Cargando…
Substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature
OBJECTIVE: To explore the evidence available of poor-quality (counterfeit and substandard) medicines in the literature. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Databases used were EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, including articles published till January 2013....
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752049/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23955188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002923 |
_version_ | 1782281720026890240 |
---|---|
author | Almuzaini, Tariq Choonara, Imti Sammons, Helen |
author_facet | Almuzaini, Tariq Choonara, Imti Sammons, Helen |
author_sort | Almuzaini, Tariq |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To explore the evidence available of poor-quality (counterfeit and substandard) medicines in the literature. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Databases used were EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, including articles published till January 2013. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prevalence studies containing original data. WHO definitions (1992) used for counterfeit and substandard medicines. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently scored study methodology against recommendations from the MEDQUARG Checklist. Studies were classified according to the World Bank classification of countries by income. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extracted: place of study; type of drugs sampled; sample size; percentage of substandard/counterfeit medicines; formulations included; origin of the drugs; chemical analysis and stated issues of counterfeit/substandard medicines. RESULTS: 44 prevalence studies were identified, 15 had good methodological quality. They were conducted in 25 different countries; the majority were in low-income countries (11) and/or lower middle-income countries (10). The median prevalence of substandard/counterfeit medicines was 28.5% (range 11–48%). Only two studies differentiated between substandard and counterfeit medicines. Prevalence data were limited to antimicrobial drugs (all 15 studies). 13 studies involved antimalarials, 6 antibiotics and 2 other medications. The majority of studies (93%) contained samples with inadequate amounts of active ingredients. The prevalence of substandard/counterfeit antimicrobials was significantly higher when purchased from unlicensed outlets (p<0.000; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.32). No individual data about the prevalence in upper middle-income countries and high-income countries were available. LIMITATIONS: Studies with strong methodology were few. The majority did not differentiate between substandard and counterfeit medicines. Most studies assessed only a single therapeutic class of antimicrobials. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of poor-quality antimicrobial medicines is widespread throughout Africa and Asia in lower income countries and lower middle-income countries . The main problem identified was inadequate amounts of the active ingredients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3752049 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-37520492013-08-27 Substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature Almuzaini, Tariq Choonara, Imti Sammons, Helen BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVE: To explore the evidence available of poor-quality (counterfeit and substandard) medicines in the literature. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Databases used were EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, including articles published till January 2013. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prevalence studies containing original data. WHO definitions (1992) used for counterfeit and substandard medicines. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently scored study methodology against recommendations from the MEDQUARG Checklist. Studies were classified according to the World Bank classification of countries by income. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extracted: place of study; type of drugs sampled; sample size; percentage of substandard/counterfeit medicines; formulations included; origin of the drugs; chemical analysis and stated issues of counterfeit/substandard medicines. RESULTS: 44 prevalence studies were identified, 15 had good methodological quality. They were conducted in 25 different countries; the majority were in low-income countries (11) and/or lower middle-income countries (10). The median prevalence of substandard/counterfeit medicines was 28.5% (range 11–48%). Only two studies differentiated between substandard and counterfeit medicines. Prevalence data were limited to antimicrobial drugs (all 15 studies). 13 studies involved antimalarials, 6 antibiotics and 2 other medications. The majority of studies (93%) contained samples with inadequate amounts of active ingredients. The prevalence of substandard/counterfeit antimicrobials was significantly higher when purchased from unlicensed outlets (p<0.000; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.32). No individual data about the prevalence in upper middle-income countries and high-income countries were available. LIMITATIONS: Studies with strong methodology were few. The majority did not differentiate between substandard and counterfeit medicines. Most studies assessed only a single therapeutic class of antimicrobials. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of poor-quality antimicrobial medicines is widespread throughout Africa and Asia in lower income countries and lower middle-income countries . The main problem identified was inadequate amounts of the active ingredients. BMJ Publishing Group 2013-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC3752049/ /pubmed/23955188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002923 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ |
spellingShingle | Public Health Almuzaini, Tariq Choonara, Imti Sammons, Helen Substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature |
title | Substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature |
title_full | Substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature |
title_fullStr | Substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature |
title_full_unstemmed | Substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature |
title_short | Substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature |
title_sort | substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752049/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23955188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002923 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT almuzainitariq substandardandcounterfeitmedicinesasystematicreviewoftheliterature AT choonaraimti substandardandcounterfeitmedicinesasystematicreviewoftheliterature AT sammonshelen substandardandcounterfeitmedicinesasystematicreviewoftheliterature |