Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42393456›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2026

Implementation Aspects of a Medicines Shortage Policy Tool: Evidence from Australia's Serious Scarcity Substitution Instruments.

Jack Janetzki, Lisa Kalisch-Ellett, Nicole Pratt, Anna Kemp-Casey

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jack JanetzkiSchool of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, College of Health, Adelaide University, Adelaide University North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. Jack.Janetzki@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4171-3504
Lisa Kalisch-EllettSchool of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, College of Health, Adelaide University, Adelaide University North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5063-6128
Nicole PrattSchool of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, College of Health, Adelaide University, Adelaide University North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8730-8910
Anna Kemp-CaseySchool of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, College of Health, Adelaide University, Adelaide University North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0018-962X

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council GNT1196900
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication shortages are a considerable and ongoing issue in healthcare, disrupting consumer access to medicines. Since 2021, Australia's national medicines regulator has issued Serious Scarcity Substitution Instruments (SSSIs), allowing pharmacists to substitute a specific therapeutically equivalent strength and/or formulation of a medicine without prior approval from a prescriber. The impact of SSSIs on utilisation of medicines has not been investigated.

objectiveTo determine whether SSSIs are effective in addressing medicine shortages and meeting patients' needs.

methodsThis retrospective cohort study used aggregated pharmacy claims to examine the utilisation of 12 medicines, which had an SSSI. We calculated the percentage change in defined daily doses dispensed per 1000 population per day in the 11 months after SSSI implementation, compared with the previous 2 years. A percentage change of less than 20% was used to indicate success.

resultsFollowing medicine shortages, utilisation fell for 10 of the 12 medicines examined. For eight of these medicines (amoxicillin, cefalexin, estradiol, fluoxetine, insulin degludec with insulin aspart, isosorbide mononitrate, vigabatrin, and warfarin) decreases in utilisation were minimised to < 20%. On average, SSSIs where all permitted substitute products were scarce (e.g., abatacept) were associated with larger decreases in use (between - 22 and - 68%) than those for which none or only some of the substitutes were in shortage (between - 45 and + 7%, respectively).

conclusionsWhile product shortages led to decreases in medicines consumption, SSSIs appeared to be successful in limiting decreases. However, SSSIs were less likely to be successful when many of the permitted substitute products were also scarce.

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.