ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2024
Screening for substandard and falsified medicines in Nigeria using visual inspection and GPHF-Minilab analysis: lessons learnt for future training of health workers and pharmacy personnel.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Substandard and falsified (SF) medicines are a serious threat to public health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Visual inspection of medicines and screening analysis using the Global Pharma Health Fund (GPHF)-Minilab are important in medicine quality surveillance in low-resource settings. Methods: Recently, 260 medicine samples from Nigeria had been investigated for assay and dissolution according to the United States Pharmacopeia (USP). In the present study, these results were compared to the results of the investigation of the same samples by visual inspection and by GPHF-Minilab analysis by local personnel in Nigeria. Results: Visual inspection identified many deficiencies of dosage units and packaging information in SF medicines. All four falsified medicines were readily identifiable, primarily from serious spelling errors in the labelling, and from manufacturer names which could not be verified using internet resources. In GPHF-Minilab disintegration testing, two samples did not disintegrate even after 60 min; both were found to fail USP dissolution testing with extreme deviations. Of the 20 samples which deviated in USP assay analysis by more than 20% from the declared API amount, seven (35%) were detected as non-compliant in TLC analysis. Evaluation by TLC image analysis with a recently developed smartphone application (named TLCyzer) increased sensitivity to 62.5% but led to an unacceptably low specificity (75.2%). Additional training of the local personnel improved the results of both TLC analysis and TLCyzer evaluation. Photographs of the visual deficiencies and of the TLC analysis results of the SF medicines are provided as PowerPoint and PDF slides with this publication, for future training courses of pharmacy staff and health workers in LMICs. Conclusion: Visual inspection, and screening analysis with simple, rapid and inexpensive methods, are important in the surveillance for SF medicines in LMICs. This study provides data on the potential and the limitations of such screenings.
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.