Publication:
Implementation of field detection devices for antimalarial quality screening in lao pdr—a cost-effectiveness analysis

dc.contributor.authorNantasit Luangasanatipen_US
dc.contributor.authorPanarasri Khonputsaen_US
dc.contributor.authorCéline Cailleten_US
dc.contributor.authorSerena Vickersen_US
dc.contributor.authorStephen Zambrzyckien_US
dc.contributor.authorFacundo M. Fernándezen_US
dc.contributor.authorPaul N. Newtonen_US
dc.contributor.authorYoel Lubellen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Oxforden_US
dc.contributor.otherGeorgia Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahosot Hospital, Laoen_US
dc.contributor.otherNuffield Department of Medicineen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-04T09:12:59Z
dc.date.available2022-08-04T09:12:59Z
dc.date.issued2021-09-01en_US
dc.description.abstractSubstandard 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 [MicroPHA-ZIR RX, NIR-S-G1], two handheld Raman [Progeny, TruScan RM]; one portable mid-infra-red [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-effec-tiveness 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citationPLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Vol.15, No.9 (2021)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pntd.0009539en_US
dc.identifier.issn19352735en_US
dc.identifier.issn19352727en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85116442885en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/77867
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85116442885&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleImplementation of field detection devices for antimalarial quality screening in lao pdr—a cost-effectiveness analysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85116442885&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections