13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Selecting an appropriate strategy to make quality 7.1 % chlorhexidine digluconate accessible for umbilical cord care

      editorial

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Achieving increased access to medicines in low- and middle-income countries is a complex issue that requires a holistic approach. Choosing an appropriate manufacturing strategy that can ensure a sustainable supply of these medicines is an essential component of that approach. The Chlorhexidine Working Group, a consortium of more than 25 international organizations, donors, and manufacturers led by PATH, has been working to increase access to 7.1 % chlorhexidine digluconate for umbilical cord care in low- and middle-income countries to reduce neonatal mortality due to infection. The working group initially considered two strategies for manufacture of this commodity: (1) production and global distribution by a multinational company; and (2) production and regional distribution by locally owned companies or subsidiaries of multinational companies based in low- and middle-income countries. Local production may be beneficial to public health and economic development in these countries, yet capability and capacity of pharmaceutical manufacturers, regulatory and legal provisions, and market factors must be carefully assessed and addressed to ensure that local production is the correct strategy and that it contributes to improved access to the medicine. To date, this effort to implement a local production strategy has resulted in successful registration of 7.1 % chlorhexidine digluconate for umbilical cord care by manufacturers in Bangladesh, Kenya, Nepal, and Nigeria. Additionally, the product is now available in domestic and export markets.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          25 years of the WHO essential medicines lists: progress and challenges.

          The first WHO essential drugs list, published in 1977, was described as a peaceful revolution in international public health. The list helped to establish the principle that some medicines were more useful than others and that essential medicines were often inaccessible to many populations. Since then, the essential medicines list (EML) has increased in size; defining an essential medicine has moved from an experience to an evidence-based process, including criteria such as public-health relevance, efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. High priced medicines such as antiretrovirals are now included. Differences exist between the WHO model EML and national EMLs since countries face varying challenges relating to costs, drug effectiveness, morbidity patterns, and rationality of prescribing. Ensuring equitable access to and rational use of essential medicines has been promoted through WHO's revised drug strategy. This approach has required an engagement by WHO on issues such as the effect of international trade agreements on access to essential medicines and research and development to ensure availability of new essential medicines.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The effect of umbilical cord cleansing with chlorhexidine on omphalitis and neonatal mortality in community settings in developing countries: a meta-analysis

            Background There is an increased risk of serious neonatal infection arising through exposure of the umbilical cord to invasive pathogen in home and facility births where hygienic practices are difficult to achieve. The World Health Organization currently recommends ‘dry cord care’ because of insufficient data in favor of or against topical application of an antiseptic. The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effects of application of chlorhexidine (CHX) to the umbilical cord to children born in low income countries on cord infection (omphalitis) and neonatal mortality. Standardized guidelines of Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG) were followed to generate estimates of effectiveness of topical chlorhexidine application to umbilical cord for prevention of sepsis specific mortality, for inclusion in the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources included Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINHAL and WHO international clinical trials registry. Only randomized trials were included. Studies of children in hospital settings were excluded. The comparison group received no application to the umbilical cord (dry cord care), no intervention, or a non-CHX intervention. Primary outcomes were omphalitis and all-cause neonatal mortality. Results There were three cluster-randomised community trials (total participants 54,624) conducted in Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan that assessed impact of CHX application to the newborn umbilical cord for prevention of cord infection and mortality. Application of any CHX to the umbilical cord of the newborn led to a 23% reduction in all-cause neonatal mortality in the intervention group compared to control [RR 0.77, 95 % CI 0.63, 0.94; random effects model, I2=50 %]. The reduction in omphalitis ranged from 27 % to 56 % compared to control group depending on severity of infection. Based on CHERG rules, effect size for all-cause mortality was used for inclusion to LiST model as a proxy for sepsis specific mortality. Conclusions Application of CHX to newborn umbilical cord can significantly reduce incidence of umbilical cord infection and all-cause mortality among home births in community settings. This inexpensive and simple intervention can save a significant number of newborn lives in developing countries.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Economic evaluation of neonatal care packages in a cluster-randomized controlled trial in Sylhet, Bangladesh

              Objective To evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of two strategies for neonatal care in Sylhet division, Bangladesh. Methods In a cluster-randomized controlled trial, two strategies for neonatal care – known as home care and community care – were compared with existing services. For each study arm, economic costs were estimated from a societal perspective, inclusive of programme costs, provider costs and household out-of-pocket payments on care-seeking. Neonatal mortality in each study arm was determined through household surveys. The incremental cost-effectiveness of each strategy – compared with that of the pre-existing levels of maternal and neonatal care – was then estimated. The levels of uncertainty in our estimates were quantified through probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Findings The incremental programme costs of implementing the home-care package were 2939 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1833–7616) United States dollars (US$) per neonatal death averted and US$ 103.49 (95% CI: 64.72–265.93) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. The corresponding total societal costs were US$ 2971 (95% CI: 1844–7628) and US$ 104.62 (95% CI: 65.15–266.60), respectively. The home-care package was cost-effective – with 95% certainty – if healthy life years were valued above US$ 214 per DALY averted. In contrast, implementation of the community-care strategy led to no reduction in neonatal mortality and did not appear to be cost-effective. Conclusion The home-care package represents a highly cost-effective intervention strategy that should be considered for replication and scale-up in Bangladesh and similar settings elsewhere.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                mmetzler@path.org
                pcoffey@path.org
                Journal
                J Pharm Policy Pract
                J Pharm Policy Pract
                Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
                BioMed Central (London )
                2052-3211
                8 April 2016
                8 April 2016
                2016
                : 9
                : 14
                Affiliations
                PATH, 2201 Westlake Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98121 USA
                Article
                63
                10.1186/s40545-016-0063-9
                4826508
                27066258
                4183bfc2-7768-44a4-8044-987569602dd0
                © Metzler and Coffey. 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 21 September 2015
                : 4 April 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000200, United States Agency for International Development;
                Award ID: HealthTech Cooperative Agreement #AID-OAA-A-11-00051
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100006641, UNICEF (US);
                Award ID: United Nations Commission on LifeSaving Commodities for Women and Children
                Categories
                Commentary
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                essential medicines,local manufacturing,product availability,quality assurance,chlorhexidine,neonatal mortality,cord care

                Comments

                Comment on this article