India’s ban on antimicrobial fixed-dose combinations: winning the battle, losing the war?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: India, the country with the largest market availability of antimicrobial fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), banned certain antimicrobial FDCs in September 2018. Our objective was to examine the impact of Government ban on the sales of antimicrobial FDCs. METHODS: The sales patterns of 14 of the 26 banned antimicrobial FDCs were analyzed using monthly private sector drug sales data from IQVIA (a comprehensive and nationally representative drug sales database) between January 2018 and December 2019. We carried out descriptive analyses to evaluate the trend in sales over time for banned and non-banned antimicrobial FDCs using cumulative sales volumes. RESULTS: Overall, the cumulative sales volume of banned antimicrobial FDCs declined by 75% between January and September 2018 and the same months of 2019, although some banned FDCs continued to be available in significant volumes. The effectiveness of the ban was offset by several pathways. First, the sales of combinations containing moieties belonging to the same drug-classes as the antimicrobials in the banned FDCs increased after the ban. Second, while certain formulations of particular combinations were banned, the sales of other non-banned formulation of these combinations increased. Third, in some cases, products containing new non-antimicrobial components added to the banned combinations remained available. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: While sales of the banned antimicrobial FDCs decreased in 2019, we identified several mechanisms that counterbalanced the ban, including implementation failure, rising sales of congeners, and products with additional non-antimicrobial components.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".