Dataset Information

An exploratory assessment of the legislative framework for combating counterfeit medicines in South Africa.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Substandard and Falsified (SF) medical products are a growing global concern. They harm the individual patient, the healthcare system and the economy. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has highlighted contributing factors globally: insufficient national medicine regulation, poor enforcement of existing legislation, weak stakeholder collaboration and the rise of novel viruses, such as the COVID-19. The study aimed to assess the legislative and policy framework and institutional relationships governing pharmaceuticals and anti-counterfeiting strategies.

Methods

The study was explorative and consisted of two phases. The first phase was between 2016 and 2017. It looked at document analysis (annual reports and press releases from 2011 to 2016) from government institutions involved in medicines regulation and law enforcement for SF seizure reports between 2004 and 2017. The second phase was between 2016 and 2018 through in-depth semi-structured interviews (seven in total) with selected stakeholders.

Results

First Phase-the data collected and reported by various departments was sporadic and did not always correlate for the same periods indicating, a lack of a central reporting system and stakeholder collaboration. In South Africa, counterfeiting of medicines mainly involves the smuggling of non-registered goods. The most common counterfeit items were painkillers, herbal teas, herbal ointments, while some were medical devices. Furthermore, Customs identified South Africa as a transhipment point for SF infiltration to neighbouring countries with less robust regulatory systems. Second phase-interview transcripts were analysed by thematic coding. These were identified as the adequacy of legislation, institutional capacity, enforcement and post-market surveillance, stakeholder collaboration and information sharing, and public education and awareness.

Conclusion

Document analysis and interviews indicate that South Africa already has a national drug policy and legislative framework consistent with international law. However, there is no specific pharmaceutical legislation addressing the counterfeiting of medicines. Law enforcement has also been complicated by poor stakeholder engagement and information sharing.

SUBMITTER: Moshoeshoe RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8730303 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the evidence available of poor-quality (counterfeit and substandard) medicines in the literature.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDatabases used were EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, including articles published till January 2013.Eligibility criteriaPrevalence studies containing original data. WHO definitions (1992) used for counterfeit and substandard medicines.Study appraisal and synthesisTwo reviewers independently scored study methodology against recommendations from the MEDQUARG Checklist. Studies were classified according to the World Bank classification of countries by income.Data extractionData extracted: place of study; type of drugs sampled; sample size; percentage of substandard/counterfeit medicines; formulations included; origin of the drugs; chemical analysis and stated issues of counterfeit/substandard medicines.Results44 prevalence studies were identified, 15 had good methodological quality. They were conducted in 25 different countries; the majority were in low-income countries (11) and/or lower middle-income countries (10). The median prevalence of substandard/counterfeit medicines was 28.5% (range 11-48%). Only two studies differentiated between substandard and counterfeit medicines. Prevalence data were limited to antimicrobial drugs (all 15 studies). 13 studies involved antimalarials, 6 antibiotics and 2 other medications. The majority of studies (93%) contained samples with inadequate amounts of active ingredients. The prevalence of substandard/counterfeit antimicrobials was significantly higher when purchased from unlicensed outlets (p<0.000; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.32). No individual data about the prevalence in upper middle-income countries and high-income countries were available.LimitationsStudies with strong methodology were few. The majority did not differentiate between substandard and counterfeit medicines. Most studies assessed only a single therapeutic class of antimicrobials.ConclusionsThe prevalence of poor-quality antimicrobial medicines is widespread throughout Africa and Asia in lower income countries and lower middle-income countries . The main problem identified was inadequate amounts of the active ingredients.

Project description:BackgroundVarious regulatory authorities are experiencing backlogs of applications which result in delayed access to medicines for patients. The objective of this study is to critically assess the registration process utilised by SAHPRA between 2011 and 2022 and determine the fundamental root causes for the formation of a backlog. The study also aims to detail the remedial actions that were undertaken which resulted in the development of a new review pathway termed the risk-based assessment approach for regulatory authorities experiencing backlogs to implement.MethodsA sample of 325 applications was used to evaluate the end-to-end registration process employed for the Medicine Control Council (MCC) process between 2011 and 2017; 129 applications were used for the backlog clearance project (BCP) between 2019 and 2022; 63 and 156 applications were used for the risk-based assessment (RBA) pilot studies in 2021 and 2022, respectively. The three processes are compared, and the timelines are discussed in detail.ResultsThe longest median value of 2092 calendar days was obtained for the approval times between 2011 and 2017 using the MCC process. Continuous process optimisation and refinement are crucial to prevent recurring backlogs and hence implementation of the RBA process. Implementation of the RBA process resulted in a shorter median approval time of 511 calendar days. The finalisation timeline by the Pharmaceutical and Analytical (P&A) pre-registration Unit, which conducts the majority of the evaluations, is used as a tool for the direct comparison of the processes. The finalisation timeline for the MCC process was a median value of 1470 calendar days, the BCP was 501 calendar days and the RBA process phases 1 and 2 were 68 and 73 calendar days, respectively. The median values of the various stages of the end-to-end registration processes are also analysed in order to build efficiency within the process.ConclusionsThe observations from the study have identified the RBA process which can be implemented to reduce regulatory assessment times while assuring the timeous approval of safe and effective, quality medicines. The continuous monitoring of a process remains one of the critical tools required to ensure the effectiveness of a registration process. The RBA process also becomes a better alternative for generic applications that do not qualify to undergo the reliance approach due to its drawbacks. This robust procedure can therefore be utilised by other regulatory agencies that may have a backlog or want to optimise their registration process.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, an estimated 8.1 million children under 5 years die annually in developing countries. Ensuring essential medicines are accessible and affordable to the population is key to saving lives. This study investigated accessibility, availability and affordability of a basket of priority medicines for children under 5 years in public and private healthcare sector pharmacies in the eThekwini Metropolitan area in Durban, South Africa.MethodsThe WHO/HAI survey tool for assessing medicine prices, availability and affordability was adapted and employed for a basket of WHO Priority life-saving medicines for children under 5 years. Six district hospitals in the north, south and central eThekwini Metropolitan were selected as major facility reference points and for data collection and pharmacies within a 5 km radius from each major facility were also invited to participate in the study, as outlined in the WHO/HAI tool methodology. Of the 58 pharmacies selected, a total of 27 pharmacies from both private and public healthcare sectors agreed to participate and were surveyed, representing a 47% response rate. Data was analysed using Microsoft excel.ResultsAll participating pharmacies (and hence the selected basket of priority medicines at these facilities) were deemed accessible. Overall the public sector had more medicines available on the shelf (averaging 64%) than the private sector (48%) which had more medicines available on order (84%). At least one medicine for each of the eight (8) conditions was available at both sectors which meant patients could be treated for these conditions. Medicines for priority conditions (except HIV, which was a 28-day course) were deemed affordable as these regimens were obtainable within a day's wage for the lowest paid unskilled worker. Priority medicines for children under 5 years were more available and more affordable in the public sector.ConclusionThe basket of WHO essential medicines for priority conditions for children under 5 years were accessible, available and affordable in the eThekwini Metropolitan areas. This was the first study in eThekwini to determine access to the WHO basket of priority medicines for children and can be scaled-up to a national study to provide a holistic comparison of these medicines in the country, and also for global comparison.

Project description:BackgroundHIV and TB programs have rapidly scaled-up over the past decade in Sub-Saharan Africa and uninterrupted supplies of those medicines are critical to their success. However, estimates of stock-outs are largely unknown. This survey aimed to estimate the extent of stock-outs of antiretroviral and TB medicines in public health facilities across South Africa, which has the world's largest antiretroviral treatment (ART) program and a rising multidrug-resistant TB epidemic.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional telephonic survey (October-December 2015) of public health facilities. Facilities were asked about the prevalence of stock-outs on the day of the survey and in the preceding three months, their duration and impact.ResultsNationwide, of 3547 eligible health facilities, 79% (2804) could be reached telephonically. 88% (2463) participated and 4% (93) were excluded as they did not provide ART or TB treatment. Of the 2370 included facilities, 20% (485) reported a stock-out of at least 1 ARV and/or TB-related medicine on the day of contact and 36% (864) during the three months prior to contact, ranging from 74% (163/220) of health facilities in Mpumalanga to 12% (32/261) in the Western Cape province. These 864 facilities reported 1475 individual stock-outs, with one to fourteen different medicines out of stock per facility. Information on impact was provided in 98% (1449/1475) of stock-outs: 25% (366) resulted in a high impact outcome, where patients left the facility without medicine or were provided with an incomplete regimen. Of the 757 stock-outs that were resolved 70% (527) lasted longer than one month.InterpretationThere was a high prevalence of stock-outs nationwide. Large interprovincial differences in stock-out occurrence, duration, and impact suggest differences in provincial ability to prevent, mitigate and cope within the same framework. End-user monitoring of the supply chain by patients and civil society has the potential to increase transparency and complement public sector monitoring systems.