世卫组织确定药品的优先次序?分析世卫组织基本药物示范清单历史演变中的申请人和决策者

Kristina Jenei, Camille E G Glaus, Kerstin N Vokinger
{"title":"世卫组织确定药品的优先次序?分析世卫组织基本药物示范清单历史演变中的申请人和决策者","authors":"Kristina Jenei, Camille E G Glaus, Kerstin N Vokinger","doi":"10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01549-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"WHO recently announced a process to review and potentially update the procedures for selecting essential medicines. This announcement presents an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of the WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines (EML), including the composition of the stakeholders that shape priorities. We contextualised our findings within the broader history of the WHO EML to support future reforms to improve access to essential medicines. The current system allows individuals to propose a medicine for the WHO EML. This makes the EML reactive to applicant priorities. Almost all medicines (687/700; 98·1%) proposed to the WHO EML between 2003 and 2023 came from applicants in high-income countries. Most applications (210/700; 30·0%) were submitted by universities and research institutions, followed by non-governmental organisations (159/700; 22·7%), the UN system (158/700; 22·6%), professional associations (98/700; 14·0%), and the pharmaceutical industry (75/700; 10·7%). Between 1977 and 2023, over half of the Expert Committee members were from low-income and middle-income countries, with an increasing proportion in recent EML updates. Mainly, UN agencies acted as observers between 1977 and 2023. One central question emerges when evaluating whether applicants' geographical distribution translates to the WHO EML's intended purpose: for whom is the EML intended? Over the years, the geographical applicability has blurred. Defining a strategic vision for the WHO EML, including articulating a target audience and structured selection process, would strengthen decision-making processes by providing additional clarity, including to those implementing the guidance, mostly in low-income and middle-income countries.","PeriodicalId":22898,"journal":{"name":"The Lancet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"WHO shapes priorities for medicines? An analysis of the applicants and decision makers within the historical evolution of the WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines\",\"authors\":\"Kristina Jenei, Camille E G Glaus, Kerstin N Vokinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01549-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"WHO recently announced a process to review and potentially update the procedures for selecting essential medicines. This announcement presents an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of the WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines (EML), including the composition of the stakeholders that shape priorities. We contextualised our findings within the broader history of the WHO EML to support future reforms to improve access to essential medicines. The current system allows individuals to propose a medicine for the WHO EML. This makes the EML reactive to applicant priorities. Almost all medicines (687/700; 98·1%) proposed to the WHO EML between 2003 and 2023 came from applicants in high-income countries. Most applications (210/700; 30·0%) were submitted by universities and research institutions, followed by non-governmental organisations (159/700; 22·7%), the UN system (158/700; 22·6%), professional associations (98/700; 14·0%), and the pharmaceutical industry (75/700; 10·7%). Between 1977 and 2023, over half of the Expert Committee members were from low-income and middle-income countries, with an increasing proportion in recent EML updates. Mainly, UN agencies acted as observers between 1977 and 2023. One central question emerges when evaluating whether applicants' geographical distribution translates to the WHO EML's intended purpose: for whom is the EML intended? Over the years, the geographical applicability has blurred. Defining a strategic vision for the WHO EML, including articulating a target audience and structured selection process, would strengthen decision-making processes by providing additional clarity, including to those implementing the guidance, mostly in low-income and middle-income countries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Lancet\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Lancet\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01549-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Lancet","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01549-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

世卫组织最近宣布了一项审查和可能更新基本药物选择程序的进程。这一宣布为我们提供了一个反思世卫组织基本药物示范清单(EML)演变的机会,其中包括确定优先事项的利益相关方的构成。我们在世卫组织基本药物清单更广泛的历史背景下分析了我们的研究结果,以支持未来的改革,改善基本药物的获取。现行制度允许个人向世卫组织 EML 提出药品建议。这使得 EML 能够对申请者的优先事项做出反应。2003 年至 2023 年期间,几乎所有向世卫组织 EML 提议的药品(687/700;98-1%)都来自高收入国家的申请者。大多数申请(210/700;30-0%)由大学和研究机构提交,其次是非政府组织(159/700;22-7%)、联合国系统(158/700;22-6%)、专业协会(98/700;14-0%)和制药业(75/700;10-7%)。从 1977 年到 2023 年,一半以上的专家委员会成员来自低收入和中等收入国家,这一比例在最近的 EML 更新中不断增加。1977 年至 2023 年期间,联合国机构主要担任观察员。在评估申请人的地理分布是否符合世卫组织 EML 的预期目的时,出现了一个核心问题:EML 是为谁而设?多年来,地域适用性已经模糊。确定世卫组织 EML 的战略愿景,包括阐明目标受众和结构化遴选过程,将加强决策过程,提供更多清晰度,包括那些主要在低收入和中等收入国家实施指南的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
WHO shapes priorities for medicines? An analysis of the applicants and decision makers within the historical evolution of the WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines
WHO recently announced a process to review and potentially update the procedures for selecting essential medicines. This announcement presents an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of the WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines (EML), including the composition of the stakeholders that shape priorities. We contextualised our findings within the broader history of the WHO EML to support future reforms to improve access to essential medicines. The current system allows individuals to propose a medicine for the WHO EML. This makes the EML reactive to applicant priorities. Almost all medicines (687/700; 98·1%) proposed to the WHO EML between 2003 and 2023 came from applicants in high-income countries. Most applications (210/700; 30·0%) were submitted by universities and research institutions, followed by non-governmental organisations (159/700; 22·7%), the UN system (158/700; 22·6%), professional associations (98/700; 14·0%), and the pharmaceutical industry (75/700; 10·7%). Between 1977 and 2023, over half of the Expert Committee members were from low-income and middle-income countries, with an increasing proportion in recent EML updates. Mainly, UN agencies acted as observers between 1977 and 2023. One central question emerges when evaluating whether applicants' geographical distribution translates to the WHO EML's intended purpose: for whom is the EML intended? Over the years, the geographical applicability has blurred. Defining a strategic vision for the WHO EML, including articulating a target audience and structured selection process, would strengthen decision-making processes by providing additional clarity, including to those implementing the guidance, mostly in low-income and middle-income countries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信