Background: Developing countries, such as the Philippines, started implementing policies to improve access to medicines, which is a vital step toward universal healthcare coverage. This study aimed to evaluate the prices, availability and affordability of prescribed medicines for diabetes, hypercholesterolemia and hypertension with the exemption of 12% value-added tax in the Philippines. Methods: The prices and availability of 50 medicines were collected in August 2019 from 36 public and 42 private medicine outlets in six regions of the Philippines, following a modified methodology developed by the World Health Organization and Health Action International. Availability is reported as the percentage of outlets in which the surveyed medicine was found at the time of visit. Medicine prices are expressed as median unit prices (MUPs) in Philippine Peso. Affordability is calculated based on the number of days’ wages required for the lowest-paid unskilled government worker to purchase a monthly treatment. Results: The mean availability of surveyed medicines was low in both public and private sectors, with 1.3% for originator brands (OBs) and 25.0% for lowest-priced generics (LPGs) in public outlets, and 34.7% and 35.4% in private outlets, respectively. The MUP of medicines were higher in private outlets, and OBs have higher unit price compared to the generic equivalents. Treatments with OBs were unaffordable, except for gliclazide, but the affordability of most LPGs is generally good. Conclusion: Access to medicines in both sectors was affected by low availability. High prices of OBs influenced the affordability of medicines even with tax exemption. A review of policies and regulations should be initiated for a better access to medicines in the Philippines.

Background: Resistance to antibiotics is one of the major global health challenges. An adequate understanding of the public regarding rational antibiotic use is a prerequisite to limit progression in antibiotic resistance. This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance among customers visiting community pharmacies. Methods: This study was undertaken in three capital cities in China during March 2019 and July 2019 by using a questionnaire of 28 items. The questionnaire had four parts, including sociodemographic characteristics, KAP about antibiotics, and antibiotic resistance. A systematic random sampling approach was used to recruit the participants. Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests were carried out for data analysis. Results: The response rate was 66.7% (1800/2700). Out of the total, only 9.7% of the customers had good knowledge about antibiotics. Nearly half of the participants were unable to differentiate between antibiotics, and anti-inflammatory drugs (n = 820, 45.6%, Median = 2, IQR = 1). Most of the customers were of the view that the use of over the counter antibiotics in pregnant women is unsafe (n = 1307, 72.6%, Median = 2, IQR = 0). Almost half of the participants disagreed that costly antibiotics are more effective and have fewer side effects (n = 897, 49.9%, Median = 3, IQR = 1). Only 22.3% of participants said that they always finish the course of antibiotic treatment (n = 401, 22.3%, Median = 3, IQR = 1). Conclusion: The knowledge of Chinese pharmacy consumers was inadequate, and a lack of good attitudes and practices in certain aspects of antibiotic use was observed. Educational interventions are needed to increase public knowledge of antibiotics.

Objective To evaluate the impact of new National Drug Pricing Policy (NDPP) 2018 on access to medicines in terms of prices, availability and affordability. Design Two cross-sectional surveys were undertaken before and after the launch of NDPP 2018, using a modified WHO/Health Action International (WHO/HAI) methodology. Setting Four districts of Lahore division, Pakistan. Participants 16 public sector hospitals and 16 private sector retail pharmacies. Measures The pre and post survey data on prices and availability of lowest price generics (LPGs) and originator brands (OBs) of 50 medicines were obtained by visiting the same public and private sector health facilities (n=32). Out of 50, 46 surveyed medicines were from the National Essential Medicines List. Inflation-adjusted median unit prices (MUPs) and median price ratios (MPRs) from 2019 were used for price comparison. Affordability was calculated in terms of number of days’ wages required to get a standard treatment by the lowest paid unskilled government worker. Results The overall mean percent availabilities remained poor in both years, that is, far less than 80%. In the public sector, the mean percent availability of OBs improved from 6.8% to 33.1%, whereas, in the case of LPGs, it was reduced from 35.1% to 9%. In the private sector, the mean percent availability of both OBs and LPGs demonstrated slight improvements in 2019, that is, 55.0%–58.3% and 20.3%–32.3%. The adjusted MUPs and MPRs of OBs significantly increased by a median of 4.29% (Wilcoxon test p=0.001, p=0.0001), whereas the adjusted MUPs and MPRs of LPGs increased by a median of 15.7% (p=0.002, p=0.0002). Overall, the affordability of many medicines for common ailments was reduced significantly in 2019. Conclusions The availability of medicines slightly improved, except in the case of LPGs, which was reduced in the public sector. The implementation of NDPP 2018 led to increase in drug prices, making the standard treatment for some of the most prevalent ailments unaffordable. So verily, the drug pricing policy must be reviewed to ensure access to essential medicines.

Objective: Drug promotion is a factor that promotes the irrational use of drugs and sometimes negatively influences the prescribing/dispensing pattern. So there was a need to assess the views about accepting gifts and attitudes/influence towards drug promotion among community pharmacists in Punjab, Pakistan. Setting: Adopting a preused questionnaire, we conducted a cross-sectional multiple-site survey study. We distributed questionnaires to pharmacists in the community pharmacies to investigate the exposure, scepticism and acceptance to drug promotion as well as their perception about the appropriateness of gifts and to check if they had been taught about dealing with medical representatives. Data were analysed in simple percentages, and the χ ² test was used to evaluate association with demographics. All the analysis was done using SPSS V.23.0. Results: A total 86.9% (463/533) pharmacists completed the survey. One out of four pharmacists reported being taught about the ethics of drug promotion (26.8%) and about how to interpret drug promotional material (25.0%) and were significantly associated with higher age (age 31%–35 years, 81.9%; p<0.05). More than two-thirds of the respondents found it appropriate to accept stationery (73.4%) and textbooks (70.6%) as gifts, and only 17.5% felt it was appropriate to accept direct money. Less than half of the pharmacists (47.3%) perceived drug companies were useful for gaining knowledge about new drugs. Majority (76.2%) thought these drug promotions play a role in the irrational prescribing of antibiotics and 18.6% dispensed antibiotics due to these promotions. Conclusion: The majority of pharmacists participating in this study felt it was appropriate to receive small value gifts from pharmaceutical companies. Only a small proportion of the respondents was given ethical training and education about drug promotion. Improving the syllabus and updating the pharmacist’s knowledge after graduation, as part of continued pharmacy education, will eventually improve the healthcare professionals’ capability to act for the patients’ welfare.

University students are a sub-group of the population at high risk of COVID-19 infection, and their judgments on vaccination affect the public attitudes towards vaccination. Thus, the present study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine among pharmacy and non-pharmacy students. A cross-sectional study was conducted by enrolling pharmacy (375) and non-pharmacy (225) students from the universities in Lahore. Chi-square analysis was used for significant frequency distributions and a 5-point Likert scale was used to score attitude, perception, and acceptance. The majority of the students were aged between 19–24 years, hailing from urban and middle-class families with good self-reported health. The preferred vaccine was Pfizer, followed by Sinopharm and Sinovac. The major source of information was social media, followed by government campaigns and family members. The pharmacy students demonstrated better knowledge and positive attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. The non-pharmacy students scored higher for the questions based on scientific leads, myths, and baffling conspiracies. The non-pharmacy students showed higher hesitancy/barrier total scores related to their trust in the health system, COVID-19 vaccine storage, and efficacy. Data suggested that pharmacy students exhibited better knowledge, positive attitudes, and perceptions about COVID-19 vaccination. Overall, vaccine efficacy and safety were mutual concerns. Nonetheless, non-pharmacy students were hesitant due to mistrust in the health system of Pakistan.

Background: Pakistan faces the highest global prevalence of diabetes and has recently implemented a price deregulation policy for medicines not listed on the National Essential Medicines List (NEML). Pakistan’s NEML 2023 is a direct adoption of the 23 ^rd WHO Model EML rather than a country-specific prioritization; nonetheless, it has been used to identify medicines for exemption from price controls. Methods: This study evaluated the effect of the price deregulation policy on insulin access in Pakistan. We surveyed 30 retail pharmacies across six regions using an adapted WHO/HAI approach. Post-deregulation data on consumer prices and availability were collected. Pre-deregulation prices were extracted from published sources. The insulin prices were standardized to 10 ml at 100 IU/ml. Difference-in-Differences (DiD) analysis was used to compare price changes between non-NEML insulins (treatment group) and NEML-listed insulins (control group), with each insulin product serving as the unit of analysis. The percentage of available insulin products and their affordability for the lowest-paid worker were calculated. Non-parametric tests were performed for categorical analyses. Results: Overall, the median price of insulins increased by 31.87% ( p < 0.001) i.e., from PKR 2030 (7.3 USD) to PKR 2678 (9.6 USD), after deregulation, except for short-acting human biosimilar (BS) insulins that stayed stable. As per the DiD-interaction term, prices of non-NEML insulins increased by 4.1 USD ( p < 0.001) more than NEML insulins after deregulation. The median number of days’ wages for the lowest-paid worker increased from 1.90 days before deregulation to 2.51 days after, to obtain a month’s insulin supply. All surveyed outlets had at least one insulin product available. Originator brands (OB) had higher availability than BS, with 78.0% of human and 48.8% of analogue insulins available as OBs, compared to 51.1% and only 8.3% as BS insulins, respectively. Conclusion: Insulin prices increased significantly following the deregulation policy, particularly for non-NEML OBs, leading to reduced affordability despite fair availability. A policy review and stronger financial protection measures are needed to ensure equitable access to insulin.