Dataset Information

A comparative field evaluation of six medicine quality screening devices in Laos.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Medicine quality screening devices hold great promise for post-market surveillance (PMS). However, there is little independent evidence on their field utility and usability to inform policy decisions. This pilot study in the Lao PDR tested six devices' utility and usability in detecting substandard and falsified (SF) medicines.

Methodology/principal findings

Observational time and motion studies of the inspections by 16 Lao medicine inspectors of 1) the stock of an Evaluation Pharmacy (EP), constructed to resemble a Lao pharmacy, and 2) a sample set of medicines (SSM); were conducted without and with six devices: four handheld spectrometers (two near infrared: MicroPHAZIR RX, NIR-S-G1 & two Raman: Progeny, Truscan RM); one portable mid-infrared spectrometer (4500a), and single-use paper analytical devices (PAD). User experiences were documented by interviews and focus group discussions. Significantly more samples were wrongly categorised as pass/fail with the PAD compared to the other devices in EP inspections (p<0.05). The numbers of samples wrongly classified in EP inspections were significantly lower than in initial visual inspections without devices for 3/6 devices (NIR-S-G1, MicroPHAZIR RX, 4500a). The NIR-S-G1 had the fastest testing time per sample (median 93.5 sec, p<0.001). The time spent on EP visual inspection was significantly shorter when using a device than for inspections without devices, except with the 4500a, risking missing visual clues of samples being SF. The main user errors were the selection of wrong spectrometer reference libraries and wrong user interpretation of PAD results. Limitations included repeated inspections of the EP by the same inspectors with different devices and the small sample size of SF medicines.

Conclusions/significance

This pilot study suggests policy makers wishing to implement portable screening devices in PMS should be aware that overconfidence in devices may cause harm by reducing inspectors' investment in visual inspection. It also provides insight into the advantages/limitations of diverse screening devices in the hands of end-users.

SUBMITTER: Caillet C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8483322 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPost-market surveillance is a key regulatory function to prevent substandard and falsified (SF) medicines from being consumed by patients. Field deployable technologies offer the potential for rapid objective screening for SF medicines.Methods and findingsWe evaluated twelve devices: three near infrared spectrometers (MicroPHAZIR RX, NIR-S-G1, Neospectra 2.5), two Raman spectrometers (Progeny, TruScan RM), one mid-infrared spectrometer (4500a), one disposable colorimetric assay (Paper Analytical Devices, PAD), one disposable immunoassay (Rapid Diagnostic Test, RDT), one portable liquid chromatograph (C-Vue), one microfluidic system (PharmaChk), one mass spectrometer (QDa), and one thin layer chromatography kit (GPHF-Minilab). Each device was tested with a series of field collected medicines (FCM) along with simulated medicines (SIM) formulated in a laboratory. The FCM and SIM ranged from samples with good quality active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) concentrations, reduced concentrations of API (80% and 50% of the API), no API, and the wrong API. All the devices had high sensitivities (91.5 to 100.0%) detecting medicines with no API or the wrong API. However, the sensitivities of each device towards samples with 50% and 80% API varied greatly, from 0% to 100%. The infrared and Raman spectrometers had variable sensitivities for detecting samples with 50% and 80% API (from 5.6% to 50.0%). The devices with the ability to quantitate API (C-Vue, PharmaChk, QDa) had sensitivities ranging from 91.7% to 100% to detect all poor quality samples. The specificity was lower for the quantitative C-Vue, PharmaChk, & QDa (50.0% to 91.7%) than for all the other devices in this study (95.5% to 100%).ConclusionsThe twelve devices evaluated could detect medicines with the wrong or none of the APIs, consistent with falsified medicines, with high accuracy. However, API quantitation to detect formulations similar to those commonly found in substandards proved more difficult, requiring further technological innovation.

Project description:Substandard and falsified (SF) antimalarials have devastating consequences including increased morbidity, mortality and economic losses. Portable medicine quality screening devices are increasingly available, but whether their use for the detection of SF antimalarials is cost-effective is not known. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of introducing such devices in post-market surveillance in pharmacies in Laos, conservatively focusing on their outcome in detecting SF artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs). We simulated the deployment of six portable screening devices: two handheld near-infrared [MicroPHAZIR RX, NIR-S-G1], two handheld Raman [Progeny, TruScan RM]; one portable mid-infrared [4500a FTIR] spectrometers, and single-use disposable paper analytical devices [PADs]. We considered two scenarios with high and low levels of SF ACTs. Different sampling strategies in which medicine inspectors would test 1, 2, or 3 sample(s) of each brand of ACT were evaluated. Costs of inspection including device procurement, inspector time, reagents, reference testing, and replacement with genuine ACTs were estimated. Outcomes were measured as disability adjusted life years (DALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for each device compared with a baseline of visual inspections alone. In the scenario with high levels of SF ACTs, all devices were cost-effective with a 1-sample strategy. In the scenario of low levels of SF ACTs, only four devices (MicroPHAZIR RX, 4500a FTIR, NIR-S-G1, and PADs) were cost-effective with a 1-sample strategy. In the multi-way comparative analysis, in both scenarios the NIR-S-G1 testing 2 samples was the most cost-effective option. Routine inspection of ACT quality using portable screening devices is likely to be cost-effective in the Laos context. This work should encourage policy-makers or regulators to further investigate investment in portable screening devices to detect SF medicines and reduce their associated undesired health and economic burdens.

Project description:BackgroundAssessing the quality of medicines in low-middle income countries (LMICs) relies primarily on human inspection and screening technologies, where available. Field studies and surveys have frequently utilized screening tests to analyse medicines sampled at the point of care, such as health care facilities and medicine outlets, to provide a snap shot of medicine quality in a specific geographical area. This review presents an overview of the screening tests typically employed in surveys to assess anti-malarial medicine quality, summarizes the analytical methods used, how findings have been reported and proposes a reporting template for future studies.MethodsA systematic search of the peer-reviewed and grey literature available in the public domain (including national and multi-national medicine quality surveys) covering the period 1990-2016 was undertaken. Studies were included if they had used screening techniques to assess the quality of anti-malarial medicines. As no standardized set of guidelines for the methodology and reporting of medicine quality surveys exist, the included studies were assessed for their standard against a newly proposed list of criteria.ResultsThe titles and abstracts of 4621 records were screened and only 39 were found to meet the eligibility criteria. These 39 studies utilized visual inspection, disintegration, colorimetry and Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) either as components of the Global Pharma Health Fund (GPHF) MiniLab® or as individual tests. Overall, 30/39 studies reported employing confirmatory testing described in international pharmacopeia to verify the quality of anti-malarials post assessment by a screening test. The authors assigned scores for the 23 criteria for the standard of reporting of each study.ConclusionsThere is considerable heterogeneity in study design and inconsistency in reporting of field surveys of medicine quality. A lack of standardization in the design and reporting of studies of medicine quality increases the risk of bias and error, impacting on the generalizability and reliability of study results. The criteria proposed for reporting on the standard of studies in this review can be used in conjunction with existing medicine quality survey guidelines as a checklist for designing and reporting findings of studies. The review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026782).