Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Dec 14;18(12):e0295338. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295338

Improving the availability of antihypertensive drugs in the India Hypertension Control Initiative, India, 2019–2020

Abhishek Kunwar 1, Prabhdeep Kaur 2,*, Kiran Durgad 1, Ganeshkumar Parasuraman 2, Meenakshi Sharma 3, Sudhir Gupta 4, Balram Bhargava 3; on behalf of "India Hypertension Control Initiative (IHCI) collaboration
Editor: Dzintars Gotham5
PMCID: PMC10721057  PMID: 38096180

Abstract

Background

Antihypertensive drug supply is sometimes inadequate in public sector health facilities in India. One of the core strategies of the India Hypertension Control Initiative (IHCI) is to improve the availability of antihypertensive drugs in primary and secondary care facilities. We quantified the availability of antihypertensive drugs in 2019–20 and described the practices in supply chain management in 22 districts across four states of India.

Methods

Twenty-two districts from 4 states (Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, and Maharashtra) were studied. We described the practices and challenges in supply chain management. We collected data on drug procurement from 2018 to 2020 and drug availability from April 2019 to March 2020. Quantity procured, the proportion of facilities with stockout at the end of each quarter, and availability of drugs in patient days were tabulated.

Results

All states selected drug- and dose-specific protocols with Amlodipine as the initial drug and shifted to morbidity-based forecasting. The total number of antihypertensive tablets procured for the 22 districts increased from 16 million in 2017–2018 to 160 million in 2019–2020. The proportion of facilities with Amlodipine stock-out was below 5% during the study period. Amlodipine stock was available for at least 60 patient days from the third quarter of 2019 onward in all districts.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that including best practices can gradually strengthen the procurement and supply chain for antihypertensives in a low-resource setting. As the program was rapidly growing, there were still gaps in the procurement and distribution system which needed to be addressed to ensure the adequacy of drugs. We recommend that best practices, including choosing a single protocol, basing supply on projected patient load rather than an increment from historical levels, and using simple stock management tools, be replicated in other districts in India to increase and sustain coverage of hypertension treatment.

1. Introduction

In India, there are estimated to be more than 200 million adults living with hypertension [1]. However, less than half of them are aware of their hypertension status, and less than one-tenth of all people with hypertension have their blood pressure under control [2, 3]. Most low- and low-middle-income countries have insufficient availability of antihypertensive medications [4]. Non-availability of blood pressure-lowering medications is strongly associated with poor control of hypertension [5]. In India, in a survey conducted across six states in 2004–05, the median availability of 27 essential medicines in the public sector ranged from 0–30% [6]. A study conducted in public health facilities of two North Indian states found that the availability of antihypertensive drugs was only 60%. [7] A survey from Kerala, a southern state with a good primary healthcare system, reported that the availability of cardiovascular disease and diabetes medicines in the public sector health facilities was below the 80% target. [8]A national-level survey reported inadequate drugs for noncommunicable diseases in primary care facilities [9].

The India Hypertension Control Initiative (IHCI), launched in November 2017, aims to reduce premature cardiovascular deaths by strengthening hypertension management and control at primary and secondary public healthcare facilities. The initiative includes a standardized approach drawn from the World Health Organization (WHO) HEARTS technical package for cardiovascular disease management in primary health care [10]. Adopting standard, drug- and dose-specific hypertension treatment protocols and ensuring an uninterrupted supply of the selected protocol medications are critical components of this initiative. The project was implemented in the public sector health facilities of 26 districts in five states from 2018–19. The project team worked closely with the state governments to improve the availability of antihypertensive drugs at the district and facility levels.

Improving access to essential medicines requires appropriate selection, financing, affordable prices, and supply systems. [11] Several interventions were initiated to improve the selection, procurement, and availability of antihypertensive drugs in the public sector health facilities implementing IHCI in 2018–19. We monitored the availability of drugs in these facilities in 2019–20 and worked with stakeholders to understand the progress and challenges in improving the availability of the protocol drugs. This paper describes practices in supply chain management, the number of drugs procured and drug availability at the facility level in 2019–20 in the four Indian states implementing the IHCI project.

2. Methods

2.1. Design and setting

The study included all 22 districts from 4 states (Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, and Maharashtra) implementing the IHCI. We documented the drug availability and challenges experienced in improving drug availability at various levels from state-level procurement agencies and regional and district warehouses in the project districts. We considered only public sector facilities, including primary and secondary care facilities. Most districts had one secondary care district hospital.

We collected data regarding drug procurement from 2018 to 2020 and drug availability at district and health facilities from April 2019 to March 2020 in the 22 districts. We estimated the availability of antihypertensive drugs in the standard treatment protocol at the health facility and district level, post-intervention in 2019–20, in 22 districts across four states of India.

2.2 Description of interventions

The project has five core strategies: protocol-based care, availability of adequate drugs, task sharing, patient-centered care, and a cohort-based monitoring system. Under IHCI, particular focus is rendered to ensure the uninterrupted availability of drugs at all service delivery points. The project aimed to ensure the timely purchase of adequate quantities of hypertension drugs, equitable distribution of hypertension protocol drugs to service delivery points, and strengthening systems for monitoring and timely action. The project team developed multiple easy-to-adopt tools, curated interventions for improving supply chain efficiency, and extended continuous technical support. The critical interventions implemented from 2018 onwards to streamline the supply chain of antihypertensives were as follows:

Selection of drugs

We focused on procuring and supplying a limited number of antihypertensive drugs in line with the adopted treatment protocol (S1 and S2 Figs). This approach helped streamline forecasting, efficient procurement with affordable drug costs, and improved stockkeeping and distribution.

Forecasting drug requirements and budgeting

Before the IHCI, the traditional method of forecasting drug requirements was to project future consumption by adding a small percentage increase to past consumption. This approach is not suitable for scaling up programs. The morbidity-based method, by contrast, accounts for future program growth, but this method was not practised before the IHCI due to the complexity of calculations required and lack of training. The morbidity-based method considers expected patients to be initiated on treatment in addition to patients who are already on treatment and the drugs in the protocol at various levels. We developed a customized, easy-to-use forecasting tool (S1, S2 Files). Based on the forecasted drug requirement, assistance was extended for budget planning and prioritizing through rationalization of existing funds and mobilization of additional funding through the national program and/or state funds [12].

Procurement

One of the most critical interventions is timely tendering before the expiry of the existing rate contract to ensure continuity of rate contract availability. We recommended a multi-year rate contract instead of annual tendering to reduce the administrative processes and bottlenecks. We also suggested multiple supplier empanelments to ensure the availability of an alternative supply source in case of failure/non-compliance by any one supplier. Many states issued the procurement order for the entire year; however, there were challenges for the supplier and storage at the warehouse level. One of the more pragmatic strategies was to purchase orders with scheduled supply or scheduled procurement, which helped maintain adequate drug availability with minimal inventory holding. This approach helped mitigate the storage space challenge and minimized the risk of drug expiry and product deterioration during storage. The scheduled supply approach also acted as assurance for the supplier and proved helpful in planning and executing orders in time. Although most of the procurement was done at the state level, districts were provided funds and empowered to stop-gap local procurement if there was a disruption in the procurement/supply of drugs through an established state mechanism.

Storage and distribution

Every facility was advised to maintain 2–3 months’ stock based on the total number of registered patients. Ready reckoners were developed to quickly assess stock position for patient load-linked indent/drug distribution and periodic (monthly) refilling (S3, S4 Files)). The health facility or district store arranged vehicles to deliver drugs to service delivery points from the issuing stores.

Dispensing and monitoring

All states issued advisories to the districts to dispense at least 30 days of drugs per treated patient and monitor the stocks. We used easy-to-use and straightforward formats/tools for pharmacists and healthcare providers for inventory recording and reporting (S5 File). Health facilities with suboptimal stock levels were monitored monthly at the district, state, and national levels with a feedback mechanism to drive prompt supply chain action to fill in the gaps.

Training and capacity building

We trained all pharmacists and program managers on the treatment protocol, annual requirement forecasting, monthly/periodic indent/stock refill based on the patients under treatment, stock level monitoring, and inventory records.

2.3 Data collection

Review of documents

We reviewed essential drug lists (EDLs), tender documents, procurement policy, past procurement data, drug distribution guidelines, and other relevant documents in the state-level procurement agencies, state NCD program unit, and district warehouses. The documents provided information regarding existing forecasting, procurement, and distribution practices.

Field-based observations

The IHCI intervention team of public health specialists supported the state and district-level NCD program units. The team observed the practices regarding existing supply chain processes from procurement to dispensing to identify the challenges and to support streamlining the process.

Quantitative data for drugs

We collected data on the annual procurement of all antihypertensive drugs for three financial years, i.e., 2017–18, 2018–19, and 2019–20, from state and district records.

We also collected data on hypertension protocol drugs stock throughout the study from all public sector health facilities of these districts at the end of each quarter for four quarters [from quarter 2 (Q2) 2019 –quarter 1 (Q1) 2020] from stock ledgers and logistics management information system (LMIS) software. The quarterly drug stock reporting also consisted of a cumulative number of patients registered at the health facility under the IHCI to estimate the drug stock in patient days. These data were extracted from the Simple digital hypertension management app in Maharashtra and Punjab and IHCI paper-based registers in Madhya Pradesh and Telangana.

2.4 Data analysis

We used the "Logistics cycle model" to identify the thematic areas for analysis. [13] We summarised various aspects of the supply chain, from selecting antihypertensive drugs to dispensing the drugs at the facility level.

  • a. Qualitative analysis

We analyzed and summarized policy documents, procurement records, monthly/annual reports, and field observations in five thematic areas (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Steps for antihypertensive medication supply chain management in the India Hypertension Control Initiative.

Fig 1

  • b. Quantitative analysis

We analyzed three indicators using state, district, and health facility level data to assess if the interventions improved the availability of antihypertensive drugs.

  1. Quantity of antihypertensive drugs procured for three financial years (2017–18, 2018–19, and 2019–20)

  2. The proportion of health facilities with drug stock out—Out of all implementing facilities, the number of facilities had nil stock of any protocol drugs at the end of each of the four quarters from Q2, 2019 to Q1, 2020. Stock out was separately considered for each of the three protocol drugs.

  3. Drug stock in patient-days at the end of each quarter at the district level for the four quarters from Q2, 2019 to Q1, 2020.

’Drug stock in patient-days’ is the unit to measure how many days the available stock of a drug would last considering the number of patients under treatment and the average daily requirement of the drug per patient. The stock in patient-days for a drug is computed as ’Stock available in a number of tablets’ / (Total number of patients x Number of tablets required per day).

Under IHCI, each state adopted a drug and dose-specific stepwise hypertension treatment protocol. The program adopted initial assumptions on the proportion of patients started on treatment who are controlled at each step of the protocol. [14] Based on the treatment protocol adopted and the assumed proportion of patients reaching blood pressure control at each treatment protocol step, the approximate requirement of each protocol drug per patient per month was calculated for two types of protocols (S3 File).

2.5 Human subjects protection

The ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, institutional ethics committee approved the project. The study did not include any patient-level data. We collected the data and reviewed documents following the required administrative approval process.

3. Results

3.1 Selection of drugs

Public procurement is done for drugs listed in the state’s Essential Drugs List (EDL). Within each therapeutic category, several drugs are listed and classified by the health facility’s level (primary, secondary, or tertiary) where the drugs are to be made available. All four states had developed hypertension treatment protocols as one of the strategies under the IHCI (Table 1). [15] The states had included the protocol drugs in the state-specific EDL. Before IHCI, antihypertensive drugs were mostly procured for secondary and tertiary health facilities. After IHCI implementation, all protocol drugs were included in the EDL for primary, secondary and tertiary care facilities.

Table 1. Drug selection, forecasting, procurement, storage and distribution practices for antihypertensive drugs in four Indian states, 2020.

Components Maharashtra Punjab Madhya Pradesh Telangana
Selection of drugs
Availability of Essential Drug List Yes Yes Yes Yes
Protocol drugs in essential drugs list Amlodipine, Telmisartan, Chlorthalidone Amlodipine, Telmisartan, Chlorthalidone Amlodipine, Telmisartan, Hydrochlorothiazide Amlodipine, Telmisartan, Hydrochlorothiazide
Availability of protocol drugs at various health facility levels All levels All levels All levels All levels
Forecasting
Frequency of annual demand generation Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly
Method of drug forecasting IHCI tool–Morbidity method IHCI tool–Morbidity method IHCI tool–Morbidity method IHCI tool–Morbidity method
Review of indents Yes Yes Yes Yes
Procurement
Name of nodal agency Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceuticals Corp.Ltd. Punjab Health Systems Corporation Madhya Pradesh Public health Service Corporation Limited Telangana State Medical Services & Infrastructure Development Corporation
Rate contract period Quantity contract 2 years 2 years 2 years
Purchase order system Centralized Centralized Decentralized Centralized
Frequency of purchase order Annual Quarterly Quarterly Annual
Supply period 45 days 40 days 45 days 75 days
Storage and distribution
Primary stores District stores Regional stores District stores Regional stores
Responsible for transportation from primary stores Health facilities Health facilities Health facilities Health facilities
Frequency of stock replenishment at health facilities Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly

3.2 Forecasting drug requirements

Requirement forecasting is a crucial step in the supply chain to ensure the availability of adequate drugs. In all four states, essential drug requirements were collected from the district level annually for procurement and budget planning. The facilities submit the requirement to the district, and a consolidated report is submitted to the state. The annual requirements of antihypertensive drugs were estimated based on last year’s consumption until 2017–18. The project team worked with the state-level stakeholders to estimate the requirement of the drug-using morbidity-based forecasting in 2018–19 and 2019–20 (Table 1). To forecast the annual drug requirement based on the total number of patients under care, expected new enrolment over the year, and the adopted treatment protocol, all 22 districts started using the forecasting tool developed for the project (S1, S2 Files).

3.3 Procurement

All four states had fully functional state-owned procurement agencies (Table 1). The drug rate contract was renewed every two years in all states except Maharashtra, where a quantity contract was used. The drug purchase order system was centralized in all states except Madhya Pradesh. In Madhya Pradesh, districts were authorized to purchase from manufacturers directly. Annual purchase orders were placed in Maharashtra and Telangana, whereas quarterly in Madhya Pradesh and Punjab.

All state procurement agencies procured drugs directly from the manufacturers. A good manufacturing practices compliance certificate and production experience of at least three years were mandatory to procure the drugs from credible sources. Although the manufacturers mandatorily do quality control tests before supplying stocks to the states, all state procuring agencies retest the samples at independent empanelled testing laboratories to confirm the quality of the drug before the batches are released to the health facilities.

IHCI field teams observed the key challenges which led to delays in procurement were non-availability of rate contracts, lack of multiple suppliers, delays in tendering and placing purchase orders, delayed or partial supply by vendors, delays in receiving funds and lack of well-defined budget heads for antihypertensive drugs. As per procurement data, the procurement improved in 2019–20, but several challenges could not be addressed. The effective interventions at the procurement level were close monitoring and follow-up of tenders by state NCD nodal units, providing reliable estimates by forecasting, the collaboration between procurement cell and NCD unit for purchase scheduling, accelerating the quality control process to reduce quarantine time, and strategic procurement when contract nears expiry. At the district level, local procurements helped fill the gaps when the supply from the state was delayed.

All states increased the quantities of antihypertensive drugs procured for the project districts after the project’s initiation (Fig 2). In Madhya Pradesh, there was a three-fold increase in the procurement of amlodipine and telmisartan in 2018–19 and a six-fold increase in the procurement of diuretics. The procurement of amlodipine was 3-10-fold higher in 2019–20 compared to 2017–18 in Telangana, Maharashtra and Punjab. Punjab and Maharashtra did not procure telmisartan in 2017–18. Telmisartan was procured in small quantities in Punjab in 2018–19, and nearly 4 million tablets were procured in 2019–20. The procurement of telmisartan in Telangana was lower in 2018–19 compared to the previous year due to manufacturers’ supply delays. In Maharashtra, delays in the tender process led to lower procurement in 2019–20 compared to the previous year. The other states did not procure diuretics except for Madhya Pradesh in 2017–18. Initially, the other three states had to add chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide in the EML, and procurement was initiated in the subsequent years. The total number of tablets procured for all antihypertensive medications for the 22 districts in the four states increased from 16 million tablets in 2017–2018 to 160 million tablets in 2019–2020 (Fig 3).

Fig 2. Volume of procurement of antihypertensive drugs (in millions of tablets) by type of drug and by state for 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20.

Fig 2

Fig 3. Volume of procurement of all antihypertensive drugs (in millions of tablets) drugs overall and by type of drug for all study districts for 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20.

Fig 3

3.4 Storage and distribution

Drugs are directly delivered to the district stores based on the purchase orders in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. The district stores catered to the health facilities. In Punjab and Telangana, regional drug warehouses received the drugs from the suppliers and further distributed them to the district stores, which supplied all health facilities in the district.

At the facility level, stocks were replenished monthly (Table 1). The refill quantity was assessed using ready reckoners (S3, S4 Files). The monthly cycle helped in overcoming the storage-related challenges at the facility level. The pharmacists from health facilities sent an indent, arranged transport, and collected drugs from the primary/district levels stores, usually once a month. The distribution of drugs to the health facilities is based on a requisition or pull system, and the quantity to be issued is based on requests placed by the health facilities. Current practices utilise ambulances and other program monitoring vehicles available at health facilities to pick up the drug stocks. Thus, the availability of drugs is affected by the availability of the vehicle and can lead to a shortage and stockout of drugs at health facilities even when there are adequate stocks at the district/issuing stores. Given these constraints, district-level warehouses were easier to access than regional or state-level warehouses.

IHCI field teams observed three key challenges. The first was the availability of transport for collecting drugs from the district warehouses. The second challenge was a lack of understanding among pharmacists regarding estimating drug requirements for requisitions sent to the drug stores. The third challenge was the lack of rational distribution of drugs, which led to excess stocks in some facilities and stockouts in others. Under IHCI, min-max inventory levels were affixed for the health facilities. A ready reckoner was prepared for pharmacists to assess the antihypertensive drugs required for a given number of patients enrolled in the treatment (S4 File). The pharmacists reported that the ready reckoner helped prepare monthly requisitions and reduced stockouts.

3.5 Availability of drugs at the district level and point of care

The project began in 2018 and enrolled 68,982 patients in the first year and 283,474 in 2019. The total number of patients enrolled under IHCI in the 22 districts increased from 83,553 in Jan 2019 to 441,929 in March 2020.

Amlodipine stock was available for at least 60 patient days in all districts at the end of every quarter from Q2 2019 in Punjab, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh and August 2019 onwards in Telangana (Fig 4). Telmisartan/Losartan was available for 60 patient days or higher for all nine months in Punjab and Madhya Pradesh. The availability of Telmisartan/Losartan was below 60 patient days for two months (Jan 2019 and March 2019) in Maharashtra and four months (Dec 2019 to March 2020) in Telangana. Diuretics were supplied from August 2019 onwards in Telangana and were available for 120 patient days or higher after that. In Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, diuretics were available for 100 patient days or higher throughout nine months (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Antihypertensive drug availability inpatient days by the state for four states of India, Jun 2019 –March 2020.

Fig 4

The proportion of facilities with amlodipine stock out was below 5% in all states during the study period (Table 2). As the program was rapidly expanding, Punjab and Maharashtra had an increase in the facilities with stockout in the last quarter of 2019. Less than 10% of facilities had Telmisartan stockouts between June 2019 and Dec 2020. In the first quarter of 2020, three states except Madhya Pradesh had more than 10% of facilities with stockouts for telmisartan/losartan. Stockouts were higher for diuretics compared to the other two drugs.

Table 2. Proportion of facilities with stockouts (no drugs available) at the end of each quarter, 2019–20.

  June 2019 September 2019 December 2019 March 2020
  Total No. of health facilities No. of Facilities with stock out % with stock out Total No. of health facilities No. of Facilities with stock out % with stock out Total No. of health facilities No. of Facilities with stock out % with stock out Total No. of health facilities No. of Facilities with stock out % with stock out
Amlodipine
Punjab 155 3 1.9 155 9 5.8 155 13 8.4 155 13 8.4
Madhya Pradesh 155 0 0.0 171 0 0.0 171 1 0.6 171 0 0.0
Maharashtra 218 2 0.9 218 3 1.4 218 8 3.7 218 3 1.4
Telangana 199 2 1.0 199 3 1.5 201 1 0.5 201 0 0.0
Telmisartan
Punjab 155 11 7.1 155 24 15.5 155 21 13.5 155 33 21.3
Madhya Pradesh 155 7 4.5 171 4 2.3 171 5 2.9 171 1 0.6
Maharashtra 218 5 2.3 218 4 1.8 218 13 6.0 218 23 10.6
Telangana 199 9 4.5 199 4 2.0 201 11 5.5 201 25 12.4
Diuretic
Punjab 155 106 68.4 155 93 60.0 155 117 75.5 155 155 100.0
Madhya Pradesh 155 66 42.6 171 17 9.9 171 10 5.8 171 19 11.1
Maharashtra 218 7 3.2 218 21 9.6 218 30 13.8 218 47 21.6
Telangana 199 199 100.0 199 65 32.7 201 11 5.5 201 14 7.0

3.6 Dispensing to patient

Before the IHCI project implementation, the number of days drugs were dispensed varied from seven to 30 days, depending on the availability of drugs. After initiating IHCI, all four states issued guidelines, and medical officers and pharmacists were trained to prescribe and dispense the antihypertensive drugs for 30 days.

3.7 Financing and Logistic Management Information Systems

In India, all states procured drugs by pooling funds from the national level and state-level [12]. The annual budget is prepared by the states and submitted to the state and central government. All four states have digital logistic management information systems (LMIS) for managing drug procurement, inventory, distribution and monitoring. This system has been used in Madhya Pradesh and Telangana since 2014 and Maharashtra and Punjab since 2017 at all levels, from the state to the primary health care level. The institutional mechanism was in place for monthly drug stock reviews in all four states. Regular monitoring and supervisory visits were done to all types of drug stores, and records were maintained with respective supervisors. All state pharmacists used digital platform reports for periodic review and appropriate action. However, none of the district officials used digital platform reports.

4. Discussion

We assessed the functioning of the antihypertensive drugs supply chain steps from selection, forecasting practices, and procurement to availability at the point of care delivery in 22 districts over the beginning phase of IHCI implementation (2018–2020). Overall, procurements of antihypertensive protocol drugs increased to volumes closer to patient-day needs for the growing program, and their availability improved at the primary health care level. States planning to scale up hypertension control programs should adopt a package of interventions including drug-dose specific treatment protocol, forecasting using tools, multi-year rate contracts, a ready reckoner at the facility level and key indicators for monitoring drug availability. The interventions such as drug-dose specific treatment protocol, multi-year rate contracts and monthly monitoring of drug availability at the facility level are relevant for all disease conditions. However, forecasting tools and ready reckoners are useful for any chronic disease program where patients need to take drugs on a long-term basis.

WHO recommends rational selection of essential drugs as a critical strategy for improving treatment access. [11] The IHCI project team worked with stakeholders to develop simple drug and dose-specific protocols [15]. The protocols were consistent with the recent WHO hypertension treatment guidelines [16]. Globally, many countries have developed drug-specific protocols for hypertension treatment [17]. Before implementing the IHCI, there was no uniformity in the prescription practices, making drug procurement challenging. The protocols are beneficial for program managers to plan procurement. Program managers need to procure fewer drugs, each in larger quantities, which pools demand and leads to an economy of scale, thereby reducing the unit cost of the drugs. The states procured only three drugs in the project districts for the primary care facilities, making the supply chain more efficient.

One of the significant challenges in the supply chain is the lack of accurate estimation of drug requirements at the facility and district levels. Procurement of insufficient quantities of medicines due to poor forecasting and unexpected demand challenges has been documented in the LMIC health systems [18]. Before implementing IHCI, the estimated requirements were mainly based on the previous year’s consumption. The consumption-based approach underestimates the volume required if the facility has repeated stockouts or the program is expanding and treating more patients. Under the IHCI, hypertension protocol-based annual drug forecasting based on the existing patient load and additional expected patient load made the estimates more reliable and reduced stockouts. Estimating periodic stock replenishment at health facilities requires sound information systems that track the number of patients on treatment rather than the number of visits to the health centre. Prior to implementing IHCI, only the aggregate data on the number of patient visits was collected and reported, but there was a lack of a registry. Once the information system was in place, ready reckoners based on patient registration helped pharmacists estimate monthly demand. The morbidity-based estimation method will be useful until the enrolment of a large proportion of patients expected to take treatment in the public sector. Once the district has achieved saturation based on utilization of public sector health facilities, the transition to the consumption-based method can be considered based on the assessment.

In the past decade, most Indian states have developed a centralized procurement mechanism under a dedicated procurement agency at the state level. To implement the interventions mentioned in this study, the states should have a department/agency that oversees the procurement process, a well-defined procurement policy to govern supplier selection and contract management, a coordination mechanism between the user department and procurement unit, a risk mitigation plan for supply/quality failures and timely payment mechanism. Procurement improved with better planning, continuous follow-up with various stakeholders, and forecasting in the study districts. As measured by patient days, the overall availability of the drugs was adequate in the study period, and there were few stockouts for the first two protocol drugs. A systematic review of studies from LMICs reported that procurement challenges included insufficient funds, delays in procurement, and insufficient procurement due to poor forecasting [18]. Robust governance, efficiency and transparency in procurement and contracting practices are essential to improve drug availability. We could not fully document and address these challenges in our study. We need more in-depth studies to explore these challenges and better coordination between the program managers and procurement teams to reduce delays.

Despite challenges, at least two protocol drugs were available throughout the study period. Several studies from India and other LMICs have documented poor availability of essential drugs. [7, 8, 1922] A national-level survey of public and private sector facilities reported poor NCD drugs and technologies in primary care. In the districts where the national NCD program was implemented, less than 1% of community health centres (which cater to approximately 100,000 population) and 17% of district hospitals were fully equipped with medicines and technologies to manage hypertension and cardiovascular diseases [9]. In Punjab, a survey of health facilities reported a 60% availability of antihypertensive drugs in 2015 [7]. Our data indicated an improvement in the availability of drugs in Punjab compared to 2015. Our experience reinforces the importance of building capacity and implementing good supply chain management practices to improve availability and reduce stockouts.

The limitation of our study was that we could not compare our data with the district-level availability of drugs before the start of the project. We used the procurement data as a surrogate for the availability of drugs in 2017–18 and 2018–19. We did not design a separate study for supply chain interventions. The lack of drugs was a major challenge in the initial planning and implementation phase. Hence, we planned the supply chain interventions described in the manuscript. Our experience can offer insights to researchers and program managers in low-resource settings. It can be used to design more structured, well-designed studies for supply chain interventions to improve the availability of NCD drugs in the context of LMIC.

We demonstrated the feasibility of strengthening procurement and supply chain management for antihypertensive drugs in a low-resource setting at scale. Although the number of procured drugs increased, there were still insufficient stocks at various time points. It was due to the challenges which could not be fully addressed, including timely tendering to ensure rate contracts, timely placement of orders, robust stock tracking system at the facility level, and timely availability of transport. It is important to address these gaps as the program expands and the number of patients on treatment increases. We were able to document improvement in several important areas, including the adoption of the treatment protocol, increased procurement volumes due to forecasting and collaboration among various stakeholders to match requirements with program scale-up, monthly stock monitoring at the facility level, improved availability of antihypertensive drugs included in the protocol in primary care facilities and minimum 30 days refills for the patients. Effective practices established in the IHCI can be replicated in other districts in India and other LMICs to increase the coverage of hypertension treatment. The interventions to further strengthen the governance and adoption of best procurement practices should be sustained to ensure the availability of drugs for NCDs.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Sample treatment protocol 1.

(TIFF)

S2 Fig. Sample treatment protocol 2.

(TIFF)

S1 File. Drugs forecasting tool for sample treatment protocol 1.

(XLSX)

S2 File. Drugs forecasting tool for sample treatment protocol 2.

(XLSX)

S3 File. Monthly drug requirement matrix for sample protocols 1 and 2.

(XLSX)

S4 File. Drug adequacy ready reckoner for sample treatment protocols 1 and 2.

(XLSX)

S5 File. Data collection format for the stock position of antihypertensive drugs inpatient days.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the field-level health care workers, nurses, doctors, and district-level health officials for providing services for managing hypertension as part of the IHCI. We thank Senior Treatment Supervisors for their role in capacity building and supportive supervision in the project districts. We thank the ICMR Task Force Chair, Dr. Ambuj Roy, and all other experts for their valuable inputs in designing and implementing the project.

List of authors (alphabetical order) for “India Hypertension Control Initiative (IHCI) Collaboration."

Sampada D Bangar5, Vishwajit Bharadwaj6, Rupali Bharadwaj7, Sailaja Bitragunta1, Sreedhar Chintala8, Tapas Chakma9, Tejpalsinh A Chavan10, Sunil Dar11, Bidisha Das12, RS Dhaliwal3, Sandeep Singh Gill13, Tanu Jain4, Padmaja Jogewar14, Chakshu Joshi15, Abhishek Khanna16, Suhas N Khedkar17, Ashish Krishna18, Navneet Kumar19, Vijay Kumar20, Madhavi M21, Anupam K Pathni18, Satyendra N Ponna22, Sravan K Reddy23, Swagata K Sahoo18, Ashish Saxsena24, Bhawna Sharma18, Shweta Singh16, Gurinder B Singh13, Sunny Swarnkar4, Jatin Thakkar25, Fikru T Tullu2, Mohammed Abdul Wassey26, Amol B Wankhede27

1 Division of Noncommunicable Diseases, ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai

2 Dept of Noncommunicable Diseases, WHO Country Office for India, New Delhi

3 Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi

4 Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry and Health, and Family Welfare, New Delhi

5 ICMR-National AIDS Research Institute, Pune

6 IHCI Project, District NCD Cell, Bhandara (Maharashtra), WHO-India.

7 IHCI Project, District NCD Cell, Chhindwara (Madhya Pradesh), WHO-India.

8 IHCI Project, District NCD Cell, Karimnagar (Telangana), WHO-India.

9 ICMR-National Institute of Research in Tribal Health, Jabalpur

10 IHCI Project, District NCD Cell, Sindudurg (Maharashtra), WHO-India.

11 IHCI Project, District NCD Cell, Hoshiarpur (Punjab), WHO-India.

12 IHCI Project, District NCD Cell, Bhatinda (Punjab), WHO-India.

13 State NCD Cell, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh

14 State NCD Cell, Directorate of Health Services, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai

15 IHCI Project, District NCD Cell, Ratlam (Madhya Pradesh), WHO-India.

16 NPCDCS Cell, DGHS, New Delhi, WHO- India

17 IHCI Project, District NCD Cell, Satara (Maharashtra), WHO-India.

18 Resolve to Save Lives, New Delhi

19 IHCI Project, State NCD Cell, Chandigarh (Punjab), WHO-India

20 IHCI Project, District NCD Cell, Gurdaspur (Punjab), WHO-India.

21 State NCD Cell, Department of Health, Medical and Family Welfare, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad

22 IHCI Project, District NCD Cell, Warangal (Telangana), WHO-India.

23 IHCI Project, State NCD Cell, Hyderabad (Telangana), WHO-India.

24 State NCD Cell, Directorate of Health Services, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal

25 IHCI Project, State NCD Cell, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh), WHO-India.

26 IHCI Project, District NCD Cell, Mahabubnagar (Telangana), WHO-India.

27 IHCI Project, State NCD Cell, Mumbai (Maharashtra), WHO-India.

Data Availability

Kaur, Prabhdeep (2023), “Availability of antihypertensive drugs in project districts - India Hypertension Control Initiative”, Mendeley Data, V2, doi: 10.17632/xs8dpz2z6v.2.

Funding Statement

Source of funding Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi project ID No.50/2/TF-CVD/2019-NCD-I Role of funder: Sponsor constituted a group of independent experts who peer-reviewed the design and implementation of the project.

References

  • 1.Geldsetzer P, Manne-Goehler J, Theilmann M, Davies JI, Awasthi A, Vollmer S, et al. Diabetes and hypertension in India: a nationally representative study of 1.3 million adults. JAMA internal medicine. 2018;178(3):363–72. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mathur P, Kulothungan V, Leburu S, Krishnan A, Chaturvedi HK, Salve HR, et al. National noncommunicable disease monitoring survey (NNMS) in India: Estimating risk factor prevalence in adult population. PloS one. 2021;16(3):e0246712. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246712 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.ICMR-NCDIR. National Noncommunicable Disease Monitoring Survey (NNMS) 2017–18.: ICMR-National Institute of Disease Informatics and Research, Bangaluru; 2021. [cited 2021 28th March]. Available from: https://ncdirindia.org/nnms/. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Husain MJ, Datta BK, Kostova D, Joseph KT, Asma S, Richter P, et al. Access to cardiovascular disease and hypertension medicines in developing countries: an analysis of essential medicine Lists, price, availability, and affordability. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2020;9(9):e015302. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.015302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Attaei MW, Khatib R, McKee M, Lear S, Dagenais G, Igumbor EU, et al. Availability and affordability of blood pressure-lowering medicines and the effect on blood pressure control in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: an analysis of the PURE study data. The Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(9):e411–e9. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30141-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kotwani A, Ewen M, Dey D, Iyer S, Lakshmi P, Patel A, et al. Prices & availability of common medicines at six sites in India using a standard methodology. Indian journal of medical research. 2007;125(5):645. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Prinja S, Bahuguna P, Tripathy JP, Kumar R. Availability of medicines in public sector health facilities of two North Indian States. BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology. 2015;16(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s40360-015-0043-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Satheesh G, Sharma A, Puthean S, Ansil TP M, E J, Raj Mishra S, et al. Availability, price and affordability of essential medicines for managing cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: A statewide survey in Kerala, India. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2020;25(12):1467–79. doi: 10.1111/tmi.13494 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Krishnan A, Mathur P, Kulothungan V, Salve HR, Leburu S, Amarchand R, et al. Preparedness of primary and secondary health facilities in India to address major noncommunicable diseases: results of a National Noncommunicable Disease Monitoring Survey (NNMS). BMC health services research. 2021;21(1):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.World Health Organisation. Cardiovascular disease -HEARTS technical package Geneva: World Health Organisation,; 2017. [cited 2020 19th August]. Available from: https://www.who.int/cardiovascular_diseases/hearts/en/. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.World Health Organisation. Equitable access to essential medicines: a framework for collective action. Geneva 2004. [cited 2021 10th September]. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2004/WHO_EDM_2004.4.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Choudhury M, Mohanty RK. Role of National Health Mission in Health Spending of States: Achievements and Issues. New Delhi: National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.John Snow Inc. The supply chain managers’s handbook—A practical guide to the management of health commodities Arlington, VA: John Snow Inc,; 2017. [cited 2021 10th September]. Available from: https://www.jsi.com/resource/the-supply-chain-managers-handbook/. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kaur P, Kunwar A, Sharma M, Durgad K, Gupta S, Bangar SD, et al. The India Hypertension Control Initiative–early outcomes in 26 districts across five states of India, 2018–2020. Journal of Human Hypertension. 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41371-022-00742-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.ICMR-NIE. India Hypertension Control Initiative: State Hypertension Protocols: ICMR-NIE, Chennai; 2021. [cited 2021 16th Aug]. Available from: https://www.ihci.in/resources/protocols. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.World Health Organisation. Guideline for the pharmacological treatment of hypertension in adults Geneva: World Health Organisation,; 2021. [cited 2021 11th November]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/344424/9789240033986-eng.pdf [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.DiPette DJ, Goughnour K, Zuniga E, Skeete J, Ridley E, Angell S, et al. Standardized treatment to improve hypertension control in primary health care: The HEARTS in the Americas Initiative. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension. 2020;22(12):2285–95. doi: 10.1111/jch.14072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Olaniran A, Briggs J, Pradhan A, Bogue E, Schreiber B, Dini HS, et al. Stock-Outs of Essential Medicines Among Community Health Workers (CHWs) In Low-And Middle-Income Countries (LMICs): A Systematic Literature Review of The Extent, Reasons, And Consequences. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.van Mourik MSM, Cameron A, Ewen M, Laing RO. Availability, price and affordability of cardiovascular medicines: A comparison across 36 countries using WHO/HAI data. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. 2010;10(1):25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-10-25 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.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. The Lancet. 2009;373(9659):240–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61762-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.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;85:279–88. doi: 10.2471/blt.06.033647 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wollum A, Gabert R, McNellan CR, Daly JM, Reddy P, Bhatt P, et al. Identifying gaps in the continuum of care for cardiovascular disease and diabetes in two communities in South Africa: Baseline findings from the HealthRise project. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(3):e0192603. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192603 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Dzintars Gotham

15 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-13904Improving the availability of antihypertensive drugs in the India Hypertension Control Initiative, India, 2019-2020PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kaur,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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. Please note Dr Satheesh's comments are given as comments on a PDF version of the manuscript, attached.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 29 2023 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dzintars Gotham

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

"NO authors have competing interests"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium [India Hypertension Control Initiative (IHCI) Collaboration."]. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

7. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

8. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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

**********

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: Thank you for the opportunity to review this important piece of work, which demonstrates the feasibility of optimizing procurement and supply chains for antihypertensive drugs in India's resource-limited public sector. Please find my comments, questions, and suggestions on the attached proof of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents data and analysis that would be useful to readers, in particular health policymakers in India.

My main concern is that the conclusion and discussion of this paper is not reflective of the findings. It seems to try to gloss over procurement concerns that the data actually reveal. For example, consider the abstract's conclusions that "This study demonstrates the feasibility of strengthening the procurement and supply chain management for antihypertensive drugs." The data don't exactly demonstrate this. From table 2, I calculated that the overall percent of facilities with stockouts actually increased over the study period for both Amlo and Telmisartan. So even though the absolute quantity of pills procured did grow substantially, there were some inefficiencies still. According to figure 4, this seems to reflect issues with inadequate stock particularly of Telmisartan in 3 out of 4 examined states. For Amlo and Chlortalidone, issues with inadequate stock were observed in 1 out of 4 states.

Overall, the study demonstrates that the absolute quantities of pills did increase across the board, but some states still experienced inefficiencies with the sufficient procurement of some medicines, especially Telmisartan. The key conclusion of the paper should be to emphasize the need to resolve these stocking issues as scale up of the program increases. It's important to not bury the key take-away of the analysis just because it doesn't show perfect outcomes.

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Gautam Satheesh

Reviewer #2: 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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-13904_reviewer_Aug 9.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Dec 14;18(12):e0295338. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295338.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Nov 2023

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this important piece of work, which demonstrates the feasibility of optimizing procurement and supply chains for antihypertensive drugs in India's resource-limited public sector. Please find my comments, questions, and suggestions on the attached proof of the manuscript.

There were comments in track changes – response is given below:

1. Add secondary facilities in Intro – Abstract as highlighted in comment 3

Reply – Added – Abstract para 1

2. There are more recent surveys from India. The most recent one that I can think of is a statewide survey in 2020 from Kerala which reported low availability of several antihypertensive drugs.

Reply – Ref 8 added and text added on the Page 4, para 1, line 9-12

3. Do these include secondary care facilities too? Is there some data on the number of facilities at each level of care?

Reply – Edits done - Page 5, Para 2.1, line 5

Every district has one district hospital and few districts also have sub district hospitals. We have not analysed separately because supply chain/ procurement is same irrespective of the facility. Also they are catering to relatively small proportion of patients among all enrolled patients.

4. Explain morbidity based method

Reply – Details added – Page 6, Para 3 Forecasting drug requirements and budgeting – Line 6-8

The morbidity-based method takes into account expected patients to be initiated on treatment in addition to patients who are already on treatment and the drugs in the protocol at various levels.

5. Only for three quarters in the last year (2019-20)?

Reply – Page 9, bii and biii

Analysis is for one financial year. Clarified in the text

ii. The proportion of health facilities with drug stock out Out of all implementing facilities, the number of facilities had nil stock of any protocol drug at the end of each of the four quarters from Q2, 2019 to Q1, 2020. Stock out was separately considered for each of the three protocol drugs.

iii. Drug stock in patient-days at the end of each quarter at the district level for the four quarters from Q2, 2019 to Q1, 2020.

6. Is this drug-specific or protocol-specific? If a facility did not have any unit of amlodipine, but stocked hydrochlorothiazide and telmisartan, would that not be a stockout? Suggest modifying the sentence to reflect that.

Reply – Page 9, bii Stockout is drug-specific. Sentence modified as below:

ii. The proportion of health facilities with drug stock out Out of all implementing facilities, the number of facilities had nil stock of any protocol drugs at the end of each of the four quarters from Q2, 2019 to Q1, 2020. Stock out was separately considered for each of the three protocol drugs.

7. Is this assumption based on the early outcomes of IHCI? If yes, I suggest citing it here. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41371-022-00742-5

Reply – Ref 14 added. Assumptions are based on analysis of data from initial months. Overall results presented in the manuscript mentioned above. Recently we also did deeper analysis – stepwise for protocols, which is currently under review. Pre-print is available at medRxiv -

Kaur P, Sakthivel M, Venkatasamy V, Jogewar P, Gill SS, Kunwar A, Sharma M, Pathni AK, Durgad K, Sahoo SK, Wankhede A. India Hypertension Control Initiative-Blood pressure control using drug and dose-specific standard treatment protocol at scale in Punjab and Maharashtra, India, 2022. medRxiv. 2023:2023-08.

8. Could you mention the years of issue of each EMLs here?

Reply – We do not have the information about the year for EML.

9. Are all IHCI protocols based on monotherapy with multiple pills? Is there any state protocol that uses single pill combinations?

Reply – The states included in the study did not have Fixed-dose combination antihypertensive drugs in the EML. Hence, it is not procured. Treatment protocols were decided in consultation with the state-level experts and program managers. They included drugs in EML in the protocols to enable timely procurements.

10. Not including the subsequent year (2020-21) appears to be a missed opportunity. I would be curious to know if (and how) the pandemic/lockdowns affected the IHCI procurement and implementation in general across various states, but perhaps beyond the scope of the current paper.

Reply – Data collection for drugs is extremely challenging. We established a system where monthly data collection was done involving pharmacists/nurses. During the pandemic, most staff were diverted to COVID-19 work, hence, we could not get complete data during that period. We have documented our experience of HT treatment access during the pandemic in the project districts in the following publication:

Kunwar A, Durgad K, Kaur P, et al. Interventions to ensure the continuum of care for hypertension during the COVID-19 pandemic in five Indian states—India Hypertension Control Initiative. Global Heart 2021;16(1).

11. The sentence appears unclear/incomplete. Suggest rewording.

Reply – Page 15, last 3 sentences.

We have modified the sentence - Initially, the other three states had to add chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide in the EML, and procurement was initiated in the subsequent years.

12. Are these findings from the in-depth interviews?

Reply – Our team closely worked with the state and district-level officials for supportive supervision and documented the challenges. These observations were based on the real-time implementation experience.

13. I believe this is Madhya Pradesh and not Maharashtra. If it's the latter, the next sentence is contradictory.

Reply – Agree – Correction done on page 17, para 3.5 – line 7

14. of telmisartan/losartan?

Reply – Added – Correction done on page 17, para 3.5 – line 7

15. Interesting to see Punjab having the highest % of facilities with stockouts for all three drugs in all quarters (except Diuretic in June 2019). Could this pattern be explained.

Reply – Punjab was the first state to start the IHCI project. Before IHCI, the procurement system was not geared up for NCD drugs. Although procurement/supply was improved, it could not keep up with increasing demand.

16. WHO HEARTS recommends 3-month supply.

Reply – We agree, and we hope eventually it will be possible. However, procurement and distribution systems are not mature enough for 3-month dispensing. We developed the operational guidelines in consultation with state NCD program managers. All states agreed for dispensing one month drugs and gradually moving to 2 or 3 months dispensing.

17. Weren't the IHCI protocols developed much before 2021? I would not agree that these protocols are consistent with the "recent" WHO guidelines (2021) as WHO strongly recommends initiation with combination therapy for most patients with hypertension (although algorithm-2 is monotherapy-based).

Reply - WHO guidelines do provide options for protocols starting with one drug. We used WHO HEARTS which also included protocols starting with drugs. Our experience with protocols starting with one drug better suited for low-resource settings informed the WHO guidelines. PI is part of the WHO guidelines review group.

18. Figure 2 and 4 - Is this chlorthalidone/hydrochlorthiazide?

Reply: Correction done in the figures 2 and 4

Initially, most states had HCTZ as there were no rate contracts for chlorthalidone. Since protocol had chlorthalidone, rate contracts were initiated and gradually, procurement transitioned from HCTZ to Chlorthalidone.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents data and analysis that would be useful to readers, in particular health policymakers in India.

• My main concern is that the conclusion and discussion of this paper is not reflective of the findings. It seems to try to gloss over procurement concerns that the data actually reveal. For example, consider the abstract's conclusions that "This study demonstrates the feasibility of strengthening the procurement and supply chain management for antihypertensive drugs." The data don't exactly demonstrate this.

Reply: We agree with the reviewer's comments and have made the following changes in the abstract conclusions.

“As the program was rapidly growing, there were still gaps in the procurement and distribution system which needed to be addressed to ensure the adequacy of drugs.”

In addition, we highlighted the challenges that could not be addressed on Page 22 – last 3 sentences.

We are cautious about the balanced conclusions as there were major improvements in the supply chain and we hope this work will motivate the health departments to strengthen the systems further. We understand the limitations, however, system improvements take much longer, and our idea is to document the incremental changes possible despite tremendous challenges and limitations.

• From Table 2, I calculated that the overall percent of facilities with stockouts actually increased over the study period for both Amlo and Telmisartan. So even though the absolute quantity of pills procured did grow substantially, there were some inefficiencies still.

Reply: Page 17 – last para, Page 18 – First para

We agree with the reviewer’s observations. We have added sentences in the results – to highlight this issue.

As the program was rapidly expanding, Punjab and Maharashtra had an increase in the facilities with stockout in the last quarter of 2019.

In the first quarter of 2020, three states except Madhya Pradesh had more than 10% of facilities with stockouts for telmisartan/losartan.

• According to figure 4, this seems to reflect issues with inadequate stock particularly of Telmisartan in 3 out of 4 examined states. For Amlo and Chlortalidone, issues with inadequate stock were observed in 1 out of 4 states.

Reply to comment:

We agree with the reviewer’s observations. We have mentioned this in the results and also in the conclusions. The reason was that pharmacists were not used to maintaining the 2-3 months stock because there was no system in place to assess the adequacy of stock. Since the supply chain is not tuned to maintaining such stocks, it will take longer to strengthen the processes.

• Overall, the study demonstrates that the absolute quantities of pills did increase across the board, but some states still experienced inefficiencies with the sufficient procurement of some medicines, especially Telmisartan. The key conclusion of the paper should be to emphasize the need to resolve these stocking issues as scale up of the program increases. It's important to not bury the key take-away of the analysis just because it doesn't show perfect outcomes.

Reply : Page 24 – first para

We have modified the conclusions as per suggestions.

Although the number of procured drugs increased, there were still insufficient stocks at various time points. It was due to the challenges which could not be fully addressed including timely tendering to ensure rate contracts, timely placement of orders, robust stock tracking system at the facility level, and timely availability of transport. It is important to address these gaps as the program expands and the number of patients on treatment increases.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Dzintars Gotham

21 Nov 2023

Improving the availability of antihypertensive drugs in the India Hypertension Control Initiative, India, 2019-2020

PONE-D-23-13904R1

Dear Dr. Kaur,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dzintars Gotham

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

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. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately 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: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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: (No Response)

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The comments have been sufficiently addressed. For clarity, I recommend adjusting the first sentence of the conclusion from "This study demonstrates that including best practices can gradually strengthen the

procurement and supply chain for antihypertensives in a low-resource setting."

to

"This study demonstrates an increase in health system capacity to successfully procure increased quantities of antihypertensive medications commensurate with IHCI best practices."

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Gautam Satheesh

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Dzintars Gotham

5 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-13904R1

Improving the availability of antihypertensive drugs in the India Hypertension Control Initiative, India, 2019-2020

Dear Dr. Kaur:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Dzintars Gotham

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Sample treatment protocol 1.

    (TIFF)

    S2 Fig. Sample treatment protocol 2.

    (TIFF)

    S1 File. Drugs forecasting tool for sample treatment protocol 1.

    (XLSX)

    S2 File. Drugs forecasting tool for sample treatment protocol 2.

    (XLSX)

    S3 File. Monthly drug requirement matrix for sample protocols 1 and 2.

    (XLSX)

    S4 File. Drug adequacy ready reckoner for sample treatment protocols 1 and 2.

    (XLSX)

    S5 File. Data collection format for the stock position of antihypertensive drugs inpatient days.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers comments - plos one.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-13904_reviewer_Aug 9.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Kaur, Prabhdeep (2023), “Availability of antihypertensive drugs in project districts - India Hypertension Control Initiative”, Mendeley Data, V2, doi: 10.17632/xs8dpz2z6v.2.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES