Cargando…
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....
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8483304/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34591842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009539 |
_version_ | 1784577092103438336 |
---|---|
author | Luangasanatip, Nantasit Khonputsa, Panarasri Caillet, Céline Vickers, Serena Zambrzycki, Stephen Fernández, Facundo M. Newton, Paul N. Lubell, Yoel |
author_facet | Luangasanatip, Nantasit Khonputsa, Panarasri Caillet, Céline Vickers, Serena Zambrzycki, Stephen Fernández, Facundo M. Newton, Paul N. Lubell, Yoel |
author_sort | Luangasanatip, Nantasit |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8483304 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84833042021-10-01 Implementation of field detection devices for antimalarial quality screening in Lao PDR—A cost-effectiveness analysis Luangasanatip, Nantasit Khonputsa, Panarasri Caillet, Céline Vickers, Serena Zambrzycki, Stephen Fernández, Facundo M. Newton, Paul N. Lubell, Yoel PLoS Negl Trop Dis Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2021-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8483304/ /pubmed/34591842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009539 Text en © 2021 Luangasanatip et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Luangasanatip, Nantasit Khonputsa, Panarasri Caillet, Céline Vickers, Serena Zambrzycki, Stephen Fernández, Facundo M. Newton, Paul N. Lubell, Yoel Implementation of field detection devices for antimalarial quality screening in Lao PDR—A cost-effectiveness analysis |
title | Implementation of field detection devices for antimalarial quality screening in Lao PDR—A cost-effectiveness analysis |
title_full | Implementation of field detection devices for antimalarial quality screening in Lao PDR—A cost-effectiveness analysis |
title_fullStr | Implementation of field detection devices for antimalarial quality screening in Lao PDR—A cost-effectiveness analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Implementation of field detection devices for antimalarial quality screening in Lao PDR—A cost-effectiveness analysis |
title_short | Implementation of field detection devices for antimalarial quality screening in Lao PDR—A cost-effectiveness analysis |
title_sort | implementation of field detection devices for antimalarial quality screening in lao pdr—a cost-effectiveness analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8483304/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34591842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009539 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT luangasanatipnantasit implementationoffielddetectiondevicesforantimalarialqualityscreeninginlaopdracosteffectivenessanalysis AT khonputsapanarasri implementationoffielddetectiondevicesforantimalarialqualityscreeninginlaopdracosteffectivenessanalysis AT cailletceline implementationoffielddetectiondevicesforantimalarialqualityscreeninginlaopdracosteffectivenessanalysis AT vickersserena implementationoffielddetectiondevicesforantimalarialqualityscreeninginlaopdracosteffectivenessanalysis AT zambrzyckistephen implementationoffielddetectiondevicesforantimalarialqualityscreeninginlaopdracosteffectivenessanalysis AT fernandezfacundom implementationoffielddetectiondevicesforantimalarialqualityscreeninginlaopdracosteffectivenessanalysis AT newtonpauln implementationoffielddetectiondevicesforantimalarialqualityscreeninginlaopdracosteffectivenessanalysis AT lubellyoel implementationoffielddetectiondevicesforantimalarialqualityscreeninginlaopdracosteffectivenessanalysis |