Please login to the form below

The 2019 WHO essential medicine list: Narrowing the access gap to innovative cancer treatments

The essential medicine list (EML) contains treatments considered to be the most effective and safe in targeting global health concerns. On 9 July 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the 21st edition of the EML, recommending the inclusion of 28 new medicines.

The new additions were selected through an evidence-based process which assesses the quality, safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of candidate treatments. For the 2019 update, the Expert Committee evaluated a total of 65 applications, including proposals to add new medicines, extend the indication of listed treatments and remove medicines from the list.

The criteria

In 2018, The WHO Cancer Medicines Working Group (CMWG) adopted the European Society for Medical Oncology‒Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO–MCBS) as a screening tool to identify cancer treatments that demonstrate therapeutic value. The CMWG indicated that for therapies to become eligible for inclusion in the EML, they need to show an ESMO score equal to 4, 5 or A–B, provided that the clinical benefits meet or exceed the 4–6-month survival interval.

Cancer treatments recommended for listing:

International nonproprietary name (INN)

Brand name






Bristol-Myers Squibb

Front-line monotherapy in patients with unresectable and metastatic melanoma

Merck’s Keytruda (pembrolizumab) was indicated as a therapeutically equivalent alternative




Treatment of patients with

newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in both non-transplant and transplant eligible/available settings









Multiple brands





Front-line treatment of EGFR mutation positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Boehringer Ingelheim’s Gilotrif (afatinib) and AstraZeneca’s Iressa (gefitinib) were indicated as a therapeutically equivalent alternative




Treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer





Treatment of patients with

acute promyelocytic leukaemia




Sigma Tau


A number of high-profile rejections were also reported in the latest WHO EML, including:

  • Non-small cell lung cancer treatments, due to their still-evolving place in therapy:
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Opdivo® (nivolumab)
  • Merck’s Keytruda® (pembrolizumab)
  • Genentech’s Tecentriq (atezolizumab)
  • HER-2 positive breast cancer treatments:
    • Genentech’s Perjeta® (pertuzumab)
      due to lack of sufficient evidence to demonstrate a clinically meaningful overall survival benefit in early-stage disease.
    • Roche’s Kadcyla® (trastuzumab emtansine)
      the Committee stated that while it demonstrates relevant survival benefit, its use as second-line treatment of metastatic disease was considered not to be a priority in the context of treatment of breast cancer.

Narrowing the gap to effective treatment access

The inclusion of innovative medicines in the WHO EML is an important step to help patients gain access to effective treatments. The WHO EML influences other essential medicines lists at the national and regional level, and, therefore, which medicines are kept in stock and available by the government. According to the WHO, more than 150 countries use the EML to guide decisions about which medicines represent the best value for money.

To read the rest of the blog visit:

22nd October 2019



Company Details

Valid Insight

+44 (0) 20 3750 9833

Contact Website

152-160 City Road
Kemp House
United Kingdom

Latest content on this profile

The 'winner takes all' pricing game
Tendering has long been common in healthcare for medical devices and diagnostics; the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Jamaica Commodity Trading Company have been using pharmaceutical tendering since the 1970s. In the 1990s, international institutions such as the World Health Organisation and the World Bank endorsed tendering as the preferred procurement process for drugs.
Valid Insight
RWE Blog 4: The place of real-world evidence in the market access strategy
The fourth and final blog in our latest series focuses on market access strategy. This follows our evaluation of the role of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) in Real-world challenges and real-world data, understanding the payer's perspective, in Payers use real-world data cautiously, and seeing the views of both advocates and opponents of RWE in Is real-world evidence the holy grail: Finding the balance.
Valid Insight
RWE Blog 3: Is real-world evidence the holy grail
We began our four-blog series by evaluating the role of real-world data (RWD) and real-world-evidence (RWE) in Real-world challenges and real-world data, and understanding the payer's perspective, in Payers use real-world data cautiously. In our third instalment, we’re looking at how to find the right balance in using RWE.
Valid Insight
RWE Blog 2: Payers use real-world data cautiously
Following our evaluation of the role of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) in our blog Real-world challenges and real-world data, the second instalment of our four-blog series looks at why payers use real-world data cautiously.
Valid Insight
RWE Blog 1: Real-world challenges and real-world data
This is the first of a set of four blogs on real-world data (RWD) and real-world-evidence (RWE), and their role in market access.
Valid Insight
Valid News, Market Access Insights, Issue 3
Wherever you are in the world, it’s important to have a holistic view of what’s happening in the market.
Valid Insight