Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34591842›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2021

Implementation of field detection devices for antimalarial quality screening in Lao PDR-A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Nantasit Luangasanatip, Panarasri Khonputsa, Céline Caillet, Serena Vickers, Stephen Zambrzycki, Facundo M Fernández, Paul N Newton, Yoel Lubell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Nantasit LuangasanatipMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-8501-6092
Panarasri KhonputsaMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Céline CailletLao-Oxford Mahosot Hospital Wellcome Trust Research Unit, Microbiology laboratory, Mahosot Hospital, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Serena VickersLao-Oxford Mahosot Hospital Wellcome Trust Research Unit, Microbiology laboratory, Mahosot Hospital, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Stephen ZambrzyckiSchool of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Facundo M FernándezSchool of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Paul N NewtonLao-Oxford Mahosot Hospital Wellcome Trust Research Unit, Microbiology laboratory, Mahosot Hospital, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Yoel LubellMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Mahidol University · THMahosot Hospital · LAGeorgia Institute of Technology · US

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 202935/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

AntimalarialsChemistry Techniques, AnalyticalCommunity Pharmacy ServicesCost-Benefit AnalysisCounterfeit DrugsHumansLaosMalariaProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingSubstandard DrugsAntimalarialsCounterfeit DrugsSubstandard Drugs

Identifiers

PMID34591842
PMCPMC8483304
OpenAlexW3203062928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.