Publication: Evaluation of portable devices for medicine quality screening: Lessons learnt, recommendations for implementation, and future priorities
7
Issued Date
2021-09-01
Resource Type
ISSN
15491676
15491277
15491277
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85116723333
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
PLoS Medicine. Vol.18, No.9 (2021)
Suggested Citation
Celine Caillet, Serena Vickers, Vayouly Vidhamaly, Kem Boutsamay, Phonepasith Boupha, Stephen Zambrzycki, Nantasit Luangasanatip, Yoel Lubell, Facundo M. Fernandez, Paul N. Newton Evaluation of portable devices for medicine quality screening: Lessons learnt, recommendations for implementation, and future priorities. PLoS Medicine. Vol.18, No.9 (2021). doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003747 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/77864
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Evaluation of portable devices for medicine quality screening: Lessons learnt, recommendations for implementation, and future priorities
Abstract
Portable devices able to detect substandard and falsified medicines are vital innovations for enhancing the inspection of medicines in pharmaceutical supply chains and for timely action before they reach patients. Such devices exist, but there has been little to no independent scientific evidence of their accuracy and cost-effectiveness to guide regulatory authorities in choosing appropriate devices for their settings. We tested 12 portable devices, evaluated their diagnostic performances and the resources required to use each device in a laboratory. We then assessed the utility and usability of the devices in medicine inspectors' hands in a pharmacy mimicking a real-life Lao pharmacy. We then assessed the health and economic benefits of using portable devices compared to not using them in a low- to middle-income setting. Here, we discuss the conclusions and practical implications of the multiphase study discussed in this Collection. We discuss the results, highlight the evidence gaps, and provide recommendations on the key aspects to consider in the implementation of portable devices and their main advantages and limitations.