the updated guideline. METHODS: The systematic literature reviews will be undertaken according to the principles embodied in the Cochrane Handbook and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. The interventions studied are pharmaceutical pricing policies implemented by public institutions or a group of purchasing organizations/individuals (e.g. health services). Studies reporting price, volume, availability and/or affordability as the primary outcomes will be eligible for inclusion. Studies in any country or jurisdiction, in any language and in any setting published in 2004 or later are eligible. Eligible study designs are randomized and non-randomized trials, and observational studies including cohort studies, panel data analyses, comparative time series design (including interrupted time-series and repeated measures studies), and controlled before-after studies. A list of 21 databases of peer-reviewed and grey literature will be searched, along with supplementary searches of relevant national and international organizational and governmental websites. Risk of bias will be assessed according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) guidelines. A summary table according to the EPOC Worksheets for preparing a Summary of Findings table (SoF) using GRADE will be provided. DISCUSSION: The results of the review will be used as part of the update of the WHO Guideline on Country Pharmaceutical Pricing Policies. The current protocol may serve as an example for performing systematic literature reviews to inform policy makers.