Withdrawn medicines included in the essential medicines lists of 136 countries

BACKGROUND

Essential medicines lists and related policies are intended to meet the priority health needs of populations and their implementation is associated with more appropriate use of medicines. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that countries carefully select the medicines to be included in their national essential medicines lists. Lists that are used to prioritize access to important treatments should not include medicines that have been withdrawn elsewhere because of an unfavourable benefit-to-harm balance; however, countries still list and use medicines that have been withdrawn worldwide. The objective of this study was to determine whether the national essential medicines lists of 137 countries include medicines that have been withdrawn in other countries.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We performed an audit of national essential medicines lists for medicines that had been withdrawn. Medicines withdrawn from worldwide markets between 1953 and 2014 were identified using a systematic review of published literature and regulatory documents. The reviewers used sources including the WHO's database of drugs, PubMed, and the websites of regulatory agencies to obtain information regarding adverse effects associated with the medicines, the year of first withdrawal, markets of withdrawal, and the level of evidence supporting each withdrawal. We recorded the number of countries with a withdrawn medicine included in their national medicines list, the number of withdrawn medicines included in each nation's list, and the number of national essential medicines including each withdrawn medicine. 97 medicines were withdrawn in at least one country but still included in one more national essential medicines list. Of 137 countries with a national essential medicines list, 136 lists included at least one withdrawn medicine, with 54% of the lists containing 5 or fewer withdrawn medicines, and 27% including 10 or more withdrawn medicines. 11 medicines were withdrawn worldwide but still included on at least one national essential medicines list. Countries with longer essential medicines lists had more withdrawn medicines included in their lists.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that withdrawn medicines are included in all but one national essential medicines list, representing a need for more stringent processes for selecting and removing medicines on these lists. Countries may wish to apply special scrutiny to medicines withdrawn in other nations when selecting medicines to include on their lists.

A randomised controlled trial of extended anticoagulation treatment versus standard treatment for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and post-thrombotic syndrome in patients being treated for a first episode of unprovoked VTE (the ExACT study)

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is prevalent and impactful, with a risk of death, morbidity and recurrence. Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a common consequence and associated with impaired quality of life (QoL). The ExACT study was a non-blinded, prospective, multicentred randomised controlled trial comparing extended versus limited duration anticoagulation following a first unprovoked VTE (proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism). Adults were eligible if they had completed ≥3 months anticoagulation (remaining anticoagulated). The primary outcome was time to first recurrent VTE from randomisation. The secondary outcomes included PTS severity, bleeding, QoL and D-dimers. Two-hundred and eighty-one patients were recruited, randomised and followed up for 24 months (mean age 63, male:female 2:1). There was a significant reduction in recurrent VTE for patients receiving extended anticoagulation [2·75 vs. 13·54 events/100 patient years, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0·20 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0·09 to 0·46, P < 0·001)] with a non-significant increase in major bleeding [3·54 vs. 1·18 events/100 patient years, aHR 2·99 (95% CI: 0·81-11·05, P = 0·10)]. Outcomes of PTS and QoL were no different between groups. D-dimer results (on anticoagulation) did not predict VTE recurrence. In conclusion, extended anticoagulation reduced VTE recurrence but did not reduce PTS or improve QoL and was associated with a non-significant increase in bleeding. Results also suggest very limited clinical utility of D-dimer testing on anticoagulated patients.

Open-label randomised pragmatic trial (CONTACT) comparing naproxen and low-dose colchicine for the treatment of gout flares in primary care

Objectives

To compare the effectiveness and safety of naproxen and low-dose colchicine for treating gout flares in primary care.

Methods

This was a multicentre open-label randomised trial. Adults with a gout flare recruited from 100 general practices were randomised equally to naproxen 750 mg immediately then 250 mg every 8 hours for 7 days or low-dose colchicine 500 mcg three times per day for 4 days. The primary outcome was change in worst pain intensity in the last 24 hours (0–10 Numeric Rating Scale) from baseline measured daily over the first 7 days: mean change from baseline was compared between groups over days 1–7 by intention to treat.

Results

Between 29 January 2014 and 31 December 2015, we recruited 399 participants (naproxen n=200, colchicine n=199), of whom 349 (87.5%) completed primary outcome data at day 7. There was no significant between-group difference in average pain-change scores over days 1–7 (colchicine vs naproxen: mean difference −0.18; 95% CI −0.53 to 0.17; p=0.32). During days 1–7, diarrhoea (45.9% vs 20.0%; OR 3.31; 2.01 to 5.44) and headache (20.5% vs 10.7%; 1.92; 1.03 to 3.55) were more common in the colchicine group than the naproxen group but constipation was less common (4.8% vs 19.3%; 0.24; 0.11 to 0.54).

Conclusion

We found no difference in pain intensity over 7 days between people with a gout flare randomised to either naproxen or low-dose colchicine. Naproxen caused fewer side effects supporting naproxen as first-line treatment for gout flares in primary care in the absence of contraindications.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN (69836939), clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01994226), EudraCT (2013-001354-95).

Sleep-Wake Disturbance Related to Ocular Disease: A Systematic Review of Phase-Shifting Pharmaceutical Therapies

Purpose

Light input, via the eyes, is essential for regulating circadian rhythms. Eye diseases can cause disruption of vital biological rhythms. Of totally blind people, 87% report sleep problems. There are no UK guidelines for visual disturbance–related circadian rhythm disruption. Our objective was to systematically review the literature to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological agents on the sleep quality of patients with sleep disturbance related to ocular disease.

Methods

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL alongside protocol registries and citation searches. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and assessed the strength of overall evidence using GRADE criteria.

Results

Four studies (n=116) met the inclusion criteria. Low-quality evidence showed that melatonin can cause entrainment (1 study), increases in total sleep time (all 3 studies), and reduction in sleep latency (1 study). Low-to-moderate quality evidence showed tasimelteon causes a significant improvement in entrainment, midpoint of sleep timing, lower-quartile of night-time sleep, and upper-quartile of daytime sleep.

Conclusions

Results should be treated with caution as the melatonin studies had risks of bias due to inadequate reporting of randomization and masking procedures. The tasimelteon trial had a risk of reporting bias due to changing the outcomes after enrolling participants. Despite the paucity of trials, melatonin and tasimelteon may cause entrainment and improve subjective sleep measures with limited side effects.

Translational Relevance

Given the relative cost melatonin may be a viable choice for treatment of circadian rhythm sleep disorders in the blind and warrants further research.

Comparison of essential medicines lists in 137 countries

OBJECTIVE

To compare the medicines included in national essential medicines lists with the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Model list of essential medicines, and assess the extent to which countries' characteristics, such as WHO region, size and health care expenditure, account for the differences.

METHODS

We searched the WHO's Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal for national essential medicines lists. We compared each national list of essential medicines with both the 2017 WHO model list and other national lists. We used linear regression to determine whether differences were dependent on WHO Region, population size, life expectancy, infant mortality, gross domestic product and health-care expenditure.

FINDINGS

We identified 137 national lists of essential medicines that collectively included 2068 unique medicines. Each national list contained between 44 and 983 medicines (median 310: interquartile range, IQR: 269 to 422). The number of differences between each country's essential medicines list and WHO's model list ranged from 93 to 815 (median: 296; IQR: 265 to 381). Linear regression showed that only WHO region and health-care expenditure were significantly associated with the number of differences (adjusted R2 : 0.33; P < 0.05). Most medicines (1248; 60%) were listed by no more than 10% (14) of countries.

CONCLUSION

The substantial differences between national lists of essential medicines are only partly explained by differences in country characteristics and thus may not be related to different priority needs. This information helps to identify opportunities to improve essential medicines lists.

Mixed-methods feasibility study of blood pressure self-screening for hypertension detection

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of using a blood pressure (BP) self-measurement kiosk-a solid-cuff sphygmomanometer combined with technology to integrate the BP readings into patient electronic medical records- to improve hypertension detection.

DESIGN

A concurrent mixed-methods feasibility study incorporating observational and qualitative interview components.

SETTING

Two English general practitioner (GP) surgeries.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients registered at participating surgeries. Staff working at these sites.

INTERVENTIONS

BP self-measurement kiosks were placed in the waiting rooms for a 12-month period between 2015 and 2016 and compared with a 12-month control period prior to installation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) The number of patients using the kiosk and agreeing to transfer of their data into their electronic medical records; (2) the cost of using a kiosk compared with GP/practice nurse BP screening; (3) qualitative themes regarding use of the equipment.

RESULTS

Out of 15 624 eligible patients, only 186 (1.2%, 95% CI 1.0% to 1.4%) successfully used the kiosk to directly transfer a BP reading into their medical record. For a considerable portion of the intervention period, no readings were transferred, possibly indicating technical problems with the transfer link. A comparison of costs suggests that at least 52.6% of eligible patients would need to self-screen in order to bring costs below that of screening by GPs and practice nurses. Qualitative interviews confirmed that both patients and staff experienced technical difficulties, and used alternative methods to enter BP results into the medical record.

CONCLUSIONS

While interviewees were generally positive about checking BP in the waiting room, the electronic transfer system as tested was neither robust, effective nor likely to be a cost-effective approach, thus may not be appropriate for a primary care environment. Since most of the cost of a kiosk system lies in the transfer mechanism, a solid-cuff sphygmomanometer and manual entry of results may be a suitable alternative.

COMPare: Qualitative analysis of researchers' responses to critical correspondence on a cohort of 58 misreported trials

BACKGROUND

Discrepancies between pre-specified and reported outcomes are an important and prevalent source of bias in clinical trials. COMPare (Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Outcome Monitoring Project) monitored all trials in five leading journals for correct outcome reporting, submitted correction letters on all misreported trials in real time, and then monitored responses from editors and trialists. From the trialists' responses, we aimed to answer two related questions. First, what can trialists' responses to corrections on their own misreported trials tell us about trialists' knowledge of correct outcome reporting? Second, what can a cohort of responses to a standardised correction letter tell us about how researchers respond to systematic critical post-publication peer review?

METHODS

All correspondence from trialists, published by journals in response to a correction letter from COMPare, was filed and indexed. We analysed the letters qualitatively and identified key themes in researchers' errors about correct outcome reporting, and approaches taken by researchers when their work was criticised.

RESULTS

Trialists frequently expressed views that contradicted the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines or made inaccurate statements about correct outcome reporting. Common themes were: stating that pre-specification after trial commencement is acceptable; incorrect statements about registries; incorrect statements around the handling of multiple time points; and failure to recognise the need to report changes to pre-specified outcomes in the trial report. We identified additional themes in the approaches taken by researchers when responding to critical correspondence, including the following: ad hominem criticism; arguing that trialists should be trusted, rather than follow guidelines for trial reporting; appealing to the existence of a novel category of outcomes whose results need not necessarily be reported; incorrect statements by researchers about their own paper; and statements undermining transparency infrastructure, such as trial registers.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers commonly make incorrect statements about correct trial reporting. There are recurring themes in researchers' responses when their work is criticised, some of which fall short of the scientific ideal. Research on methodological shortcomings is now common, typically in the form of retrospective cohort studies describing the overall prevalence of a problem. We argue that prospective cohort studies which additionally issue correction letters in real time on each individual flawed study-and then follow-up responses from trialists and journals-are more impactful, more informative for those consuming the studies critiqued, more informative on the causes of shortcomings in research, and a better use of research resources.

COMPare: a prospective cohort study correcting and monitoring 58 misreported trials in real time

BACKGROUND

Discrepancies between pre-specified and reported outcomes are an important source of bias in trials. Despite legislation, guidelines and public commitments on correct reporting from journals, outcome misreporting continues to be prevalent. We aimed to document the extent of misreporting, establish whether it was possible to publish correction letters on all misreported trials as they were published, and monitor responses from editors and trialists to understand why outcome misreporting persists despite public commitments to address it.

METHODS

We identified five high-impact journals endorsing Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine) and assessed all trials over a six-week period to identify every correctly and incorrectly reported outcome, comparing published reports against published protocols or registry entries, using CONSORT as the gold standard. A correction letter describing all discrepancies was submitted to the journal for all misreported trials, and detailed coding sheets were shared publicly. The proportion of letters published and delay to publication were assessed over 12 months of follow-up. Correspondence received from journals and authors was documented and themes were extracted.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven trials were assessed in total. Outcome reporting was poor overall and there was wide variation between journals on pre-specified primary outcomes (mean 76% correctly reported, journal range 25-96%), secondary outcomes (mean 55%, range 31-72%), and number of undeclared additional outcomes per trial (mean 5.4, range 2.9-8.3). Fifty-eight trials had discrepancies requiring a correction letter (87%, journal range 67-100%). Twenty-three letters were published (40%) with extensive variation between journals (range 0-100%). Where letters were published, there were delays (median 99 days, range 0-257 days). Twenty-nine studies had a pre-trial protocol publicly available (43%, range 0-86%). Qualitative analysis demonstrated extensive misunderstandings among journal editors about correct outcome reporting and CONSORT. Some journals did not engage positively when provided correspondence that identified misreporting; we identified possible breaches of ethics and publishing guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

All five journals were listed as endorsing CONSORT, but all exhibited extensive breaches of this guidance, and most rejected correction letters documenting shortcomings. Readers are likely to be misled by this discrepancy. We discuss the advantages of prospective methodology research sharing all data openly and pro-actively in real time as feedback on critiqued studies. This is the first empirical study of major academic journals' willingness to publish a cohort of comparable and objective correction letters on misreported high-impact studies. Suggested improvements include changes to correspondence processes at journals, alternatives for indexed post-publication peer review, changes to CONSORT's mechanisms for enforcement, and novel strategies for research on methods and reporting.