Search

In Scotland, in 2002, the National Waiting Times Unit was launched to reduce NHS waiting times. This was accompanied by a series of waiting time targets across the NHS in Scotland. The purpose of this study is to analyse changes in equality of access to treatment by socioeconomic deprivation associated with this initiative. Trends in annual cataract rates were calculated using secondary care admissions' Scottish Morbidity Record (SMR01) data on NHS funded elective cataract procedures for patients treated in Scotland from 01 April 1997 to 31 March 2019. An interrupted time series model was used to analyse socioeconomic differences in waiting times by deprivation quintile over three time periods; pre and post waiting time initiative, and post austerity. Cataract Surgical Rates more than doubled from 3,723 per million population in 1997/1998 to 7,896 per million population in 2018/2019. Mean waiting time fell from 129.5 days in 1997/1998 to 87.7 days in 2018/2019. Inequality in mean waiting time between most and least deprived cataract patients increased by 1.34 days per quarter between 01 April 1997 and 30 June 2002 and following the waiting time initiative fell by 0.41 days per quarter through to 31 March 2010; and then decreased by 0.002 days per quarter between 01 April 2010 and 31 March 2019. The waiting time initiative had a major impact on reducing inequality in waiting times between socioeconomic groups. The onset of austerity in 2010 was associated with a very small and insignificant increase in inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]