ObjectivesTo investigate the utilization of essential medicines and antibiotics in primary healthcare system of Xinjin county of Chengdu city from 2009 to 2011. MethodsThe data of utilization of all the medicines, essential medicines and antibiotics was collected from 17 hospitals of Xinjin primary healthcare system. Microsoft Excel 2003 was used to analyze the data. ResultsCompared with 2009, the total costs of medicines and essential medicines increased by 72.27% and 135.4% respectively in 2010. After the implementation of essential medicine policy in 2010, the proportion of essential medicines accounted for more than 90% in community healthcare centers (CHCs) and township hospitals (THs) and over 50% in county-level hospitals in 2011. In 2010, the average cost per prescription among outpatients increased by 3.51% in total, but deceased by 16.23% in CHCs/THs (RMB 15.09 yuan per prescription). In July of 2011, the policy to control the use of antibiotics was implemented in Xinjin county. The use of antibiotics decreased, but still accounted for over 30% in 9 out of 13 CHCs/THs. The use of bigeminy antibiotics and trigeminy antibiotics accounted for 0.42 to 5.56% and 0 to 0.44%, respectively. ConclusionsThe use of essential medicines increases in Xinjin county and met the national requirements. The average cost per prescription among outpatient decreases in THs and CHCs. After controlling the use of antibiotics, the proportion and cost of antibiotics is still very high, and irrational use of antibiotics probably still exists. The training and guide for evidence-based rational use of medicine should be enhanced in future.
ObjectivesTo provide methodology support for the tracking assessment of specific resolution execution through evidence-based construction of tracking assessment index system for resolution execution of WHO essential medicine accessibility resolution, so as to further promote and improve the establishment of national essential medicine policies, and offer a methodology reference to survey and assess the resolution executions in other public health fields.MethodsA multi-disciplinary team was set up to preliminarily construct the index system by means of earlier system assessment index through index screening based on Delphi method. The weight of each index was determined by analytic hierarchy process.ResultsAfter two rounds of expert consultation, the index system available for resolution execution measures and results of WHO essential medicine accessibility were established, including 9 indexes of resolution execution measures. Meanwhile, the execution results of index contained 4 first class indexes, 13 second class indexes and 36 third class indexes. Each of the indexes obtained its own weight according to degree of importance.ConclusionsIn this study, the assessment index for resolution execution of essential medicine accessibility is established, however, the empirical research is still required to further verify the scientificity as well as feasibility of this index system.
Objective To investigate and compare the demands of dosage forms and specifications of essential medicine for children in different levels of medical institutions, so as to provide references for selection of essential medicines for children by levels of medical institutions. Methods In 13 provinces or municipalities, 104 medical institutions, including tertiary, secondary and primacy medical institutions, were investigated by questionnaires. Kinds of drugs, dosage forms, requirement types and requirement levels of drugs were analyzed and compared in different levels of medical institutions. Results Tertiary medical institutions had higher demands than other levels of medical institutions for the number of drugs types, dosage forms and level of demand on each drug (P < 0.05), secondary medical institutions were higher than primacy medical institutions (P < 0.05), but community health service centers were the same as township health centers. Conclusion The demands of dosage forms and specifications of essential medicine for children in different levels of medical institutions are different. So future studies should develop the essential medicines list for children depend on different levels of care.
Objective To evaluate and select essential medicine for the treatment of coronary heart disease by means of evidence-based approaches based on the burden of disease for township health centers located in eastern, central and western regions of China. Methods By means of the approaches, criteria, and workflow set up in the second article of this series, we referred to the recommendations of evidence-based or authority guidelines from inside and outside China, collected relevant evidence from domestic clinical studies, and recommended essential medicine based on evidence-based evaluation. Data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 and GRADE profiler 3.6 to evaluate quality of evidence. Results (1) 11 clinical guidelines on coronary heart disease were included, three of which are evidence-based guidelines. (2) Totally, those guidelines contained 61 medicines (of 13 classes). (3) According to WHOEML (2011), NEML (2009), CNF (2010), other guidelines and the quantity and quality of evidence, we made a b recommendation for nitroglycerin, isosorbide dinitrate, metoprolol, nifedipine, verapamil, enalapril and aspirin as essential medicine for coronary heart disease. We made a weak recommendation for amlodipine, clopidogrel, heparin, propranolol, simvastatin and streptokinase. (4) 13 recommended medicines have been marketed in China and their prices were affordable. (5) Results of domestic low-quality studies indicated that nitroglycerin, isosorbide dinitrate, metoprolol, aspirin and heparin were effective for coronary heart disease. We didn’t find systematic reviews or pharmacoeconomic studies on the recommended medicines in Chinese literature databases. Conclusion For coronary heart disease: (1) We offer a b recommendation for nitroglycerin, isosorbide dinitrate, metoprolol, nifedipine, verapamil, enalapril and aspirin and a weak recommendation for propranolol, amlodipine, clopidogrel, heparin, simvastatin and streptokinase. (2) There is lack of high-quality evidence from relevant domestic studies, especially on pharmacoeconomic evaluation. (3) We propose that more studies should be carried out on clinical guideline of coronary heart disease and pharmacoeconomic comparison should be also made between recommended medicine and medicine of the same class.
ObjectiveTo access the current study status and the existing problems of studies on National Essential Medicines System (NEMS) in China based on systematic review methods, and provide the evidence-based evidence and references to the studies of this field. MethodsThe following databases such as PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, March 2014), CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM were electronically searched to collect studies related to the policy analysis, implementation background, implementation strategies, implementation situation, implementation problem and implementation effects about NEMS in China. The retrieval time was from inception to December 2013. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and finally conducted analysis on study types, study time, source journals, authors' units, study themes, etc. of the included studies. ResultsA total of 1 607 articles were finally included, encompassing 56.38% qualitative studies and 43.62% quantitative studies. The number of published studies per year, the number of quantitative studies as well as the number of financiallysupported studies out of the total studies published per year had increased by year since 2009. The study topics focused on every parts during the implementation of NEMS in different proportions. The proportion of the national studies in the quantitative studies was lower than that of others. The regional distribution involved in the quantitative studies was unbalanced, and the ratio of which located on the East, the Central and the West of China was 2 to 1 to 1. ConclusionThe implementation of NEMS and related studies are mutually promoted. More studies are needed to be carried out on remote areas as well as West China. Although the studies related to these areas tend to be standardized and evidence-based, but more in-depth studies should be well advanced. Most of the topics of the studies are widely covered, and the topics of further studies should be enforced in the detail of implementation links. Most of the studies focus on primary medical institutions, and more studies are also needed for supporting and expanding the implementation of NEMS in second and three degree medical institutions.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension. MethodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane library (Issue 4, 2014), CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data to collect SRs of traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension from the establishment time of databases to April 30th, 2014. The AMSTAR tool was applied for methodological quality assessment of included studies, and the GRADE system was applied for evidence quality assessment of included outcomes of SRs. ResultsA total of 12 SRs involving 31 outcomes were included, of which 11 SRs focused on the comparison of therapeutic effects between traditional Chinese medicine combined with western medicine and western medicine alone. Nine SRs adopted Jadad tool to assess methodological quality of included original studies. The results of assessment using AMSTAR showed that, among 11 items, there were the most problems concerning Item 1 "Was an 'a prior' design provided?" (none of the 12 SRs provided it); followed by Item 11 "Were potential conflict of interest included?" (nine SRs didn't described it), and Item 6 "Were the characteristics of included studies provided" (six SRs didn't provided it). The results of grading showed that, 29 outcomes were graded as "low" or "very low" quality. The main factors contributed to downgrading evidence quality were limitations (31 outcomes), followed by imprecision (12 outcomes), and inconsistency (13 outcomes). ConclusionCurrently, the methodological quality of SRs about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension was poor on the whole, with low quality of evidence as well as lack of enough attention to the end outcomes of patients with essential hypertension. Thus, physicians should apply the evidence to make decision about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension with caution in clinical practice.
Objective To evaluate and select essential medicine for acute bronchitis using evidence-based methods based on the burden of disease. Methods By means of the approaches, criteria, and workflow set up in the second article of this series, we referred to the recommendations of evidence-based or authority guidelines from inside and outside China, collected relevant evidence from domestic clinical studies, and recommended essential medicine based on evidence-based evaluation. Data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 and GRADE profiler 3.6 to evaluate quality of evidence. Results (1) Eight guidelines were included (seven foreign guidelines, one domestic guideline; five based on evidence, three based on expert consensus). (2) A result of six RCTs (n=816, low quality) indicated that pentoxyverine had efficiencies of 53% to 82% for cough relief. Among the six RCTs, a result of three RCTs (n=283) indicated that pentoxyverine was slightly less efficient than procaterol (RR=0.86, 95%CI 0.78 to 0.94, P=0.001); a result of two RCTs (n=233) indicated that pentoxyverine was slightly less efficient than Chinese medicinals decoction (RR=0.82, 95%CI 0.74 to 0.91, Plt;0.001). Adverse reaction of pentoxyverine (incidence: 0% to 2.4%) mainly covered nausea, palpitation, etc. Pentoxyverine cost 0.20 yuan (for adult) or 0.08 yuan (for child) daily, which was orally taken and applicable to the target population. (3) A result of six RCTs (n=403, low quality) indicated that the efficiencies of dextromethorphan for cough relief was 47.0% to 95.3%. Among the six RCTs, a result of one RCT (n=283) indicated that dextromethorphan hydrobromide (nasal drop) was more efficient than blank intervention (RR=3.71, 95%CI 1.91 to 7.21); a result of one RCT (n=43) indicated that dextromethorphan (for oral use) was more efficient than placebo (RR=1.74, 95%CI 1.13 to 2.66); a result of one RCT (n=300, moderate quality) indicated that dextromethorphan was more efficient than pentoxyverine (RR=1.16, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.26); a result of one observational study (n=121, low quality) indicated that dextromethorphan given for 5 days had an efficiency of 66.5%. Adverse reaction of dextromethorphan (incidence: 2% to 30%) mainly covered mouth dryness, dizziness, nausea, etc. Conclusion (1) We offer a b recommendation for dextromethorphan used in relieving dry cough due to acute bronchitis. (2) We offer a weak recommendation for pentoxyverine as symptomatic treatment for cough relief. (3) We make a recommendation against antibiotics, β2-agonist bronchodilators and mucolytic agents as routine use. (4) More large-scale, multi-center, double-blinded RCTs are needed in clinical and pharmacoeconomic studies of acute bronchitis in hopes of producing high-quality local evidence.
Objective To compare the newest essential medicine lists (EMLs) of China and the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2009, so as to provide the evidence for the selection, adjustment and implementation of the newest national EML of China. Methods Differences in the procedures of selection, implementation and the categories as well as the number of medicines in 2009 EMLs of the WHO and China were compared by descriptive analysis. Result Principles and procedures of selecting and updating EML of China were based on those of the WHO EML. However, the transparency of procedures, methods of selection, and evidence of efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and suitability were not enough. Essential medicines of the WHO were categorized by the Anatomical-Therapeutic-Chemical (ATC) classification system, while those of China were classified by clinical pharmacology. Twenty-one identical categories of the first class were found in the two lists. There were 8 and 3 unique categories in the WHO EML and China EML, respectively. A total of 358 and 255 medicines (including medicines in its explanation) were included in the EMLs of the WHO and China, respectively, with 133 identical medicines as well as 206 and 108 unique medicines. There were 51 antiinfective medicines in China EML, accounting for half of the WHO EML. Forty medicines were the same in both lists, and 11 and 60 anti-infective medicines were unique in EMLs of China and the WHO, except for 40 identical medicines. Among them, 22 and 31 antibacterials were included in the lists of the WHO and China with 17 identical medicines. Antifungal, antituberculosis and antiviral medicines in China EML were fewer than those in the WHO EML. The numbers of the identical medicines acting on the respiratory, digestive, and nervous systems and hormones in the both lists were 1, 7, 9, and 17, respectively, while the unique ones in China EML were 6, 12, 7, and 14, respectively. However, most of them were selected without adequate evidence in efficacy and safety. The medicines acting on cardiovascular system were 19 and 29 in both lists with 14 identical medicines. Some antihypertensive and antiarrhythmic medicines were included in China EML with similar mechanism, whereas some of them were excluded by the EML. Conclusion The total numbers of both EMLs are close to each other with half of the identical medicines. The selection of China EML mostly meets the needs of disease burden in China. However, the transparency of selection and evidence are not enough. We suggest that health authorities should cooperate with other stakeholders to promote the transparency of selection, to enhance the capacity of producing high-quality evidence, to develop related technical documents and guidelines, and to disseminate and monitor the implementation of EML.
Objective To compare the national essential medicines list (EML) and national essential insurance medicine list (EIML) of China with that of the WHO, so as to provide reasonable evidence for the adjustment of new EML and EIML of China. Methods The similarities and differences in the selection, updating, categories, subcategories and the amounts of medicines in the EML and EIML of China and the WHO EML were compared and analyzed. Results There are some differences among the three lists in selecting principles, updating of medicines .The latest version of WHO EML (version in 2007) has 27 categories, including 340 medicines; China EML (version in 2004) has 23 categories and 773 western medicines, containing 23 categories and 225 (66.17%) similar medicines of WHO EML, which accounts for 29.11% of EML of China. China EIML (version in 2005) has 23 categories and 1 031 western medicines, containing 22 categories and 227 (66.76%) of WHO EML, which accounts for 22.02% of EIML of China. China EIML was developed based on China EML. There is little difference in selecting, updating, categories of medicines. Conclusion The difference was obviously found in medicine selection, updating and categories between China EML, EIML and WHO EML. We suggested that our national EML and EIML should be more reasonably selected and updated base on the principals of WHO EML.