Search

Objectives: To determine alignment between national and World Health Organization (WHO) treatment recommendations, medicines prioritisation in country's essential medicines list (EML), and medicines availability in National drug register. Design: An audit of medicines for malaria, tuberculosis, hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus listed in the national standard treatment guidelines (STGs) of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, as of March 2021, against WHO treatment guidelines, and respective country EML and National drug register. Setting: Not applicable. Participants: None. Main outcome measures: Proportion of medicine in country's STGs that align with WHO treatment recommendations, country's EML and country's drug register. Results: Some disease areas had two sets of treatment guidelines – national STGs and disease-specific treatment guidelines (DSGs) developed at different times with different recommended medicines. Both STGs and DSGs included medicines not recommended by the WHO or not listed on the country EML and drug register. Non-WHO-recommended medicines accounted for 17/68 (25%), 10/57 (18%) and 3/30 (10%) of all STG medicines in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, respectively. For tuberculosis, the numbers and proportion of STG medicines listed on the respective national EMLs were 2/6 (33%), 15/19 (79%) and 4/5 (80%) in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. All tuberculosis medicines included in Kenya's and Uganda's STGs were registered compared with only 12/19 (63%) tuberculosis medicines in Tanzania's STG. Conclusions: Alignment between treatment guidelines, EMLs and drug registers is crucial for effective national pharmaceutical policy. Research is needed to understand the inclusion of medicines on STGs and DSGs which fall outside WHO treatment guidelines; the non-alignment of some STGs and DSGs, and STGs and DSGs including medicines which are not on country EML and drug register. [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: Universal access to high quality essential medicines is critical to sustainable development (SDG 3.8). However low- and middle-income countries struggle to ensure access to all medicines on their national essential medicines lists (EML). Market registration is the first step in determining both access and availability yet the extent to which essential medicines are registered for use at country level is not known. Companies apply for a marketing authorisation, however low price or lack of a market is a disincentive. Local production has been promoted to ensure availability of essential medicines but research in this area is also limited. Methods: The study took place between 2011 and 2015. We systematically examined the registration status of medicines and vaccines listed in the Ugandan 2012 EML and conducted 20 interviews with regulators, ministry of health representatives, donors, and pharmaceutical producers and analysed quality assurance issues affecting registration, procurement, and local production of medicines in Uganda. In 2017 we conducted a further three interviews to clarify issues around non-registration of essential medicines highlighted by our analysis. Results: Of the 566 essential medicines and vaccines nearly half (49%; 275/566) had no registered product in 2012. Of the 3130 registered products, just over a quarter (28%; 880/3130) were listed on the EML. Six local producers had registered 138 products of which 40 corresponded to 32 unique essential medicines. Interviews highlighted alternative routes to availability other than registration. Local producers faced considerable barriers to achieving international quality standards required for international procurement of medicines for the domestic market. Conclusions: Monitoring and audit of the registration of essential and non-essential medicines should be a priority nationally and, regionally through harmonisation of registration requirements in the East African Community. National and regional manufacturing plans should consider local production of unregistered essential medicines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Misoprostol use for postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) has been promoted by Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) since the early 2000s. Yet, CSOs' role in improving access to misoprostol and shaping health policy at global and national levels is not well understood. We document the introduction of misoprostol in Uganda in 2008 from its registration, addition to treatment guidelines and national Essential Medicines List (EML), to its distribution and use. We then analyse the contribution of CSOs to this health policy change and service provision. Policy documents, procurement data and 82 key informant interviews with government officials, healthcare providers, and CSOs in four Ugandan districts of Kampala, Mbarara, Apac, Bundibugyo were collected between 2010 and 2013. Five key CSOs promoted and accelerated the rollout of misoprostol in Uganda. They supported the registration of misoprostol with the National Drug Authority, the development of clinical guidelines, and the piloting and training of health care providers. CSOs and National Medical Stores were procuring and distributing misoprostol country-wide to health centres two years before it was added to the clinical guidelines and EML of Uganda and in the absence of good evidence. The evidence suggests an increasing trend of misoprostol procurement and availability over the medicine of choice, oxytocin. This shift in national priorities has serious ramifications for maternal health care that need urgent evaluation. The absence of clinical guidelines in health centres and the lack of training preclude rational use of misoprostol. CSOs shifted their focus from the public to the private sector, where some of them continue to promote its use for off-label indications including induction of labour and abortion. There is an urgent need to build capacity to improve the robustness of the national and local institutions in assessing the safety and effectiveness of all medicines and their indications in Uganda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pharmacovigilance (PV) data are crucial for ensuring safety and effectiveness of medicines after drugs have been granted marketing approval. This paper describes the PV systems of India, Uganda and South Africa based on literature and Key Informant (KI) interviews and compares them with the World Health Organization's (WHO's) minimum PV requirements for a Functional National PV System., Methods: A documentary analysis of academic literature and policy reports was undertaken to assess the medicines regulatory systems and policies in the three countries. A gap analysis from the document review indicated a need for further research in PV. KI interviews covered topics on PV: structure and practices of the system; current regulatory policy; capacity limitations, staffing, funding and training; availability and reporting of data; and awareness and usage of the systems. Twenty interviews were conducted in India, 8 in Uganda and 11 in South Africa with government officials from the ministries of health, national regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical producers, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), members of professional associations and academia. The findings from the literature and KI interviews were compared with WHO's minimum requirements., Results: All three countries were confronted with similar barriers: lack of sufficient funding, limited number of trained staff, inadequate training programs, unclear roles and poor coordination of activities. Although KI interviews represented viewpoints of the respondents, the findings confirmed the documentary analysis of the literature. Although South Africa has a legal requirement for PV, we found that the three countries uniformly lacked adequate capacity to monitor medicines and evaluate risks according to the minimum standards of the WHO., Conclusion: A strong PV system is an important part of the overall medicine regulatory system and reflects on the stringency and competence of the regulatory bodies in regulating the market ensuring the safety and effectiveness of medications. National PV systems in the study countries needed strengthening. Greater attention to funding is needed to coordinate and sustain PV activities. Our study highlights a need for developing more systematic approaches to regularly monitoring and evaluating PV policy and practices., (© 2015 by Kerman University of Medical Sciences.)