SummaryThe circulation of substandard medicines in the developing world is a serious clinical and public health concern. Problems include under or over concentration of ingredients, contamination, poor quality ingredients, poor stability and inadequate packaging. There are multiple causes. Drugs manufactured for export are not regulated to the same standard as those for domestic use, while regulatory agencies in the less-developed world are poorly equipped to assess and address the problem. A number of recent initiatives have been established to address the problem, most notably the WHO pre-qualification programme. However, much more action is required. Donors should encourage their partners to include more explicit quality requirements in their tender mechanisms, while purchasers should insist that producers and distributors supply drugs that comply with international quality standards. Governments in rich countries should not tolerate the export of substandard pharmaceutical products to poor countries, while developing country governments should improve their ability to detect substandard medicines.

Background Almost 300 million people suffer from asthma, yet many in low-and middle-income countries have difficulty accessing essential asthma medicines. Availability, price and affordability of medicines are likely to affect access. Very few studies have included asthma medicines, particularly inhaled corticosteroids, in these countries. Reflections about international reference prices (IRPs) are generally absent from pricing studies, yet some IRPs may be masking the extent of access problems. Objectives Our objective was to determine the availability, pricing and affordability of beclometasone, budesonide and salbutamol, the three asthma medicines on the World Health Organization's Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) in selected low-and middle-income countries and to reflect on the appropriateness of using IRPs. Methods A cross-sectional pricing survey was conducted in 52 countries. Data were collected on country demographics including national currency, $US exchange rate and daily wage of the lowest-paid unskilled government worker. Pricing and availability data were collected for salbutamol, beclometasone and budesonide in two private retail pharmacies, the national procurement centre and a main public hospital.

BackgroundIn response to the global burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), the World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a Global Action Plan that includes a voluntary medicines target of 80% availability and affordability of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease both in public and private health facilities. Reliable measures of medicines availability are needed to track progress towards meeting this target. The results of three studies measuring the availability of medicines for hypertension and diabetes conducted in Tanzania in 2012–2013 were compared to assess the consistency of the results across the studies.MethodsAvailability was defined by observation of the medicine (no minimum quantity) on the day of the survey. The three studies involved 24, 107 and 1297 health facilities. Estimates of the availability of medicines for hypertension and diabetes were compared for medicines availability overall, by managing authority (government, mission/faith-based, private-for-profit), by facility level (hospital, health centre, dispensary) and by setting (urban, rural).ResultsComparisons of the availability of medicines were limited by differences in the definitions of the medicines and the classifications of the facilities surveyed. Metformin was variously reported as available in 33%, 39%, 46%, and 57% of facilities. Glibenclamide availability ranged from 19% to 52%. One study reported low levels of insulin availability (9-16% depending on insulin type) compared to 34% in a second study. Captopril (or angiotensin converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitor) availability ranged from 13% to 48%while availability of calcium channel blockers was 29% to 57% and beta-blockers 15% to 50%. Trends were similar across studies with lower availability in government compared to mission or private facilities, in dispensary and health centres compared to hospitals, and in rural compared to urban facilities.ConclusionsAll three studies showed suboptimal availability of NCD medicines, however the estimates of availability differed. Regular monitoring using reproducible methods and measuring key medicines must replace ad-hoc studies, small selected samples and differences in definitions. Low and middle-income countries need to implement monitoring and evaluation systems to track progress towards meeting the NCD medicines target and to inform country-level interventions to improve access to NCD medicines.

The globalization of pharmaceutical production has not been accompanied by a strengthening and harmonization of the regulatory systems worldwide. Thus, the global market is characterized today by a situation of multiple standards, and patients in low- and middle-income countries are exposed to the risk of receiving poor-quality medicines. Among those who first raised the alarm on this problem, there were pioneering humanitarian groups, who were in a privileged position to witness the gap in quality of medicines between high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.Despite an increasing awareness of the problem and the launch of some positive initiatives, the divide in pharmaceutical quality between the North and the South remains important, and insufficiently addressed. More advocacy is needed for universal access to quality-assured medicines. It should target all those who are strongly “involved” with medicines: regulators, international organizations, journalists, purchasers, prescribers, program managers, policy makers, public health actors and the patients. Advocacy should be based on evidence from research and monitoring programs, and technical concepts should be translated in lay language through communication tools that address all the stakeholders. The fight to ensure universal access to quality medicines needs the participation of all, and can only be successful if grounded in common understanding.

No abstract