PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases (Sep 2021)

A comparative field evaluation of six medicine quality screening devices in Laos.

  • Céline Caillet,
  • Serena Vickers,
  • Stephen Zambrzycki,
  • Facundo M Fernández,
  • Vayouly Vidhamaly,
  • Kem Boutsamay,
  • Phonepasith Boupha,
  • Pimnara Peerawaranun,
  • Mavuto Mukaka,
  • Paul N Newton

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009674
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 15, no. 9
p. e0009674

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundMedicine quality screening devices hold great promise for post-market surveillance (PMS). However, there is little independent evidence on their field utility and usability to inform policy decisions. This pilot study in the Lao PDR tested six devices' utility and usability in detecting substandard and falsified (SF) medicines.Methodology/principal findingsObservational time and motion studies of the inspections by 16 Lao medicine inspectors of 1) the stock of an Evaluation Pharmacy (EP), constructed to resemble a Lao pharmacy, and 2) a sample set of medicines (SSM); were conducted without and with six devices: four handheld spectrometers (two near infrared: MicroPHAZIR RX, NIR-S-G1 & two Raman: Progeny, Truscan RM); one portable mid-infrared spectrometer (4500a), and single-use paper analytical devices (PAD). User experiences were documented by interviews and focus group discussions. Significantly more samples were wrongly categorised as pass/fail with the PAD compared to the other devices in EP inspections (pConclusions/significanceThis pilot study suggests policy makers wishing to implement portable screening devices in PMS should be aware that overconfidence in devices may cause harm by reducing inspectors' investment in visual inspection. It also provides insight into the advantages/limitations of diverse screening devices in the hands of end-users.