World Health Organization Prequalification Programme Research Articles

Barriers to WHO prequalification of similar biotherapeutic insulin.

To identify the barriers preventing manufacturers of similar biotherapeutic human insulin from submitting their products to the World Health Organization (WHO) for prequalification. We used a self-administered questionnaire to collect data from companies producing similar biotherapeutic human insulin. We included questions about the insulin products manufactured, knowledge of WHO prequalification requirements, export of the products and compliance with good manufacturing practices. Companies had the possibility to provide additional relevant information. We sent the questionnaire to 20 manufacturers in total. We evaluated responses and organized the data into themes. We had a response rate of 55% (11/20 companies). Five broad themes emerged: (i)manufacturers and products; (ii)expressions of interest awareness and participation; (iii)need for technical assistance and training; (iv)market and supply chain challenges; and (v)approval for good manufacturing practices. The most important reasons for manufacturers' lack of response to WHO's expression-of-interest invitation were absence of a mechanism to guarantee return on investment, and perceived complexity of prequalification requirements for insulin-similar biotherapeutic products. To encourage greater participation in the WHO prequalification programme, international procurement agencies associated with the programme should consider establishing a platform to enter into advance purchasing agreements with manufacturers. In addition, WHO's Local Production and Assistance Unit should provide companies with ongoing technical assistance on the development of their human insulin products and improvement of their production facilities to comply with the WHO requirements for good manufacturing practices.

Efavirenz listed in the World Health Organization Prequalification Program: A successful case study of a public private collaboration for technology transfer in pharmaceutical production and quality control in Thailand

Efavirenz listed in the World Health Organization Prequalification Program: A successful case study of a public private collaboration for technology transfer in pharmaceutical production and quality control in Thailand

A survey of nongovernmental organizations on their use of WHO's prequalification programme.

ObjectiveTo obtain the perspectives of some small- and medium-sized organizations on the World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification programme for medicines and to ascertain organizations’ unmet needs.MethodsWe conducted an exploratory, qualitative study in 2018 among 17 representatives of 15 small- and medium-sized Belgian and non-Belgian organizations who purchase medicines for humanitarian, development or public programmes in low- and middle-income countries. We used semi-structured interviews to obtain respondents’ views and experiences of using WHO prequalification guidance when procuring medicines. We identified emerging themes and formulated recommendations about the activities of the WHO Prequalification Team.FindingsMost respondents suggested expanding prequalification to essential antibiotics, particularly paediatric formulations; and insulin, antihypertensives and cancer treatments. Respondents were concerned about irregular availability of WHO-prequalified medicines in the marketplace and sometimes high prices of prequalified products. Small organizations, in particular, had difficulties negotiating low-volume purchases. Organizations working in primary health care and hospitals seldom referred to the prequalified lists.ConclusionWe recommend that the WHO-prequalified products be expanded to include essential antibiotics and medicines for noncommunicable diseases. The WHO Prequalification Team could require prequalified manufacturers to make publicly available the details of their authorized distributors and facilitate a process of harmonization of quality assurance policies across all donors. Prequalification of distributors and procurement agencies could help create more transparent and stringent mechanisms. We urge WHO Member States and funders to sustain support for the WHO Prequalification Team, which remains important for the fulfilment of universal health coverage.

The World Health Organization Prequalification Program and Clinical Pharmacology in 2030.

The World Health Organization Prequalification Program and Clinical Pharmacology in 2030.

Global Harmonization of Comparator Products for Bioequivalence Studies.

Comparator products should be the products that were shown to be safe and efficacious in pivotal clinical trials to ensure prescribability of generics. The use of a common comparator ensures switchability between generics. The selection of the comparator is a national responsibility and may be different between countries. This paper discusses the current recommendations on selection of comparators, the associated problems, and the possibility of harmonization. Most countries follow the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for selecting comparator products and require the comparator product to be obtained from their national markets to ensure switchability between the local comparator and their generics. These recommendations are only feasible in the few countries where the repetition of the bioequivalence study is economically feasible, but they are impracticable in all other countries. Furthermore, the exclusive use of the local comparator to ensure switchability is ethically and scientifically questionable. The innovator product from well-regulated markets should be the global comparator. This harmonization is feasible as the concept already applies in the WHO prequalification program. It is ineffectual to harmonize only the requirements for performing bioequivalence studies, if such a study has to be repeated for every single country simply because of the different comparator products.

Challenges and Priorities in the Management of HIV/HBV and HIV/HCV Coinfection in Resource-Limited Settings

Liver disease due to chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is now emerging as an increasing cause of morbidity and mortality in human immunodeficiency virus- (HIV-) infected persons in resource-limited settings (RLS). Existing management guidelines have generally focused on care in tertiary level facilities in developed countries. Less than half of low-income countries have guidance, and in those that do, there are important omissions or disparities in recommendations. There are multiple challenges to delivery of effective hepatitis care in RLS, but the most important remains the limited access to antiviral drugs and diagnostic tests. In 2010, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a comprehensive approach for the prevention, control, and management of viral hepatitis. We describe activities at the World Health Organization (WHO) in three key areas: the establishment of a global hepatitis Program and interim strategy; steps toward the development of global guidance on management of coinfection for RLS; and the WHO prequalification program of HBV and HCV diagnostic assays. We highlight key research gaps and the importance of applying the lessons learned from the public health scale-up of ART to hepatitis care.

The Biowaiver Procedure: Its Application to Antituberculosis Products in the WHO Prequalification Programme

In 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed that provided an active pharmaceutical ingredient could meet certain criteria, bioequivalence could be evaluated with a set of laboratory tests, obviating the need for expensive and time-consuming pharmacokinetic studies in humans. The aim of this work was to determine whether this so-called "biowaiver" procedure can be applied to antituberculosis products. Antituberculosis products from the WHO Prequalification Programme, including three ethambutol, two isoniazid and one pyrazinamide product, were investigated. In vitro dissolution data for these products were generated according to the biowaiver method stipulated in the WHO Guidance, and the bioequivalence decision based on these data was compared with that based on the corresponding in vivo pharmacokinetic data. In no case was a "false positive" bioequivalence decision reached using the biowaiver procedure, that is, all products deemed bioequivalent according to the biowaiver methods also proved to be bioequivalent in the corresponding pharmacokinetic study. These findings open the way to a simplified method of ensuring bioequivalence of antituberculosis drug products, thereby improving access to high quality antituberculosis medicines for a greater number of patients.

The global pediatric antiretroviral market: analyses of product availability and utilization reveal challenges for development of pediatric formulations and HIV/AIDS treatment in children

BackgroundImportant advances in the development and production of quality-certified pediatric antiretroviral (ARV) formulations have recently been made despite significant market disincentives for manufacturers. This progress resulted from lobbying and innovative interventions from HIV/AIDS activists, civil society organizations, and international organizations. Research on uptake and dispersion of these improved products across countries and international organizations has not been conducted but is needed to inform next steps towards improving child health.MethodsWe used information from the World Health Organization Prequalification Programme and the United States Food and Drug Administration to describe trends in quality-certification of pediatric formulations and used 7,989 donor-funded, pediatric ARV purchase transactions from 2002-2009 to measure uptake and dispersion of new pediatric ARV formulations across countries and programs. Prices for new pediatric ARV formulations were compared to alternative dosage forms.ResultsFewer ARV options exist for HIV/AIDS treatment in children than adults. Before 2005, most pediatric ARVs were produced by innovator companies in single-component solid and liquid forms. Five 2-in1 and four 3-in-1 generic pediatric fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in solid and dispersible forms have been quality-certified since 2005. Most (67%) of these were produced by one quality-certified manufacturer. Uptake of new pediatric FDCs outside of UNITAID is low. UNITAID accounted for 97-100% of 2008-2009 market volume. In total, 33 and 34 countries reported solid or dispersible FDC purchases in 2008 and 2009, respectively, but most purchases were made through UNITAID. Only three Global Fund country recipients reported purchase of these FDCs in 2008. Prices for pediatric FDCs were considerably lower than liquids but typically higher than half of an adult FDC.ConclusionPediatric ARV markets are more fragile than adult markets. Ensuring a long-term supply of quality, well-adapted ARVs for children requires ongoing monitoring and improved understanding of global pediatric markets, including country-based research to explain and address low uptake of new, improved formulations. Continued innovation in pediatric ARV development may be threatened by outdated procurement practices failing to connect clinicians making prescribing decisions, supply chain staff dealing with logistics, donors, international organizations, and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Perceptions of global demand must be better informed by accurate estimates of actual country-level demand.

Intervening in global markets to improve access to HIV/AIDS treatment: an analysis of international policies and the dynamics of global antiretroviral medicines markets

BackgroundUniversal access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) in low- and middle-income countries faces numerous challenges: increasing numbers of people needing ART, new guidelines recommending more expensive antiretroviral (ARV) medicines, limited financing, and few fixed-dose combination (FDC) products. Global initiatives aim to promote efficient global ARV markets, yet little is known about market dynamics and the impact of global policy interventions.MethodsWe utilize several data sources, including 12,958 donor-funded, adult first-line ARV purchase transactions, to describe the market from 2002-2008. We examine relationships between market trends and: World Health Organization (WHO) HIV/AIDS treatment guidelines; WHO Prequalification Programme (WHO Prequal) and United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals; and procurement policies of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (GFATM), US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and UNITAID.ResultsWHO recommended 7, 4, 24, and 6 first-line regimens in 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2009 guidelines, respectively. 2009 guidelines replaced a stavudine-based regimen ($88/person/year) with more expensive zidovudine- ($154-260/person/year) or tenofovir-based ($244-465/person/year) regimens. Purchase volumes for ARVs newly-recommended in 2006 (emtricitabine, tenofovir) increased >15-fold from 2006 to 2008. Twenty-four generic FDCs were quality-approved for older regimens but only four for newer regimens. Generic FDCs were available to GFATM recipients in 2004 but to PEPFAR recipients only after FDA approval in 2006. Price trends for single-component generic medicines mirrored generic FDC prices. Two large-scale purchasers, PEPFAR and UNITAID, together accounted for 53%, 84%, and 77% of market volume for abacavir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir, respectively, in 2008. PEPFAR and UNITAID purchases were often split across two manufacturers.ConclusionsGlobal initiatives facilitated the creation of fairly efficient markets for older ARVs, but markets for newer ARVs are less competitive and slower to evolve. WHO guidelines shape demand, and their complexity may help or hinder achievement of economies of scale in pharmaceutical manufacturing. Certification programs assure ARV quality but can delay uptake of new formulations. Large-scale procurement policies may decrease the numbers of buyers and sellers, rendering the market less competitive in the longer-term. Global policies must be developed with consideration for their short- and long-term impact on market dynamics.