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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations

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 [MicroPHA-ZIR RX, NIR-S-G1], two handheld Raman [Progeny, TruScan RM]; one portable mid-infra-red [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-effec-tiveness 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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0009539
JournalPLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
Volume15
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2021
Externally publishedYes

Funding

This work has been co-funded by the Regional Malaria and other Communicable Disease Threats Trust Fund, which has been co-financed by the Government of Australia (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade); the Government of Canada (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development); and the Government of the United Kingdom (Department for International Development). The grant (RETA 8763) was managed by the Asian Development Bank (https:// www.adb.org/) and awarded to PNN. Additional support was provided by Wellcome Trust Grant N˚ 202935/Z/16/Z (https://wellcome.org/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

FundersFunder number
Communicable Disease Threats Trust Fund
Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Regional Malaria
Wellcome TrustN˚ 202935/Z/16/Z
Government of the United Kingdom
Government of Canada
Department for International Development, UK GovernmentRETA 8763
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Implementation of field detection devices for antimalarial quality screening in lao pdr—a cost-effectiveness analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this