4.3 Article

Prices of antihypertensive medicines in sub-Saharan Africa and alignment to WHO's model list of essential medicines

Journal

TROPICAL MEDICINE & INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 350-361

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02453.x

Keywords

sub-Saharan Africa; drug costs; antihypertensive agents; hypertension; drugs; essential medicines; World Health Organization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE To investigate compliance of National Essential Medicines Lists (NEMLs) with the WHO Essential Medicines List (WHO/EML) in 2007 and to compare prices of antihypertensive drugs in and between 13 sub-Saharan African countries. METHODOLOGY Data on NEMLs and drug prices were collected from 65 public and 65 private pharmacies ( five of each per country). Prices were compared with the International Drug Price Indicator Guide (IDPIG). The cost of drug treatment within a country was calculated using defined daily doses (DDD) and between countries using DDD prices adjusted for purchasing power parity-based gross domestic product per capita. RESULTS All surveyed countries had a NEML. However, none of these lists were in complete alignment with the 2007 WHO/EML, and 38% had not been updated in the last 5 years. Surveyed medicines were cheaper when on the NEMLs; they were also cheaper in public than in private pharmacies. Prices varied greatly per medicine. A large majority of the public prices were higher than those indicated by the IDPIG. Overall, hydrochlorothiazide is the cheapest drug. CONCLUSION There are substantial differences in NEML composition between the 13 countries. The proportion of NEMLs not regularly updated was double the global United Nations estimates. Prices of WHO/EML-advised drugs differ greatly between drugs and for each drug within and between countries. In general, the use of drugs on the NEML improves financial accessibility, and these drugs should be prescribed preferentially.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available