Implementation of field detection devices for antimalarial quality screening in Lao PDR-A cost-effectiveness analysis.
Journal
PLoS neglected tropical diseases
ISSN: 1935-2735
Titre abrégé: PLoS Negl Trop Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101291488
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
received:
23
12
2020
accepted:
04
06
2021
entrez:
30
9
2021
pubmed:
1
10
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34591842
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009539
pii: PNTD-D-20-02212
pmc: PMC8483304
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antimalarials
0
Counterfeit Drugs
0
Substandard Drugs
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0009539Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 202935/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
PLoS One. 2011 Feb 24;6(2):e17439
pubmed: 21390277
PLoS Med. 2006 Jun;3(6):e197
pubmed: 16752952
Trop Med Health. 2019 Jan 25;47:11
pubmed: 30700970
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Jun;92(6 Suppl):95-104
pubmed: 25897062
Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 Jun;12(6):488-96
pubmed: 22632187
Malar J. 2009 Jul 28;8:172
pubmed: 19638225
Anal Chem. 2013 Jul 2;85(13):6453-60
pubmed: 23725012
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Aug 29;3(4):e000725
pubmed: 30233826
Malar J. 2014 Nov 23;13:452
pubmed: 25418416
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Aug 3;1(4):e181662
pubmed: 30646106
Malar J. 2019 Jan 9;18(1):5
pubmed: 30626380
Lancet. 2020 Oct 17;396(10258):1204-1222
pubmed: 33069326
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019 May;100(5):1149-1157
pubmed: 30675851
BMJ. 2013 Sep 11;347:f5064
pubmed: 24026464
Anal Chim Acta. 2017 Jun 22;973:75-81
pubmed: 28502430
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2016 Jun;14(6):531-3
pubmed: 27187060
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 15;14(8):e0217910
pubmed: 31415560
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2018 Jan 5;147:612-623
pubmed: 28549854
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015 Apr;28(2):443-64
pubmed: 25788516
Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Apr;88(4):247-8
pubmed: 20431784