Value for money of medicine sampling and quality testing: evidence from Indonesia.

BACKGROUND: Substandard and falsified medicines (SFMs) are a public health concern of global importance. Postmarket surveillance in the form of medicine sampling and quality testing can prevent and detect SFM, however, there is remarkably scarce evidence about the cost and value for money of these activities: how much do they cost and how effective are they in detecting SFM? METHODS: Between February and October 2022, Systematic Tracking of At Risk Medicines (STARmeds) collected and analysed for quality 1274 samples of 5 medicines from physical and online retail outlets in 7 Indonesian districts. We collated data on the resources consumed by STARmeds, related to all stages of medicines sampling and quality testing including design, fieldwork and laboratory analysis. We used activity-based costing principles to calculate the financial and economic cost of medicine quality surveillance from the perspective of a hypothetical medicines' regulator. We calculated the cost per day and per week of fieldwork, per sample collected and per substandard sample. We used bootstrapping to capture uncertainty in the number of samples collected, by seller location type (urban, rural and online). RESULTS: The total cost of sampling and testing medicines from the market was US$712 964 (current 2022 values). Laboratory costs represented the largest share (70%), followed by other direct costs (12%) and indirect costs (7%). On average, it costs STARmeds US$479 (95% CI US$462 to US$516) to collect one medicine sample and US$5990 (95% CI US$5601 to US$6258) to identify one substandard sample. CONCLUSION: Our findings bring urgently needed and novel information on the cost and value for money of medicine quality surveillance. These may support planning and budgeting of the Indonesian pharmaceutical regulator, but also of regulators and researchers elsewhere, particularly in low-income and middle-income settings, as well as international organisations with health regulation and quality of care remits.

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

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.

Falsified and Substandard Drugs: Stopping the Pandemic.

Falsified and substandard medicines are associated with tens of thousands of deaths, mainly in young children in poor countries. Poor-quality drugs exact an annual economic toll of up to US$200 billion and contribute to the increasing peril of antimicrobial resistance. The WHO has emerged recently as the global leader in the battle against poor-quality drugs, and pharmaceutical companies have increased their roles in assuring the integrity of drug supply chains. Despite advances in drug quality surveillance and detection technology, more efforts are urgently required in research, policy, and field monitoring to halt the pandemic of bad drugs. In addition to strengthening international and national pharmaceutical governance, in part by national implementation of the Model Law on Medicines and Crime, a quantifiable Sustainable Development Goal target and an international convention to insure drug quality and safety are urgent priorities.