RESUMO
The entry of falsified and substandard medicines into the legitimate pharmaceutical supply chain has negative impacts on healthcare systems, patient safety, and patient access to medicine. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of access to safe medicine through legitimate pharmaceutical supply chains and the willingness of criminals to target medical products such as PPE (personal protective equipment) and COVID-19 treatments. In this article, we analyse data from the United Kingdom (UK) national medicine alert and recall database to identify and understand recent cases of substandard and falsified medicine in the UK's healthcare systems. Using the UK as a case study, we describe that national drug alert and recall data are useful in their current form to record and understand cases of substandard and falsified medicines in the supply chain. However, if regulatory agencies published further data, these drug recall databases may be useful to support longitudinal and international comparative medicine quality studies. We suggest that regulatory agencies publish the number of affected medicine packs in each recalled batch, as part of the recall process. This will help policy makers, practitioners, and researchers to better understand, monitor and compare the quality of medicines within legitimate supply chains.
RESUMO
Substandard and falsified (SF) medicines are a global issue contributing to antimicrobial resistance and causing economic and humanitarian harm. To direct law enforcement efficiently, halt the spread of SF medicines and antimicrobial resistance, academics, NGOs and government organisations use medicine quality sampling studies to estimate the prevalence of the problem. A systematic review of medicine quality studies was conducted to estimate how the methodological quality of these studies and SF prevalence has changed between 2013 and 2018. We also aimed to critique medicine sampling study methodologies, and the systematic review process which generates prevalence estimates. Based on 33 studies, the overall estimated median (Q1-Q3) prevalence of SF medicines appears to have remained high at 25% (7.7%-34%) compared with 28.5% in 2013. Furthermore, the methodological quality of prevalence studies has improved over the last 25 years. Definitive conclusions regarding the prevalence of SF medicines cannot be drawn due to the variability in sample sizes, consistency of design methods, and a lack of information concerning contextual factors affecting medicine quality studies. We contend that studies which present cumulative average prevalence figures are useful in a broad sense but could be improved to create more reliable estimates. We propose that medicine quality studies record the context of the study environment to allow systematic reviewers to compare like with like. Although, the academic rigour of medicine quality studies is improving, medicine sampling study limitations still exist. These limitations inhibit the accurate estimation of SF medicine prevalence which is needed to support detailed policy changes.
