Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39706661›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Global health2025

Prices, availability, and affordability of adult medicines in 54 low-income and middle-income countries: evidence based on a secondary analysis.

Lachlan Oldfield, Jonathan Penm, Ardalan Mirzaei, Rebekah Moles

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Bioequivalence evaluation of two cariprazine hard capsule formulations.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lachlan OldfieldSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: lachlan.oldfield@sydney.edu.au.
Jonathan PenmSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Department of Pharmacy, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ardalan MirzaeiSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rebekah MolesSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication shortages are a pressing concern throughout the world. To gain insight into this issue, WHO and Health Action International (HAI) have constructed a validated method to survey medicine prices, availability, and affordability in low-income and middle-income countries. This paper aims to present an updated analysis of medicine affordability, availability, and pricing across 54 countries using the WHO-HAI method, highlighting disparities between public and private sectors.

methodsA search was conducted using the HAI Essential Medicines Access Database and four electronic databases to locate studies using the WHO-HAI method. A total of 71 surveys were included, spanning 54 countries. Data concerned with availability, affordability, and pricing were extracted and synthesised. Availability was defined as the average percentage of outlets stocking a medicine on the survey day; affordability was defined as the days' wages of the lowest-paid unskilled government worker required for a standard treatment; and prices were defined as the medicine's median price relative to the Management Sciences for Health international reference median price. Results are presented for the 15 most reported medicines that were included in at least 75% of surveys. Results are also presented for four commonly used medicines selected to facilitate comparison with previous secondary analyses.

findingsThe average availability of generic medicines across WHO regions ranged from 37·8% to 68·3% in the public sector and from 42·3% to 77·4% in the private sector. The availability of originator brand medicines in the private sector ranged from 18·0% to 47·6% across these regions. Neither the public nor the private sector in any region met WHO's recommended availability target of 80%. Medicine prices were consistently high across all WHO regions, requiring patients to pay 3·0-11·5 times international reference prices for lowest-priced generic medicines and over 25 times international reference prices for originator products across WHO regions. Treatment of both acute and chronic illnesses remained unaffordable in many regions, requiring patients to pay 0·2-37·0 days' wages to purchase a single course of medicine.

interpretationAccess to essential medicines remains a global challenge. Medicines consistently display high prices, low affordability, and poor availability. Although there have been some advancements, the overall accessibility of essential medicines remains a substantial global concern. Innovative and targeted strategies are essential to enhance access, requiring a concerted effort from governments, health-care organisations, and international bodies to implement solutions that address both economic and logistical barriers.

fundingNone.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesHealth Services AccessibilityAdultDrug CostsDrugs, EssentialHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsPrivate SectorPublic SectorDrugs, EssentialPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.