ArticlePloS one2025
Economic assessment of potential changes to essential medicines for diabetes in Uganda.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization suggests selecting essential medicines based on availability, accessibility, affordability, cost-effectiveness, and safety and efficacy. We examined Oral Hypoglycemic Agents (OHAs) for type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Essential Medicines and Health Supplies List for Uganda (EMHSLU), assessed all criteria, and proposed alternative medicines to improve cost-savings and health outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a literature review followed by budget impact analysis (BIA) to evaluate potential cost-savings from refining EMHSLU. In our literature review, we identified metrics for measuring availability, accessibility, and affordability of medicines and evaluated evidence on cost-effectiveness, safety, and efficacy of OHAs. According to the country context and available data, we used applicable methods to analyze five classes of OHAs available in Uganda. Since the government covers essential medicines in the public sector based on BIA, we assessed affordability for the government by examining potential savings in two scenarios (#1: shifts within the EMHSLU; #2: use of non-EMHSLU drugs).
resultsOHAs added to the EMHSLU 2023 are less available and accessible compared to OHAs in EMHSLU 2016. BIA scenario 1 revealed that the complete replacement of glimepiride 2 mg and gliclazide 80 mg with glibenclamide 5 mg could save the government up to USD 2.65 million per year. Additionally, scenario 2 showed that full replacement of dapagliflozin 10 mg and glimepiride 4 mg instead of their lower doses can save up to United States Dollar (USD) 230,000 and USD 600,000 per year, respectively. A review and adaptation of a published cost-effectiveness analysis highlights that sitagliptin is a cost-effective OHA in Uganda with an estimated Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio of $6,132/Quality-Adjusted LifeYear.
conclusionThe findings suggest several potential type 2 diabetes oral medication substitutions which would reduce costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.