Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations concept 7: issues and insights linking guideline recommendations to trustworthy essential medicine lists

  • Thomas Piggott
  • , Lorenzo Moja
  • , Kristina Jenei
  • , Tamara Kredo
  • , Nicole Skoetz
  • , Rita Banzi
  • , Dario Trapani
  • , Trudy Leong
  • , Michael McCaul
  • , John N. Lavis
  • , Elie A. Akl
  • , Francesco Nonino
  • , Alfonso Iorio
  • , Joanna Laurson-Doube
  • , Benedikt D. Huttner
  • , Holger J. Schünemann
  • McMaster University
  • Queen's University Kingston
  • World Health Organization
  • The London School of Economics and Political Science
  • South African Medical Research Council
  • Stellenbosch University
  • University of Cologne
  • IRCCS Istituto di ricerche farmacologiche Mario Negri - Milano, Bergamo, Ranica
  • University of Milan
  • IRCCS Istituto Europeo di Oncologia - Milano
  • University of Johannesburg
  • American University of Beirut
  • IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna
  • Regione Emilia-Romagna
  • Multiple Sclerosis International Federation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives: Guidelines and essential medicine lists (EMLs) bear similarities and differences in the process that lead to decisions. Access to essential medicines is central to achieve universal health coverage. The World Health Organization (WHO) EML has guided prioritization of essential medicines globally for nearly 50 years, and national EMLs (NEMLs) exist in over 130 countries. Guideline and EML decisions, at WHO or national levels, are not always coordinated and aligned. We sought to explore challenges, and potential solutions, for decision-making to support trustworthy medicine selection for EMLs from a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group perspective. We primarily focus on the WHO EML; however, our findings may be applicable to NEML decisions as well. Study Design and Setting: We identified key challenges in connecting the EML to health guidelines by involving a broad group of stakeholders and assessing case studies including real applications to the WHO EML, South Africa NEML, and a multiple sclerosis guideline connected to a WHO EML application for multiple sclerosis treatments. To address challenges, we utilized the results of a survey and feedback from the stakeholders, and iteratively met as a project group. We drafted a conceptual framework of challenges and potential solutions. We presented a summary of the results for feedback to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meetings in November 2022 (approximately 120 people) and in May 2023 (approximately 100 people) before finalizing the framework. Results: We prioritized issues and insights/solutions that addressed the connections between the EML and health guidelines. Our suggested solutions include early planning alignment of guideline groups and EMLs, considering shared participation to strengthen linkage, further clarity on price/cost considerations, and using explicit shared criteria to make guideline and EML decisions. We also provide recommendations to strengthen the connection between WHO EML and NEMLs including through contextualization methods. Conclusion: This GRADE concept article, jointly developed by key stakeholders from the guidelines and EMLs field, identified key conceptual issues and potential solutions to support the continued advancement of trustworthy EMLs. Adopting structured decision criteria that can be linked to guideline recommendations bears the potential to advance health equity and gaps in availability of essential medicines within and between countries.

Original languageEnglish
Article number111241
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume166
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2024

Keywords

  • Drug coverage
  • Essential medicines
  • GRADE
  • Guidelines
  • Health decision-making
  • Health policy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations concept 7: issues and insights linking guideline recommendations to trustworthy essential medicine lists'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this