MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969793212 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(19)30165-3

Essential medicines and essential diagnostics: a package deal

2019· letter· en· W2969793212 on OpenAlexaff
Madhukar Pai, Kāmini Walia, Catharina Boehme

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Public Health · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEssential medicinesMedicineFamily medicinePublic healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For more than 40 years, WHO has published Model Lists of Essential Medicines. This year, for the first time, WHO published the latest edition of the essential medicines list1WHOWorld Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines. 2019; (21st list 2019. July 9)https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/325771/WHO-MVP-EMP-IAU-2019.06-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yDate accessed: July 27, 2019Google Scholar simultaneously with a Model List of Essential In Vitro Diagnostics.2WHOSecond WHO Model List of Essential In Vitro Diagnostics.https://www.who.int/medical_devices/publications/Standalone_document_v8.pdf?ua=1Date accessed: July 23, 2019Google Scholar This landmark development signals the vital importance of linking use of medicines with diagnostic tests to advance the Universal Health Coverage (UHC) agenda.3Pai M Boehme C Kickbusch I Diagnostics are essential for universal health coverage to succeed.https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/20/diagnostics-universal-health-coverage-succeed/Date accessed: July 24, 2019Google Scholar All efficient and responsive health systems need both diagnostics and drugs. They are a package deal. Unfortunately, most governments, health agencies, and financial donors in low-income and middle-income countries have traditionally prioritised medicines, with little investment in diagnostics.3Pai M Boehme C Kickbusch I Diagnostics are essential for universal health coverage to succeed.https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/20/diagnostics-universal-health-coverage-succeed/Date accessed: July 24, 2019Google Scholar Without dependable tests, primary care providers have no choice but to rely on empirical therapies, resulting in the widespread use of antibiotics and other drugs. This tendency is illustrated in standardised patient studies in multiple countries, which show that care providers rarely asked for any diagnostic testing.4Das J Woskie L Rajbhandari R Abbasi K Jha A Rethinking assumptions about delivery of healthcare: implications for universal health coverage.BMJ. 2018; 361: k1716Crossref PubMed Scopus (61) Google Scholar Instead, they relied heavily on polypharmacy for several conditions. Underdiagnosis is also evident in analyses of cascades of care for common conditions such as tuberculosis, HIV, diabetes, and hypertension, which show that diagnosis is consistently the weakest link in health system performance.3Pai M Boehme C Kickbusch I Diagnostics are essential for universal health coverage to succeed.https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/20/diagnostics-universal-health-coverage-succeed/Date accessed: July 24, 2019Google Scholar When health systems neglect diagnostics, they cannot adequately respond to growing threats such as antimicrobial resistance, non-communicable diseases, and pandemics.3Pai M Boehme C Kickbusch I Diagnostics are essential for universal health coverage to succeed.https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/20/diagnostics-universal-health-coverage-succeed/Date accessed: July 24, 2019Google Scholar Acknowledging these concerns, WHO released the first Model List of Essential In Vitro Diagnostics in 2018 and updated the list in 2019. The second essential diagnostics list2WHOSecond WHO Model List of Essential In Vitro Diagnostics.https://www.who.int/medical_devices/publications/Standalone_document_v8.pdf?ua=1Date accessed: July 23, 2019Google Scholar has 122 test categories, including 46 general tests (eg, for haemoglobin, blood glucose, bilirubin) and 69 specific tests (eg, for HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis B and C, syphilis, human papillomavirus, leishmaniasis, dengue, zika, and influenza). In addition, the list includes tests for several noncommunicable diseases (eg, cancers, diabetes, and hypothyroidism). Although the essential diagnostics list is rapidly growing, it still has a long way to go before it can adequately support the use of all the drugs included in the essential medicines list.5Schroeder LF Guarner J Amukele TK Essential diagnostics for the use of World Health Organization essential medicines.Clinical chemistry. 2018; 64: 1148-1157Crossref PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar The various editions of the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines has been adopted and adapted by more than 150 countries, which have developed their own national lists and used them to improve the access to, and affordability and quality of medicines. We hope countries will do the same with the essential diagnostics list. Another strategy to ensure the availability of essential tests is to have them explicitly defined, costed, and incorporated into global and national UHC intervention packages. The Lancet Commission on diagnostics intends to present a comprehensive, evidence-based, and costed package for diagnostic service delivery that could be adapted by countries for effective UHC.6Wilson ML Atun R DeStigter K et al.The Lancet Commission on diagnostics: advancing equitable access to diagnostics.Lancet. 2019; 393: 2018-2020Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar Innovation along with research and development are crucial for the development and implementation of platform technologies that can deliver a range of essential tests, so that health systems do not need to invest in separate technologies for each test or condition. Innovation is also key for improving service delivery. To take tests close to homes and communities, we need to exploit approaches such as digital applications, home-based sample collection, self-testing, and testing in communities via providers such as lay health workers and pharmacies. Because not all tests can be delivered close to home, countries need to invest in tiered, connected laboratory networks and optimise their use to deliver as many essential tests as possible at the lowest expense to the health system, while maintaining quality. In summary, the time has arrived for health systems to pivot from syndromic management to precision therapy guided by tests. The simultaneous release of both lists by WHO is a welcome development to advance this agenda. All authors were members of the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on In Vitro Diagnostics Group that developed the Essential Diagnostics List. They are also commissioners for the Lancet Commission on diagnostics. MP serves on the scientific advisory committee of the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Public HealthSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207