ArticlePloS one2023
Comparing the return on investment of technologies to detect substandard and falsified amoxicillin: A Kenya case study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Value for money of medicine sampling and quality testing: evidence from Indonesia.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Modeling the Health and Economic Impact of Substandard and Falsified Medicines: A Review of Existing Models and Approaches.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevalence of substandard and falsified medicines in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is a major global public health concern. Multiple screening technologies for post-market surveillance of medicine quality have been developed but there exists no clear guidance on which technology is optimal for LMICs. This study examined the return on investment (ROI) of implementing a select number of screening technologies for post-market surveillance of amoxicillin quality in a case study of Kenya. An agent-based model, Examining Screening Technologies using Economic Evaluations for Medicines (ESTEEM), was developed to estimate the costs, benefits, and ROI of implementing screening technologies for post-market surveillance of substandard and falsified amoxicillin for treatment of pediatric pneumonia in Kenya. The model simulated sampling, testing, and removal of substandard and falsified amoxicillin from the Kenyan market using five screening technologies: (1) Global Pharma Health Fund's GPHF-Minilab, (2) high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), (3) near-infrared spectroscopy (NIR), (4) paper analytical devices / antibiotic paper analytical devices (PADs/aPADs), and (5) Raman spectroscopy. The study team analyzed the population impact of utilizing amoxicillin for the treatment of pneumonia in children under age five in Kenya. We found that the GPHF-Minilab, NIR, and PADs/aPADs were similar in their abilities to rapidly screen for and remove substandard and falsified amoxicillin from the Kenyan market resulting in a higher ROI compared to HPLC. NIR and PADs/aPADs yielded the highest ROI at $21 (90% Uncertainty Range (UR) $5-$51) each, followed by GPHF-Minilab ($16, 90%UR $4 - $38), Raman ($9, 90%UR $2 - $21), and HPLC ($3, 90%UR $0 - $7). This study highlights screening technologies that can be used to reduce costs, speed up the removal of poor-quality medicines, and consequently improve health and economic outcomes in LMICs. National medicine regulatory authorities should adopt these fast, reliable, and low-cost screening technologies to better detect substandard and falsified medicines, reserving HPLC for confirmatory tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.