A comparative field evaluation of six medicine quality screening devices in Laos.
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:
18
12
2020
accepted:
23
07
2021
entrez:
30
9
2021
pubmed:
1
10
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34591852
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009674
pii: PNTD-D-20-02193
pmc: PMC8483322
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Infective Agents
0
Counterfeit Drugs
0
Substandard Drugs
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0009674Subventions
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
BMC Public Health. 2015 Jun 27;15:590
pubmed: 26116373
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Feb 1;2(2):223-225
pubmed: 27760238
J AOAC Int. 2006 Sep-Oct;89(5):1300-4
pubmed: 17042179
Pharm World Sci. 2004 Dec;26(6):333-8
pubmed: 15683103
JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Mar;6:407-413
pubmed: 32142404
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019 Aug 1;74(8):2417-2425
pubmed: 31049576
ACS Sens. 2018 Jul 27;3(7):1299-1307
pubmed: 29943573
Global Health. 2018 Apr 25;14(1):43
pubmed: 29695278
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Aug 29;3(4):e000725
pubmed: 30233826
Drug Saf. 2017 Sep;40(9):809-821
pubmed: 28528487
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2017 Nov 30;146:420-425
pubmed: 28934694
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Jun;92(6 Suppl):17-23
pubmed: 25897064
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 26;9(3):e90601
pubmed: 24671033
Talanta. 2019 Sep 1;202:469-478
pubmed: 31171209
Talanta. 2020 Jan 15;207:120306
pubmed: 31594606