Abstract

Every two years, the World Health Organization (WHO) updates its Model List of Essential Medicines, intended as a guide for countries to adopt or adapt in accordance with local priorities and treatment guidelines, for the development of national essential medicines lists. When more than one therapeutic option is available for a given indication, the WHO Model List often includes a single medicine as representative of a group of equivalent and interchangeable medicines. The representative medicine of that group is listed with an accompanying ‘square box’ symbol. The intended purpose of the square box is to highlight pharmacological classes or groups of medicines for which countries, institutions and health professionals can assume homogeneous therapeutic efficacy and safety and select the most appropriate single medicine based on price, local availability, and acceptability. Though this concept of therapeutic equivalence within a therapeutic class has been endorsed by most authoritative textbooks of pharmacology since Goodman & Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics and evidence-based guidelines, marketing forces have often made claims on individual drugs to distinguish them beyond relevant differences shown by reliable evidence: this has generated the concept of “me-too drugs” with its double meaning—i.e., market latecomers differing minimally from products preceding them and whose marketing budgets have significant opportunity costs, or medicines which may be useful to substitute for equivalent products in the event of shortages. The square box concept is applied in the context of a comprehensive list: therapeutic equivalence or interchangeability cannot always be easily established. Different interpretations have been applied to different groups of medicines over the 40+ year history of the Model List. This paper presents the concept of the square box, provides key examples and guidance on how square box listings should be practically interpreted in the development and implementation of national essential medicine lists, considers the applicability of a square box listing concept to biologic medicines and proposes that an updated review of the square box concept and listings is warranted.

Highlights

  • Markets are filled with thousands of medicines: many are similar pharmacological analogs, offering little, if any, additional clinical benefit in comparison

  • The World Health Organization (WHO) Model List of Essential Medicines was first published in 1977 and has since been recognized as a revolution in public health; introducing the notion that some medicines are more important than others ('t Hoen et al, 2014)

  • The aim of this review is to provide guidance for decisionmakers to interpret square box listings on the WHO Model List in developing and implementing national essential medicine lists

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Markets are filled with thousands of medicines: many are similar pharmacological analogs (so-called “me-too drugs”), offering little, if any, additional clinical benefit in comparison. Current examples of unrestricted square box listings include proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for peptic ulcer and gastroesophageal reflux disease and HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for hyperlipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease, represented on the Model List by omeprazole and simvastatin, respectively These listings should be interpreted to mean that PPIs and statins have similar clinical performance within their pharmacological classes and represent a group of medicines from which countries can select the most appropriate for their national lists. The square box is used to indicate interchangeability, based on therapeutic indication, of medicines with different pharmacological properties but considered to be therapeutically equivalent alternatives This use of the square box is only seen in circumstances where comprehensive reviews of efficacy and safety support a conclusion of therapeutic equivalence and when use of the medicines is consistent with recognized clinical guidelines. While methadone and buprenorphine differ in their pharmacological properties, they were considered appropriate therapeutic alternatives for use as substitution therapy for opioid dependence based on the available evidence

4: Chemical subgroup 5
C C10 C10A
Findings
CONCLUSIONS
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call