BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) promotes the development of national Essential Medicines Lists (EMLs) in order to improve the availability and use of medicines considered essential within health care systems. However, despite over 3 decades of international efforts, studies show an inconsistent pattern in the availability of essential medicines. We evaluated and compared the availability of essential medicines, and medicines not included in national EMLs, at global and regional levels.MethodsMedicine availability in the public and private sector were calculated based on data obtained from national and provincial facility-based surveys undertaken in 23 countries using the WHO/HAI methodology. The medicines were grouped according to their inclusion (‘essential’) or exclusion (termed ‘non-essential’) in each country’s EML current at the time of the survey. Availability was calculated for originator brands, generics and any product type (originator brands or generics) and compared between the two groups. Results were aggregated by WHO regions, World Bank country income groups, a wealth inequality measure, and therapeutic groups.FindingsAcross all sectors and any product type, the median availability of essential medicines was suboptimal at 61·5% (IQR 20·6%–86·7%) but significantly higher than non-essential medicines at 27·3% (IQR 3·6%–70·0%). The median availability of essential medicines was 40·0% in the public sector and 78·1% in the private sector; compared to 6·6% and 57·1% for non-essential medicines respectively. A reverse trend between national income level categories and the availability of essential medicines was identified in the public sector.InterpretationEMLs have influenced the provision of medicines and have resulted in higher availability of essential medicines compared to non-essential medicines particularly in the public sector and in low and lower middle income countries. However, the availability of essential medicines, especially in the public sector does not ensure equitable access.

No abstract

AimDiabetes is a growing burden especially in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Inadequate access to diabetes care is of particular concern and selection of appropriate diabetes medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) is a first step in achieving adequate access. This selection was studied among LMICs and influences of various factors associated with selection decisions were assessed.MethodsCountries were studied if they employed NEMLs for reimbursement or procurement purposes. Presence and number of essential diabetes medicines from different classes, both insulins and oral blood glucose lowering medicines, were surveyed and calculated. Data were also analyzed by country income level, geographic region, year of last update of the NEML and purpose of NEML employment. The effect of prevalence and burden of disease on the number of essential diabetes medicines was also studied. Non parametric tests and univariate linear regression analysis were used.ResultsNearly all countries (n = 32) had chosen fast (97%) and intermediate acting insulin (93%), glibenclamide and metformin (100% both) as essential medicines. The median number of essential diabetes medicines was 6, equally divided between insulins and oral medicines. 20% of the countries had selected insulin analogues as essential medicines. Among all the studied factors, an increase in burden of diabetes and wealth of countries were associated with selection of higher numbers of essential diabetes medicines (p = 0.02 in both cases).ConclusionsNearly all the studied LMICs had included the minimum required medicines for diabetes management in their NEMLs. Selection can still be improved (e.g. exclusion of insulin analogues and replacement of glibenclamide by gliclazide). Nevertheless, the known suboptimal and inconsistent availability of essential diabetes medicines in LMICs cannot be explained by inadequate selection of essential medicines. Countries should therefore be encouraged to give precedence to implementation of NEMLs to make essential diabetes medicines more accessible.

BackgroundBreast cancer is the most common type of cancer among women worldwide. In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), appropriate selection of medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) is a first step towards adequate access to treatment. We studied selection of systemic treatments for breast cancer on NEMLs and assessed its alignment with treatment guidelines for different types of early and advanced breast cancer. Furthermore, influence of country characteristics on the selection was investigated.MethodNEMLs from 75 LMICs were studied for inclusion of all components of therapy in each stage of breast cancer according to international consensus guidelines. The results were then grouped by income level, WHO region and the NEMLs’ release date. Non parametric tests were used for statistical analysis.ResultsUnlike HER2-targeted therapies (<10 %), aromatase inhibitors (12 %) and taxanes (28 %); tamoxifen and first generation chemotherapeutic regimens (e.g., anthracycline-based regimens) were frequently found in the NEMLs (71–78 %). Consequently, all components of treatment for “Luminal A” early breast cancer and non HER2 overexpressed advanced breast cancer were found on the NEMLs of over 70 % of countries. However, 40 % of the low income countries did not have all the components of therapy for any type of early breast cancer in their NEMLs, and adequate treatment of HER2 overexpressed breast cancer was hardly possible with the current selections. Recent NEMLs were more aligned with the guidelines (p < 0.05). Eastern Mediterranean and African regions less frequently incorporated all components of breast cancer treatment in their NEMLs.ConclusionAlignment of selection with guidelines’ recommendations was inconsistent for different types of early and advanced breast cancer in NEMLs. Regular updates and more attention to clinical guidelines is therefore recommended.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1583-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.