Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33795015›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2021

Linking market authorizations of medicines with disease burden in South Africa.

K Narsai, H G M Leufkens, A K Mantel-Teeuwisse

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

K NarsaiDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5901-4798
H G M LeufkensDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
A K Mantel-TeeuwisseDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. a.k.mantel@uu.nl.
Utrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSub-Saharan Africa is going through an epidemiological transition, including an impressive increase in non-communicable diseases. The introduction of medicines has not kept pace with the needs in developing countries. The objectives of this study were to (i) examine the correlation between the number of medicine approvals and disease burden and (ii) compare approval timelines of medicines with disease burden in South Africa in the period 2012-2017.

methodsThe dataset was compiled from publicly available data on medicines registered in South Africa between 2012 and 2017. A correlation analysis was conducted to determine the level of alignment between the number and nature of medicines registered, as determined by the WHO ATC Classification and the Lancet Global Burden of Disease data. Median registration timelines were determined to assess whether medicines for diseases of higher burden were registered faster.

resultsA total of 3059 registered medicines were included in the study, including 2779 generic medicines, 267 new chemical entities and 13 vaccines. There was a high level of alignment between the number of medicines registered to treat diseases with higher disease burden levels more effectively, except for lower respiratory tract infections and HIV/AIDS which showed less medicines registered as compared to expectations based on disease burden, respectively. HIV/AIDS showed a lower level of correlation with a much higher disease burden compared to number of medicines registered, but simultaneously also a much shorter median registration timeline (32 months) compared to the other disease areas.

conclusionsThere was generally a high level of alignment between disease burden and number of medicines authorised, except for HIV/AIDS and lower respiratory tract infections. Regulatory authorities should continue to consider burden of disease data to ensure that public health needs are met.

Indexed as

Disease burdenHIV/AIDSMedian registration timelineSAHPRASouth AfricaTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID33795015
PMCPMC8017838
OpenAlexW3141972433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.