Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2022 Dec 16;2(12):e0001309. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001309

Availability, affordability and access to essential medications for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in three low- and middle-income country settings

Trishul Siddharthan 1,2,3,*, Nicole M Robertson 3,4, Natalie A Rykiel 2,3, Lindsay J Underhill 2,3, Nihaal Rahman 3, Sujan Kafle 5, Sakshi Mohan 6, Roma Padalkar 7, Sarah McKeown 8, Oscar Flores-Flores 8,9, Shumonta A Quaderi 10, Patricia Alupo 11, Robert Kalyesubula 12, Bruce Kirenga 11, Jing Luo 13, Maria Kathia Cárdenas 14, Gonzalo Gianella 14, J Jaime Miranda 14,15, William Checkley 2,3,8, John R Hurst 10, Suzanne L Pollard 2,3,8
Editor: Hassan Haghparast Bidgoli16
PMCID: PMC10021856  PMID: 36962898

Abstract

Introduction

Despite the rising burden of chronic respiratory disease globally, and although many respiratory medications are included in the World Health Organization Essential Medications List (WHO-EML), there is limited information concerning the availability and affordability of treatment drugs for respiratory conditions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods

All public and private pharmacies in catchment areas of the Global Excellence in COPD outcomes (GECo) study sites in Bhaktapur, Nepal, Lima, Peru, and Nakaseke, Uganda, were approached in 2017–2019 to assess pricing and availability of medications for the management of asthma and COPD.

Results

We surveyed all 63 pharmacies in respective study areas in Nepal (95.2% private), 104 pharmacies in Peru (94.2% private) and 53 pharmacies in Uganda (98.1% private). The availability of any medication for respiratory disease was higher in private (93.3%) compared to public (73.3%) pharmacies. Salbutamol (WHO-EML) monotherapy in any formulation was the most commonly available respiratory medication among the three sites (93.7% Nepal, 86.5% Peru and 79.2% Uganda) while beclomethasone (WHO-EML) was only available in Peru (33.7%) and Nepal (22%). LABA-LAMA combination therapy was only available in Nepal (14.3% of pharmacies surveyed). The monthly treatment cost of respiratory medications was lowest in Nepal according to several cost metrics: the overall monthly cost, the median price ratio comparing medication costs to international reference prices at time of survey in dollars, and in terms of days’ wages of the lowest-paid government worker. For the treatment of intermittent asthma, defined as 100 mcg Salbutamol/Albuterol inhaler, days’ wages ranged from 0.47 days in Nepal and Peru to 3.33 days in Uganda.

Conclusion

The availability and pricing of respiratory medications varied across LMIC settings, with medications for acute care of respiratory diseases being more widely available than those for long-term management.

Introduction

The burden of chronic respiratory disease is increasing globally, with the highest disease-related morbidity and mortality ocurring in low- and- middle-income countries (LMICs). Obstructive respiratory disease such as asthma and chronic obstructive pumonary disease (COPD) affect an estimated 174 million and 358 million individuals worldwide, respectively [1, 2]. While asthma and COPD age-standardized death rates have decreased over the past two decades, the majority of these gains have occurred in high-income countries [1]. Individuals in LMIC settings have unique risk factors for chronic respiratory conditions, including household and ambient air pollution, biomass exposure, rapid urbanization, occupational exposure, and prior communicable disease such as pneumonia and TB [3]. Furthermore, significant barriers exist in these settings for effective management of chronic respiratory diseases [4]. These include limited public health literacy pertinent to these conditions, insuffient diagnostic equipment and respiratory specialists, and importantly, inadequate availability and affordability of medications necessary for chronic disease management [5, 6]. As the prevalence of chronic respiratory diseases increase, the lack of access to effective management and essential medications for chronic respiratory diseases have resulted in significant increases in age-standardized disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) attributable to these conditions [1].

A number of studies have examined availability and affordability of essential medications for the management of COPD and asthma in LMIC settings, although these studies have been traditionally limited to a smaller selection of pharmacies in urban and rural centers [7]. Essential medications are defined as those that meet priority health care needs, have strong evidence of efficacy and safety, and are cost effective [6]. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), access to essential medications for noncommunicable diseases has been deemed a health care priority, with a goal of 80% availability of affordable technologies and essential medications to treat non-communicable diseases [8]. The WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) includes beclomethasone, budesonide, budesonide/formoterol, ipratropiom bromide and salbutamol (also known as albuterol) aerosolized therapy, and epinephrine injection, as medications that are considered minimum medicinal needs for a basic health system [8]. Despite global consensus on the need for essential medications for chronic respiratory disease in LMICs, availability of essential medications is limited. When these medications are present at a pharmacy, they are often unaffordable [6, 9].

We surveyed all public and private pharmacies and health centers in three LMIC communities and assessed the availability and affordability of a comprehensive list of medications for the management of asthma and COPD [10]. While prior studies have been conducted in the region, none have assessed all pharmacies within catchment areas to ascertain medication availability beyond the EML, nor have they calculated the cost of therapy based on treatment guidelines utilizing all pharmacy information available [11]. We aimed to develop a comprehensive list of chronic respiratory disease medications to assess treatment costs for asthma and COPD.

Methods

Study design and setting

Global Excellence in COPD Outcomes (GECo) is a population-based study in three distinct geographic and economic regions in Asia, South America, and sub-Saharan Africa [10, 12]. We carried out a cross-sectional survey of public and private pharmacies (including health centers and informal pharmacies) in defined catchment areas in Bhaktapur, Nepal (2019), Lima, Peru (2017), and Nakaseke, Uganda (2019) (see Fig 1 and S1 Data) as part of the parent GECo Study to assess pricing and availability of medications for the management of asthma and COPD [10].

Fig 1. Pharmacy locations in Bhaktapur, Nepal, Lima, Peru, and Nakaseke, Uganda.

Fig 1

All pharmacies surveyed within study catchment areas as indicated by GPS including road networks. OpenStreetMap contributors. (2019) Data Extracts. Retrieved from https://planet.openstreetmap.org. Global Administrative Areas. (2021) GADM database. Retrieved from https://gadm.org/data.html.

This study was reviewed and approved by the University College London Research Ethics Committee (9661/001), Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (IRB00139901), Uganda National Council for Science and Technology, Makerere School of Medicine (SOMREC 2017–096), Nepal Health Research Council (136/2017) and A.B. PRISMA (CE2147.17). Data on medication costs and availability were publicly available and no personal data were collected from pharmacy technicians or pharmacists who were contacted; for those reasons, informed consent was not obtained.

Data collection

Trained data collectors visited all health centers and pharmacies in study areas and surveyed medicine availability and price using a modified version of the WHO-Health Action International Survey [13]. Surveys were conducted during an 8–16-week period between 2017 and 2019. Prices were adjusted based on year of data collection. Pharmacies were surveyed twice if the pharmacy was closed at first visit, or if the pharmacist was unavailable. Data on pharmacy type (public vs private), as well as GPS location and hours of operation were collected. Public pharmacies were defined as being government operated and having free or subsidized pricing for medication. We surveyed all medications used for the management of chronic respiratory disease including inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), short acting beta-agonist (SABA), long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), short-acting muscarinic agent (SAMA), long-acting muscarinic agent (LAMA), theophylline/aminophylline as well for treatment of exacerbations (steroids and antibiotics). Data on the management of asthma (certain SABA, ICS, LAMA, LABA) was collected in Peru, whereas additional data pertaining to COPD was collected in Uganda and Nepal (LAMA). Medications included in the survey for each country are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Availability of respiratory medications in Bhakthapur Nepal, Lima Peru and Nakaseke Uganda by generic and brand name.

Grey indicates no available data.

Medication Category Medication Frequency of Pharmacies Stocking n (%)
Nepal (n = 63) Peru (n = 104) Uganda (n = 53)
Generic Brand Generic Brand Generic Brand
Antibiotics Amoxicillin 63 (100) 0 38 (71.7) 0
Amoxicillin +Clavulanic Acid 54 (85.7) 0 6 (11.3) 2 (3.8)
Ampicillin-Cloxacillin 0 0 33 (62.3) 0
Azithromycin 60 (95.2) 0 8 (15.1) 0
Cefpodoxime 30 (47.6) 0 0 0
Cefpodoxime + Clavulanic Acid 17 (27.0) 0 0 0
Ciprofloxacin 0 0 34 (64.2) 0
Clarithromycin 0 0 5 (9.4) 0
Co-trimoxazole 0 0 1 (1.9) 0
Doxycycline 36 (57.1) 0 27 (50.9) 0
Erythromycin 0 0 22 (41.5) 0
Levofloxacin 26 (41.3) 0 7 (13.2) 0
Tetracycline 0 0 13 (24.5) 0
Antihistamines Cetirizine 4 (3.8) 2 (1.9)
Chlorphenamine 4 (3.8) 2 (1.9)
Loratadine 2 (1.9) 1 (1.0)
Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICS) Beclomethasone 14 (22.2) 0 35 (33.7) 1 (1.0) 0 0
Budesonide 26 (41.3) 0 0 0
Fluticasone 8 (12.7) 0 0 6 (5.8) 0 0
ICS + LABA Fluticasone + Salmeterol 45 (71.4) 0 3 (2.9) 5 (4.8) 0 0
Budesonide + Formoterolfuerate 55 (87.3) 0 0 0
ICS + SABA Beclomethasone + Levosalbutamol 15 (23.8) 0 0 0
Beclomethasone + Salbutamol 0 0 2 (1.9) 4 (3.8) 0 0
LABA Salmeterol 19 (30.2) 0 6 (5.8) 1 (1.0) 0 0
LAMA Tiotropium 49 (77.8) 0 0 0
Mucolytic Acetylcysteine 11 (17.5) 0 0 0
LABA + LAMA Formoterol + Tiotropium 9 (14.3) 0 0 0
Oral Corticosteroids (OCS) Prednisolone 40 (63.5) 0 1 (1.0) 11 (10.6) 0 0
Dexamethasone 25 (39.7) 0 81 (77.9) 55 (52.9) 52 (98.1) 0
Prednisone 0 0 91 (87.5) 49 (47.1) 47 (88.7) 0
SABA Salbutamol/Albuterol 60 (95.2) 0 90 (86.5) 40 (38.5) 42 (79.2) 5 (9.4)
Levosalbutamol 3 (4.8) 0 0 0 0 0
Salbutamol + Bromhexine 58 (92.1) 0 0 0
Terbutaline + Bromhexine 59 (93.7) 0 0 0
Salbutamol + Bromhexine + Etofylline 10 (15.9) 0 0 0
SABA +xanthine Salbutamol + Theophylline 11 (17.5) 0 0 0
SAMA Ipratropium bromide 52 (82.5) 0 19 (18.3) 4 (3.8) 0 0
Xanthine Doxofylline 37 (58.7) 0 0 0
Aminophylline 1 (1.6) 0 9 (17.0) 0
Theophylline 11 (17.5) 0 0 0
Theophylline + Etofylline 41 (65.1) 0 0 0

Measurements

For each medication, we collected information on the drug presentation, the availability (available to purchase on the day of the visit) and affordability (retail price unit for each generic or brand name formulation of the medications) [14]. Medications with different formulations (e.g. salbutamol, which comes in inhaler, pill, and syrup form) were asked about separately. Wages for the lowest unskilled government workers were queried from government records at the time of data collection (S1 Data).

We utilized the Management Sciences for Health (MSH) median international reference price for the year preceding the survey at each site. International reference prices were selected as the most useful reference standard because they are widely available, updated frequently, and fairly stable over time. They represent actual procurement prices for medicines offered to LMICs by non-profit suppliers and international tender prices. We estimated the cost of asthma treatment based of Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) treatment guidelines for severity of COPD and asthma diagnosis respectively [15, 16].

Data analysis

For comparison of pricing, we used the WHO List of Essential Medicines (WHO-EMP) and the most frequent dosing of medications available in each country setting. To facilitate international comparisons, price results are presented as median price ratios (MPR), or the ratio of a medicine’s median price across outlets to the MSH [17]. We determined affordability by using standardized metrics including the total cost of a medication for a standard course of one-month’s treatment (the assumed average maintenance dose per day for a drug used for its main indication in adults) based of respiratory disease severity for the lowest-wage government worker [18]. (S1 Data). For descriptive analysis frequencies and proportions were obtained for categorical variables, while means and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated for continuous variables. Paired t tests were used to assess differences between groups All associations were considered statistically significance at P-values of ≤0.05. We used ArcGIS Pro Version 2.6.2 (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA) to develop maps of pharmacy locations within catchment areas. All data analysis was conducted in SPSS v.28 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

We surveyed 63 pharmacies in Nepal (95.2% private), 104 pharmacies in Peru (94.2% private) and 53 pharmacies in Uganda (98.1% private). All pharmacies provided medication data in one of the two study visits in respective catchment areas. In Fig 1, we show a map of all pharmacies within the respective catchment areas.

Public pharmacies were more likely than private pharmacies to have at least one of the respiratory medications in the survey (100%, vs 93.3%, respectively, although it should be noted that there were only six public pharmacies in Peru, three in Nepal, and one one public pharmacy in Uganda within the respective catchment areas). (Table 1) In all three sites, medications at the public pharmacies were free with a medical prescription. In Peru, to obtain the medication for free at public pharmacies, one must have the insurance type (e.g. SIS, EsSalud) that corresponds to the pharmacy where they were seeking the medication. All respiratory medications were generic in Nepal (100%) and the majority were generic in Uganda (97.2%); however among the available medications surveyed in Peru, 34.9% were brand name.

Availability of short-acting beta agonists/short-acting muscarinic antagonists

Salbutamol (WHO-EML) monotherapy in any formulation was the most commonly available respiratory medication among the three sites (93.7% Nepal, 86.5% Peru and 79.2% Uganda). Overall, salbutamol monotherapy inhalers were available at 65.5% pharmacies across the three study sites (87.3% in Nepal, 69.2% in Peru, and 32.1% in Uganda). In Nepal, there was no significant difference in the availability of salbutamol monotherapy inhalers at private pharmacies (88.3%) compared to public pharmacies (66.6%) (p = 0.22). However, ipratropium bromide inhalers were less frequently available compared to salbutamol at 34.1% pharmacies across the three study sites (82.5% in Nepal and 22.1% in Peru) (p < 0.05). In Nepal, there were no differences in the availability of ipratropium bromide inhalers between public pharmacies (100%) compared to private pharmacies (81.7%) (p = 0.45). Ipratropium bromide inhalers were not available at any of the pharmacies surveyed in Uganda.

Availability of oral corticosteroids

Across all three sites, the majority of pharmacies carried oral corticosteroids (OCS), (71.4% Nepal, 87.5% Peru, 100% Uganda) and the majority of OCS was found in generic form. The majority (98.1%) of pharmacies in Uganda carried dexamethasone, and the majority (88.7%) carried prednisone. Similarly in Peru, dexamethasone and prednisone were widely available (78.9% and 86.5%, respectively). Half (50.0%) of public pharmacies in Peru had OCS where as 89.8% of private pharmacies in Peru had OCS (p = 0.05). All public pharmacies in Nepal had OCS, whereas 70.0% of private pharmacies in Nepal had OCS (p = 0.283). All public and private pharmacies surveyed in Uganda carried OCS.

Availability of inhaled corticosteroids

Beclomethasone (WHO-EML) and fluticasone were largely unavailable in Peru (33.7%, and 5.8%, respectively) and Nepal (22.2% and, 12.7% respectively). Budesonide (WHO-EML) monotherapy was the most widely available ICS in Nepal, with 41.3% of pharmacies stocking the inhaler. Data regarding budesonide were unavailable for Peru, and no ICS were available in Uganda. In Peru, ICS were more common in public (83.3%) compared to private (30.6%) pharmacies (p = 0.05). Additionally, Nepal had the greatest formulations of combination therapy (ICS+LABA, ICS+LAMA, ICS+SABA) (Table 1).

Availability of long-acting beta agonists

LABA monotherapy (salmeterol) was only available at 30.3% pharmacies in Nepal. In Nepal, the majority (66.6%) of public pharmacies had salmeterol with 28.3% of private pharmacies stocking salmeterol inhalers (p = 0.17). A number of ICS + LABA combination therapies were available in Nepal (87.3%, 55 total pharmacies with at least one combination) compared to Peru (6.7%, 7 total pharmacies with at least one). No pharmacies surveyed in Uganda carried any LABA therapy. In Nepal, 88.3% and 66.6% private and public pharmacies, respectviely, stocked at least one ICS + LABA combination therapy (p = 0.22). In Peru, 7.1% private pharmacies had ICS + LABA inhalers available, with no public pharmacies stocking the medication (p = 0.50).

Availability of long-acting muscarinic agonists

Tiotropium monotherapy (WHO-EML) was only available in Nepal (77.8%). In Nepal, 78.3% private and 66.6% of public pharmacies stocked tiotropium monotherapy (p = 0.60). Formoterol + tiotropium combination therapy (LABA + LAMA, WHO-EML) was available among 14.3% of pharmacies in Nepal. 13.3% of private and 100% of public pharmacies in Nepal reported having LABA+LAMA inhalers stocked (p = 0.05). LAMA was available only in generic formulations in Nepal.

Availability of other respiratory medications

Xanthine-based respiratory medications were more common in Nepal (77.8%) compared to Uganda (17.0%), with the majority of pharmacies (50.0%) carrying at least one formulation (Aminophylline, Doxofylline, Theophylline, Theophylline + Etofylline). Among the two sites where antibiotics were surveyed (Nepal and Uganda), the majority of pharmacies carried at least one antibiotic as part of standard management for a respiratory exacerbation. In Uganda and Nepal, the majority of antibiotics were generic (100% and 99.8% respectively).

Affordability of inhaled medications

Affordability of medications across sites in terms of days’ wages was variable (Table 2). Nepal had the lowest monthly retail cost of all inhaled medications as well as the lowest impact in terms of days’ wages needed per treatment. The cost of treatment for mild intermittent asthma in private pharmacies ranged from 0.47 in Peru and Nepal to 3.3 days’ wages Uganda, although these calculations were based on limited data due to low availability of inhaler medications. Treatment for severe COPD, defined as a diagnosis of COPD with significant functional limitations and frequent exacerbations, accounted for 2.38 days wages in Nepal. Nepal similarly had the lowest MPR across a range of medication catagories. (Table 3) The cost of salbutemol inhalers was slightly above the median international reference unit price (0.010), although the MPR of combination inhalers (ICS-LABA, LABA-LAMA) varied significantly (5.63 in Peru to 13.503 in Nepal). Uganda had the highest MPR across medication classes.

Table 2. Affordability of selected medicines to treat asthma and COPD based on mean total monthly cost and number of days’ wages needed for a minimum wage government worker.

Condition Treatment Schedule Nepal Peru Uganda P-value
Mean Total Monthly Cost (USD) Days’ wages to pay treatment Mean Total Monthly Cost (USD) Days’ wages to pay treatment Mean Total Monthly Cost (USD) Days’ wages to pay treatment
Asthma
Intermittent
100 mcg Salbutamol/Albuterol inhaler
1 inhaler per month $1.90 0.47 days $3.94 0.47 days $3.08 3.33 days 0.012
Moderate Persistent
25 + 250 mcg Fluticasone + Salmeterol inhaler
1 inhaler per month $7.09 1.75 days $17.88 2.12 days --- --- 0.0058
Severe Persistent
50 + 250 mcg Fluticasone + Salmeterol inhaler
1 inhaler per month $4.52 1.12 days --- --- --- ---
COPD
GOLD A
100 mcg Salbutamol/Albuterol inhaler
1 inhaler per month $1.90 0.47 days $3.94 0.47 days $3.08 3.33 days 0.012
GOLD B
9 mcg Tiotropium inhaler
1 inhaler per month $7.05 1.74 days --- ---- --- ---
GOLD C
9 mcg Tiotropium inhaler
1 inhaler per month $7.05 1.74 days --- --- --- ---
GOLD D
9 mcg Tiotropium inhaler
25 mcg Salmeterol inhaler
2 inhalers per month $9.63 2.38 days --- --- --- ---

Affordability calculated by using standardized metrics including the total cost of a medication for a standard course of one-month’s treatment to the daily wage of the lowest paid unskilled government sector worker based of respiratory disease severity.

Table 3. Medication Median Price Ratio (MPR).

Medication Category and Medication Median Price Ratio
Nepal Peru Uganda
Antibiotics 250 mg Amoxicillinpill 1.248
500+125 mg Amoxicillin + Clavulanic Acidpill 3.978
250 mg Azithromycin pill 0.954
250 mg Ciprofloxacin pill 2.179
100 mg Doxycyclinepill 0.260 2.951
500 mg Levofloxacinpill 0.102 2.989
Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICS) 250 mcg Beclomethasone inhaler 1.802
200 mcg Budesonide inhaler 0.671
ICS + LABA 25+250 mcg Fluticasone + Salmeterolinhaler 13.503 5.629
Oral
Corticosteroids
0.5 mg Dexamethasone 0.004 58.373 2.156
5 mg Prednisone 0.237 2.249
SABA 100 mcg Salbutamol/Albuterol inhaler 0.010 2.315 2.442
Xanthine 100 mg Aminophyllinepill 0.457
200 mg Theophyllinepill 0.398

MPR calculated as the ratio of a medicine’s median price across outlets to the Management Sciences for Health median international reference price for the year preceding the survey at each site

Discussion

We conducted a survey of respiratory medication availability and affordability among pharmacies in three distinct geographic LMIC settings using the WHO/HAI methodology [11]. The availability of respiratory medications varied across the three settings (Fig 2). While salbutamol was the only respiratory medication available across all study settings, with the lowest MPR, it was unaffordable based on daily wages in rural Uganda. ICS were available in pharmacies in Peru and Nepal and carried in all public pharmacies surveyed. Nepal overall had the highest availability and variety of respiratory medications, which on average had the lowest MPR across catagories. Peru and Uganda had similar MPR for salbutamol, though the affordability varied based on the number of days’ wages needed for a minimum wage worker in each site.

Fig 2. Percent availability of respiratory medicine stratified by medication category.

Fig 2

Percent availability compared across sites by medication category. Note LAMAs, Antibiotics and Xanthines not surveyed in Peru.

We found short-acting medications used for symptomatic management were more widely available and affordable compared to long-acting bronchodilator and inhaled corticosteroid medications used for chronic management. In Uganda, COPD long-term treatment were not available at surveyed pharmacies in our study, indicating a lack of access to essentials medications to manage COPD, where the prevalence has been reported as high as 16.8% in rural Ugandan residents [19, 20]. Daily maintenance therapy for asthma and COPD has previously been shown to decrease exacerbations, improve quality of life, and improve lung function decline with significant economic impact [21, 22]. The study sites in Nepal and Peru, middle-income countries, had increased availability and affordability of respiratory medications compared the site in Uganda, a low-income country. This further points to a disparity in respiratory medication access between middle- and low-income countries. Prioritizing long-term management may decrease the financial burden and improve healthcare outcomes for asthma and COPD in LMICs.

Surveys of medication availability vary in their scope, with some including a few pharmacies over large geographic areas, and others focused on in-depth assessments of smaller geographic areas. The World Health Organization (WHO)/Health Action International (HAI) developed standardized survey instruments and sampled pharmacies within and around the countries’ major urban centers, allowing for price comparisons [13]. Kibirige and colleagues conducted an availability and cost survey of 130 pharmacies across Uganda; however these were tertiary hospitals in close proximity to each other [23]. Additional surveys and reviews have demonstrated high degree of variability among the sites studied with similar lack of long acting and combination inhalers [11, 24, 25].

Our findings are similar with previous studies demonstrating high cost and low affordability in Sub-Saharan Africa compared to South America and Southeast Asia [6]. Variation in MPR can be related to several factors. In Nepal, medicines are exempt from value-added tax and central government tax [9]. While public sector clinics provide access to free medications, availability has historically been limited and the majority of health care financing consists of out of pocket costs [9, 26]. Nepal has the highest variety of types of generic respiratory medicines, additionally allowing for pricing competition and lower overall prices [27]. This high variation is likely due to Nepal’s proximity to India, where 95% of Nepal’s medication supply is manufactured [28]. The availability of medications beyond the EML, as well as combination therapy has the potential to result in inappropriate or inadequate treatment for respiratory diseases. In many settings, combination antibiotics with respiratory medications can result in resistance patterns [29].

There are several documented barriers and challenges that lead to variation in the costs of essential medications in LMICs. Most respiratory medications are administered by inhalers or are nebulized. These technologies present challenges as they are among the more complex devices manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry, preventing addition barriers to the production of generics, and requiring reliable delivery of active medications to the lower airways [6]. Institutional, administrative, and legal barriers lead to onerous registration of medications and increased transaction costs and pricing. Limited procurement capacity combined with fragmentation of demand may similarly lead to smaller purchase quantities, thereby discouraging suppliers from entering low-volume markets. In settings where most health expenditures are out of pocket, efficient procurement is essential for availability and affordability in both public and private sector markets. Standardization of treatment guidelines and purchasing practices can streamline medication procurement, leading to lower costs [6, 30]. Additionally, in many LMIC settings, generic or publicly provided medications can be viewed as inferior to brand name versions [31, 32]. The availability of guidelines varies between LMIC settings, and GOLD does not currently provide specific guidance for resource-constrained settings [4, 33]. Even where guidelines are available, there are recognized barriers to effective implementation of guideline-based care, which include but are not limited to access to affordable medications.

There are several policy implications of these findings. First, improved access to primary care allows for initiation of treatment for a range of chronic respiratory diseases and demand for medications. Pooled procurement of WHO EML medications can substantially reduce costs. Decentralized distribution systems in rural settings have been implemented with success for communicable diseases like HIV and tuberculosis and may be a promising model for delivery of medications for non-communicable diseases, as well [34]. Industry best practices can be compiled in the areas of packaging, pricing, and patient education to achieve better drug treatment adherence. Improvements in supply chain integrity and pooled quality assessment at port of entry can reduce additional mark up and decrease counterfeited medications.

The study aimed to conduct surveys of all pharmacies within the allocated areas. A strength of this study is the inclusion of rural and urban sites, as well as diverse socioeconomic characteristics of the regions allowing for sampling of distinct geographic areas and direct assessment of COPD prevalence in those areas. Prior studies limited sampling to a few pharmacies in mainly urban areas, potentially biasing findings. The present study, however, was localized to specific areas within Peru, Nepal and Uganda, and therefore are not representative of the entire country. We conducted surveys of standard and essential respiratory medications, as well as antibiotics used for the treatment of respiratory infections, allowing for a complete list of medication classes in each site. A limitation of the study was that certain medications (e.g. LAMAs, Xanthine-based medications) were not surveyed in Peru, thus limiting comparisons with the other sites. Additionally, leukotriene antagonists were not surveyed. Another important limitation of this study is that the data in Peru were collected two years prior to those in Uganda and Nepal. It is possible that the availability of these medications could have changed during this two-year period. There were no changes in the Peruvian National Essential Medicines List among the medications surveyed in Peru.

The WHO set a target of 80% availability of essential affordable medications by 2025. However, there is high variability in access and affordabilty of respiratory medicines across geographic settings. Policies aimed at decreasing value-added taxes, promoting generic medications, and standardizing procurement may lead to improved availability and affordability in LMIC settings.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Site specific information.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

GECo study investigators: University College London, Shumonta Quaderi MBBS BSc, Susan Michie Dphil Phil Cpsychol, John R Hurst PhD FRCP, Zachos Anastasiou, Julie Barber PhD

University of Miami, Trishul Siddharthan MD Johns Hopkins University, Suzanne L Pollard PhD, MSPH, Natalie A. Rykiel MSc, Nicole Robertson, William Checkley MD PhD Institute of Medicine, Laxman Shrestha MD, Karbir Nath Yogi MD, Arun Sharma MD Siddhi Memorial Hospital, Ram K Chandyo Makerere University, Patricia Alupo MB ChB Mmed, Denis Muwonge, Denis Mawanda, Faith Nassali, Robert Kalyesubula MB ChB Mmed, Bruce Kirenga MB ChB Mmed University of York, Andrew J Mirelman PhD, MPH, Marta Soares MSc A.B. PRISMA, Oscar Flores-Flores MD, Elisa Romani-Huacani CRONICAS Centre of Excellence in Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Maria Kathia Cárdenas MSc, J. Jaime Miranda, MD PhD University of California San Francisco, Adithya Cattamanchi MD, MAS

Data Availability

Datasets have been uploaded as supplementary information.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Soriano JB, Abajobir AA, Abate KH, Abera SF, Agrawal A, Ahmed MB, et al. Global, regional, and national deaths, prevalence, disability-adjusted life years, and years lived with disability for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2017;5(9):691–706. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(17)30293-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ewen M, Zweekhorst M, Regeer B, Laing R. Baseline assessment of WHO’s target for both availability and affordability of essential medicines to treat non-communicable diseases. PloS one. 2017;12(2):e0171284. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Morgan BW, Grigsby MR, Siddharthan T, Chowdhury M, Rubinstein A, Gutierrez L, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors of asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap in low-and middle-income countries. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2019;143(4):1598–606. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.06.052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hurst JR, Buist AS, Gaga M, Gianella GE, Kirenga B, Khoo EM, et al. Challenges in the Implementation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Guidelines in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021. Aug;18(8):1269–1277 doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202103-284ST [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Robertson NM, Nagourney EM, Pollard SL, Siddharthan T, Kalyesubula R, Surkan PJ, et al. Urban-Rural Disparities in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Management and Access in Uganda. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases: Journal of the COPD Foundation. 2019;6(1):17. doi: 10.15326/jcopdf.6.1.2018.0143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Beran D, Zar HJ, Perrin C, Menezes AM, Burney P. Burden of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and access to essential medicines in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2015;3(2):159–70. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00004-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Babar Z-U-D, Lessing C, Mace C, Bissell K. The availability, pricing and affordability of three essential asthma medicines in 52 low-and middle-income countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(11):1063–82. doi: 10.1007/s40273-013-0095-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.WHO Expert Committee on the Selection, Use of Essential Medicines, World Health Organization. The Selection and Use of Essential Medicines: Report of the WHO Expert Committee, 2013 (including the 20th WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and the 4th WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for Children). World Health Organization; 2020.
  • 9.Khanal S, Veerman L, Ewen M, Nissen L, Hollingworth S. Availability, price, and affordability of essential medicines to manage noncommunicable diseases: A national survey from Nepal. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing. 2019;56:0046958019887572. doi: 10.1177/0046958019887572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Siddharthan T, Pollard SL, Quaderi SA, Mirelman AJ, Cárdenas MK, Kirenga B, et al. Effectiveness-implementation of COPD case finding and self-management action plans in low-and middle-income countries: global excellence in COPD outcomes (GECo) study protocol. Trials. 2018;19(1):571. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2909-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kibirige D, Sanya RE, Nantanda R, Worodria W, Kirenga B. Availability and affordability of medicines and diagnostic tests recommended for management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology. 2019;15(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13223-019-0329-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Siddharthan T, Pollard SL, Quaderi SA, Rykiel NA, Wosu AC, Alupo P, et al. Discriminative Accuracy of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Screening Instruments in 3 Low-and Middle-Income Country Settings. JAMA. 2022;327(2):151–60. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.23065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.World Health Organization. Measuring medicine prices, availability, affordability and price components. World Health Organization, 2008.
  • 14.Das P, Horton R. Essential medicines for universal health coverage. The Lancet. 2017;389(10067):337–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31907-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Halpin DMG, Criner GJ, Papi A, Singh D, Anzueto A, Martinez FJ, et al. Global Initiative for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. The 2020 GOLD Science Committee Report on COVID-19 and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021. Jan 1;203(1):24–36. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202009-3533SO [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Reddel HK, Bacharier LB, Bateman ED, Brightling CE, Brusselle GG, Buhl R, et al. Global Initiative for Asthma Strategy 2021: executive summary and rationale for key changes. Eur Respir J. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Management Sciences for Health. Single drug information, international medical products price guide. International medical products price guide. 2018
  • 18.Niëns LM, Cameron A, Van de Poel E, Ewen M, Brouwer WB, Laing R. Quantifying the impoverishing effects of purchasing medicines: a cross-country comparison of the affordability of medicines in the developing world. PLoS medicine. 2010;7(8):e1000333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000333 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.van Gemert F, Kirenga B, Chavannes N, Kamya M, Luzige S, Musinguzi P, et al. Prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and associated risk factors in Uganda (FRESH AIR Uganda): a prospective cross-sectional observational study. The Lancet Global Health. 2015;3(1):e44–e51. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70337-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Siddharthan T, Grigsby M, Morgan B, Kalyesubula R, Wise RA, Kirenga B, et al. Prevalence of chronic respiratory disease in urban and rural Uganda. Bull World Health Organ. 2019. May 1;97(5):318–327. doi: 10.2471/BLT.18.216523 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Celli BR, Anderson JA, Cowans NJ, Crim C, Hartley BF, Martinez FJ, et al. Pharmacotherapy and Lung Function Decline in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Systematic Review. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2021;203(6):689–98. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202005-1854OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Foo J, Landis SH, Maskell J, Oh Y-M, van der Molen T, Han MK, et al. Continuing to confront COPD international patient survey: economic impact of COPD in 12 countries. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0152618. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152618 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kibirige D, Kampiire L, Atuhe D, Mwebaze R, Katagira W, Muttamba W, et al. Access to affordable medicines and diagnostic tests for asthma and COPD in sub Saharan Africa: the Ugandan perspective. BMC pulmonary medicine. 2017;17(1):179. doi: 10.1186/s12890-017-0527-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mendis S, Fukino K, Cameron A, Laing R, Filipe A Jr, Khatib O, et al. The availability and affordability of selected essential medicines for chronic diseases in six low-and middle-income countries. Bulletin of the world health organization. 2007;85(4):279–88. doi: 10.2471/blt.06.033647 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mendis S, Al Bashir I, Dissanayake L, Varghese C, Fadhil I, Marhe E, et al. Gaps in capacity in primary care in low-resource settings for implementation of essential noncommunicable disease interventions. International journal of hypertension. 2012;2012. doi: 10.1155/2012/584041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Basnet R, Shrestha B, Nagaraja S, Basnet B, Satyanarayana S, Zachariah R. Universal health coverage in a regional Nepali hospital: who is exempted from payment? Public Health Action. 2013;3(1):90–2. doi: 10.5588/pha.12.0082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Silverman R, Keller J, Glassman A, Chalkidou K. Tackling the triple transition in global health procurement. Center for Global Development. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sharma A, Mishra SR, Kaplan WA. Trade in medicines and the public’s health: a time series analysis of import disruptions during the 2015 India-Nepal border blockade. Globalization and health. 2017;13(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Laxminarayan R, Chaudhury RR. Antibiotic resistance in India: drivers and opportunities for action. PLoS medicine. 2016;13(3):e1001974. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Siddharthan T, Ramaiya K, Yonga G, Mutungi GN, Rabin TL, List JM, et al. Noncommunicable Diseases In East Africa: Assessing The Gaps In Care And Identifying Opportunities For Improvement. Health Affairs. 2015;34(9):1506–13. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Flood D, Mathieu I, Chary A, García P, Rohloff P. Perceptions and utilization of generic medicines in Guatemala: a mixed-methods study with physicians and pharmacy staff. BMC health services research. 2017;17(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hassali MA, Wong ZY, Alrasheedy AA, Saleem F, Yahaya AHM, Aljadhey H. Perspectives of physicians practicing in low and middle income countries towards generic medicines: a narrative review. Health policy. 2014;117(3):297–310. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.07.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tabyshova A, Hurst JR, Soriano JB, Checkley W, Huang EW-C, Trofor AC, et al. Gaps in COPD guidelines of low-and middle-income countries: A systematic scoping review. Chest. 2021. Feb;159(2):575–584 doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.09.260 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kwon C, Webster R, Santo K, Atkins E. Community Group-Based Models of Medication Delivery: Applicability to Cardiovascular Diseases. Global Heart. 2021;16(1). doi: 10.5334/gh.763 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001309.r001

Decision Letter 0

Laila Akbar Ladak

26 Jul 2022

PGPH-D-22-00869

Availability, Affordability and Access to Essential Medications for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Three Low- and Middle-Income Country Settings

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Siddharthan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

This manuscript addresses an important public health issueon"Availability, Affordability and Access to Essential Medications for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Three Low- and Middle-Income Country Settings". However, this requires "Major Revisions" undermethodology and discussion sections of the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 09 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Laila Akbar Ladak, PhD, MScN, BScN, RN

Section Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1:Yes

Reviewer #2:Yes

Reviewer #3:Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1:Yes

Reviewer #2:Yes

Reviewer #3:No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1:Yes

Reviewer #2:Yes

Reviewer #3:Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1:Yes

Reviewer #2:Yes

Reviewer #3:Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:Reviewer’s comments

Manuscript title: Availability, Affordability and Access to Essential Medications for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Three Low- and Middle-Income Country Settings.

This study by Siddharthan T et al is a well-written study highlighting an important area of inequity in access to essential medicines for asthma and COPD in three low-and middle-income countries. It comprehensively assesses the availability, pricing, and affordability of essential medicines as recommended by the WHO essential medicines list.

Despite its strengths, there are areas that need to be revised in the manuscript to improve its quality.

Major revisions.

1. Information on the availability of LAMA and LABA combination, a key medicine in the management of COPD, is missing in the abstract. I would advise that this information is added.

2. There is little reference to studies evaluating the availability and affordability of asthma and COPD medicines performed in similar LMIC settings in the discussion section. The authors should include some of these key studies below to improve their discussion section:

- Kibirige D et al. Availability and affordability of medicines and diagnostic tests recommended for management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2019 Mar 7;15:14.

- Mendis S, Fukino K, Cameron A, Laing R, Filipe A Jr, Khatib O, Leowski J, Ewen M. The availability and affordability of selected essential medicines for chronic diseases in six low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2007;85:279–88.

- Cameron A, Ewen M, Ross-Degnan D, Ball D, Laing R. Medicine prices, availability, and affordability in 36 developing and middle-income countries: a secondary analysis. Lancet. 2009;373:240–9.

- Mendis S, Al Bashir I, Dissanayake L, Varghese C, Fadhil I, Marhe E, Sambo B, Mehta F, Elsayad H, Sow I, et al. Gaps in capacity in primary care in low-resource settings for implementation of essential noncommunicable disease interventions. Int J Hypertens. 2012;2012:584041.

- Ozoh OB et al. Asthma and COPD medicines availability and affordability in Nigeria. Trop Med Int Health. 2021 Jan;26(1):54-65.

3. The authors should include information about the wages for the lowest paid unskilled government worker that was used to assess the affordability of these medicines in each country/study setting.

4. In relation to my above comment, I find the reported affordability of salbutamol inhaler as treatment of intermittent asthma very inaccurate.

The authors should refer to the Ministry of Public Service, Republic of Uganda website and this link below for guidance on the wage structure in 2019/2020, a period when the study was conducted: https://www.publicservice.go.ug/media/resources/Salary%20Structure%20FY%20201819%20Schedule%201%20-%2012.pdf

According to the Public Service wage structure in Uganda, the lowest-paid unskilled government worker is at the U8 level. Using that information, please revise your results on the affordability of the drug in Uganda.

5. There is a study limitation of lack of information on the availability and affordability of leukotriene antagonists which are key medicines in the management of asthma.

Minor comments

The manuscript has several typographical errors that need extensive revision.

An example of these errors is shown below:

- On the 2nd last line of page 8, the number of health facilities where Salmeterol was present is missing (30.3%, n=……….).

- On page 9, Formoterol is misspelled (section on availability of long-acting antimuscarinic agents).

- On page 10, the author’s name is misspelt (Kibirige NOT Kabirige).

- Affordability should be corrected and expressed as days’ wages throughout the manuscript (see the section on the affordability of essential medicines and table 2).

Reviewer #2:General

While I agree that such availability studies are very useful for a given country, I am less convinced that such a cross-country study has much additional benefit. Also, for this study, the question comes up: so what? It seems that the only conclusion is that the availability is usually higher in private pharmacies (with a few exceptions) and that prices vary between the three countries; and that the range of medicines in Nepal seems wider. So what can we do with this information?

I would recommend that you try to expand the discussion a little further, and formulate hypotheses to explain the large price differences between the three countries. It could also be discussed why there are so many combination medicines in Nepal – I am rather sure that very few of such combinations are on the WHO Model List. It would also be very interesting if you formulated some practical advice to each of the three countries about how to improve their particular situation.

Methods

What sort of region were these – urban, semi-urban, rural? Please give some additional information

Sample seslection: I am not very sure about how the medicines included in the survey were selected – especially in view of the many non-essential combinations used in Nepal. Did you measure and report any drug in the selected categories that you could find in the private pharmacies surveyed? Why did you not limit yourself to medicines on the WHO Model List? I would not like the paper to suggest that the many non-essential medicines observed as available in Nepal should actually have been available in the other two countries. At least, in the discussion I recommend that you reflect on the differences between the WHO Model List and the medicines actually found in the pharmacies in the three countries.

Data analysis

Line 12: Check grammar

Iine 14: GOLD and GINA first time in full

Results: There is no need to describe all figures and percentages again as text as they read better as tables. So I suggest to remove all the “drug – specific” text subsections and restrict yourself to referring to the two tables, and (perhaps) mentioning one or two specific important facts.

Results: Think the number of public pharmacies studied is so small (both absolutely as relatively) that I doubt that you can make a meaningful comparison between the public and private sector. Can you please check your statistics whether any differences observed are statistically signifiant?

Reviewer #3:This study is to provide information on availability, affordability, and access to essential medicines for selected respiratory diseases in three countries. Below are a few major concerns:

1. Introduction: Although the manuscript highlighted the scale of respiratory disease, there is little information on (1) reasons why it is important to study availability, affordability, and access in the three countries. In another word, what is the uniqueness of this study; (2) what has been done previously in the three countries; and (3) what gaps would this study fill in?

2. Methods: The methodology to carry out the study and analysis is not adequately described. The method sector also needs to be restructured, including study design, sampling, measurement, data collection and analysis.

2.1. The selection of countries and catchment areas is not described in detail, particularly the selection of the catchment areas. how were they selected? Were they selected through random sampling? were they representative of the country's catchment areas?

2.2. There is no description of the drug system in the three countries to prepare readers to understand the study setting, such as the pharmaceutical market share between the public and private sectors.

2.3. The measurements should be described in more detail under a separate heading. The manuscript should be clear about how availability, affordability, and access were measured. The measure should not be under the data analysis. The development of indicators should also be described in more detail. Key parameters should be provided, such as the daily wage for each country.

2.4. Most statistical analysis is descriptive. Further analysis could be explored, such as the comparison of availability and affordability among sites and drugs, and between sectors.

3. Results

3.1. suggest conducting further analysis to provide comparative analysis.

3.2. Table 2. The days to pay for treatment for Uganda are extremely high. What is the daily wage used for comparisons? According to https://wageindicator.org/salary/minimum-wage/uganda, the minimum wage per month is UGX 130,000, which is equivalent to $34.38 per month or 1.15 per day. The mean total days for Uganda would be about 3 days, rather than 54 days.

4. discussion

4.1. The discussion should focus more on explaining why there is a shortage in some countries for particular medicines and how it is related to the drug delivery systems.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1:No

Reviewer #2:Yes:Prof Dr Hans V Hogerzeil

Reviewer #3:No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001309.r003

Decision Letter 1

Hassan Haghparast Bidgoli

31 Oct 2022

Availability, Affordability and Access to Essential Medications for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Three Low- and Middle-Income Country Settings

PGPH-D-22-00869R1

Dear Dr. Siddharthan,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Availability, Affordability and Access to Essential Medications for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Three Low- and Middle-Income Country Settings' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Hassan Haghparast Bidgoli

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Thank you for addressing the reviewers' comments. Except for the minor edit by reviewer 2 (changing the word "counterfeit" into "falsified"), there is no further comments from the reviewers and editor.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1:All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2:All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1:Yes

Reviewer #2:Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1:Yes

Reviewer #2:I don't know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1:Yes

Reviewer #2:Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1:Yes

Reviewer #2:Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:All comments that I raised have been adequately addressed.

Reviewer #2:Thank you for considering my reviewer's comments. My only advise is to change the word "counterfeit" into "falsified" which is the correct term used by WHO (counterfeit is only a trademark issue, falsified is a real falsification as meant here)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1:No

Reviewer #2:Yes:Hans V Hogerzeil

**********

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. Site specific information.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments 9.8.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Datasets have been uploaded as supplementary information.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES