Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Academic Chair for Regulation in Law, Medicine, and Technology, Faculty of Law, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Academic Chair for Regulation in Law, Medicine, and Technology, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Lancet. 2024 Oct 5;404(10460):1365-1374. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01549-6.
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.
世界卫生组织(WHO)最近宣布了一项审查和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界卫生组织基本药物标准清单(EML)演变的机会,包括塑造优先事项的利益相关者的构成。我们将我们的发现置于 WHO EML 的更广泛历史背景下,以支持未来的改革,从而改善基本药物的可及性。目前的系统允许个人向 WHO 提议将某种药物列入 EML。这使得 EML 对申请人的优先事项做出反应。在 2003 年至 2023 年期间,向 WHO EML 提议的几乎所有药物(687/700;98.1%)都来自高收入国家的申请人。大多数申请(210/700;30.0%)是由大学和研究机构提交的,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%)。在 1977 年至 2023 年期间,超过一半的专家委员会成员来自低收入和中等收入国家,最近的 EML 更新中这一比例有所增加。主要是,联合国机构在 1977 年至 2023 年期间一直担任观察员。在评估申请人的地理分布是否转化为 WHO EML 的预期目的时,一个核心问题出现了:EML 是为谁设计的?多年来,地理适用性已经变得模糊。为 WHO EML 定义一个战略愿景,包括明确目标受众和结构化的选择过程,将通过提供更多的清晰度来加强决策过程,包括向那些实施指导的人提供清晰度,这些人主要在低收入和中等收入国家。