Obesity drugs will not join the World Health Organization's (WHO) latest essential medicines list, but treatments for diseases, including Ebola and multiple sclerosis will, documents published by the U.N. agency show.
The WHO's essential medicines list is a catalogue of the drugs that should be available in all functioning health systems.
Inclusion on the list can have great significance for access: for example, experts say adding HIV drugs in 2002 helped make them much more widely available to AIDS patients in poorer countries.
A group of U.S. academics had proposed including obesity drugs on the WHO list for the first time earlier this year, focused particularly on the active ingredient liraglutide in Novo Nordisk's obesity drug Saxenda.
But a WHO expert panel recommended against adding the drugs for weight loss, citing the "uncertain long-term clinical benefit and safety in this patient population".
Benedikt Huttner, WHO team lead for the EML, said that there were also "uncertainties" about how long to use the treatments "because often when you stop the treatments there is a rebound in weight gain".
But he said the medicines may be reconsidered in future when there is more long-term evidence.
The decision is part of a wider update of the list following an expert meeting in Geneva in April. The document is designed to guide government purchasing decisions in low and middle-income countries.
Experts did back adding other new treatments. For example, a trio of drugs that can individually be used to treat multiple sclerosis were added for the first time, including the generic and biosimilar versions where available.
The three drugs are cladribine, branded Mavenclad by EMD Serono and Merck KGaA; glatiramer acetate, branded Copaxone and sold by Teva Pharmaceuticals; and rituximab, branded as Rituxan/Mabthera and usually sold by Roche.
The panel said their inclusion would "address an important public health need and support global advocacy efforts to reduce the global burden of multiple sclerosis".
"Rising prices and supply chain disruptions mean that all countries now face increasing problems in ensuring consistent and equitable access to many quality-assured essential medicines," said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO-Director General, in a statement.
"WHO is committed to supporting all countries to overcome these obstacles to increase access with equity."
Two monoclonal antibody treatments for Ebola Zaire were also added to the list: anzuvimab, made by Ridgeback Biotherapeutics with the brand name Ebanga; and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals' Inmazeb, made up of atoltivimab, maftivimab and odesivimab combined.
Naltrexone and acamprosate, both available as generics and designed to treat alcohol-use disorder, were also added, as well as ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) to treat severe malnutrition in children under the age of five.
In total, 36 items were added to the lists for adults and children, bringing them up to 502 medicines for adults and 361 for children.
For COVID-19, the WHO experts suggested adding a section on therapeutics pointing to the U.N. agency's regularly updated COVID treatment guidelines, rather than including individual medicines, given the fast-changing epidemic and the fact that the essential list is only updated every two years.
Sunscreen for the prevention of skin cancer, particularly for people with albinism, was rejected by the experts. They acknowledged the importance of the product for everyone, but said more research was needed before it would be suitable for the list.
The new versions of the list - the 23rd for adults and 9th for children - will be published in full later this year.
© Thomson Reuters 2023.
5 Comments
virusrex
A show of the huge value the WHO has for the different public health services of the world, and why so many countries give importance to what the global public health authority says.
The article clearly list the factors that made the obesity drugs not likely to be included, these factors are not exactly unknown and that is why the decision was not exactly surprising. On the other hand the inclusion of the treatments for Alcoholism, MS and Ebola signal how both diseases are being considered of particular importance.
Interesting also that sunscreen did not make the list, it is quite obviously important, but since cheap options are also easily available it may explain why there was no rush to support the access.
151E
Wearing a wide brimmed hat, as well as long, loose fitting clothing, and retiring periodically under the shade is a far healthier strategy to minimize the risk of sunburn rather than slathering yourself with some chemical sunscreen that can cross the blood brain barrier.
cuddly
A group of U.S. academics had proposed including obesity drugs on the WHO list for the first time
The experts speak.
But a WHO expert panel recommended against adding the drugs
Oh, alleged experts say the opposite.
Huge value? The country with the most advanced medicine in the world has a different thought.
And just last week you were agreeing manically with the use of these weight loss drugs.
Regardless, so now you realize that eating and exercising properly is the best way to keep weight off.
fatrainfallingintheforest
Good call. Celebrities and rich people might like to use these types of drugs off-label in order to lose a few pounds for a red carpet or to fit into a new dress, but with their long list of harmful side effects, crippling costs, uncertain long-term outcomes, and with them replacing the long-understood benefits of diet and exercise with a quick-fix solution, these drugs should be studied and improved further before inclusion on an influential list of essential medicines.
virusrex
The experts of the global authority in public health rejected the proposal of the US academics, there is nothing strange with that, US problems and priorities are not the world problems and priorities.
Do you have anything to contradict the expertise of the professionals that conform the panel? obviously a nameless person on the internet trying to contest the valid appeal to authority of the WHO is not an argument, it is not even an excuse.
That claim is false, when did any country said the inclusion of drugs into the essential list do not promote their availability? that is what you are contesting.
Drugs being useful and being essential are two very different things, your confusion comes only from seeing everything only as a dual proposition, which makes no sense.
Not for the people for which this simplistic approach is very likely to fail for many different reasons.
The huge difference is that not all countries have such a big problem with obesity as the US has, so they do not get as many benefits from the drugs to offset the risks.