TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of portable devices for medicine quality screening
T2 - Lessons learnt, recommendations for implementation, and future priorities
AU - Caillet, Celine
AU - Vickers, Serena
AU - Vidhamaly, Vayouly
AU - Boutsamay, Kem
AU - Boupha, Phonepasith
AU - Zambrzycki, Stephen
AU - Luangasanatip, Nantasit
AU - Lubell, Yoel
AU - Fernandez, Facundo M.
AU - Newton, Paul N.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Caillet et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - Portable devices able to detect substandard and falsified medicines are vital innovations for enhancing the inspection of medicines in pharmaceutical supply chains and for timely action before they reach patients. Such devices exist, but there has been little to no independent scientific evidence of their accuracy and cost-effectiveness to guide regulatory authorities in choosing appropriate devices for their settings. We tested 12 portable devices, evaluated their diagnostic performances and the resources required to use each device in a laboratory. We then assessed the utility and usability of the devices in medicine inspectors' hands in a pharmacy mimicking a real-life Lao pharmacy. We then assessed the health and economic benefits of using portable devices compared to not using them in a low- to middle-income setting. Here, we discuss the conclusions and practical implications of the multiphase study discussed in this Collection. We discuss the results, highlight the evidence gaps, and provide recommendations on the key aspects to consider in the implementation of portable devices and their main advantages and limitations.
AB - Portable devices able to detect substandard and falsified medicines are vital innovations for enhancing the inspection of medicines in pharmaceutical supply chains and for timely action before they reach patients. Such devices exist, but there has been little to no independent scientific evidence of their accuracy and cost-effectiveness to guide regulatory authorities in choosing appropriate devices for their settings. We tested 12 portable devices, evaluated their diagnostic performances and the resources required to use each device in a laboratory. We then assessed the utility and usability of the devices in medicine inspectors' hands in a pharmacy mimicking a real-life Lao pharmacy. We then assessed the health and economic benefits of using portable devices compared to not using them in a low- to middle-income setting. Here, we discuss the conclusions and practical implications of the multiphase study discussed in this Collection. We discuss the results, highlight the evidence gaps, and provide recommendations on the key aspects to consider in the implementation of portable devices and their main advantages and limitations.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85116723333&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003747
DO - 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003747
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34591861
AN - SCOPUS:85116723333
SN - 1549-1277
VL - 18
JO - PLoS Medicine
JF - PLoS Medicine
IS - 9
M1 - e1003747
ER -