IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0006326.html

Nearly one in five essential medicines fail quality standards in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis of MNCH medicines and antimalarials

Author

Listed:
  • Jean Christophe Rusatira
  • Manuela Dorado Novoa
  • Jean Berchmans Uwimana
  • Cameron Persaud
  • Eishita Pal
  • Ayesha Khan
  • Henry Michtalik
  • Neelaveni Padayachee
  • Murray Lumpkin
  • Charles Preston
  • Saifuddin Ahmed

Abstract

Substandard and falsified (SF) medicines pose a major threat to maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) and malaria control in Africa, yet their true burden remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between 2010 and 2025 that chemically tested the quality of essential MNCH and antimalarial medicines collected in African countries. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and a registered PROSPERO protocol, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and WHO databases, screened 3,178 records, and included 123 studies from 34 countries reporting on 36,069 medicine samples. Studies were appraised with the MEDQUARG checklist, and random-effects meta-analyses with Freeman–Tukey transformation were used to estimate pooled SF prevalence overall and by therapeutic class, country, and subregion. Meta-regression explored study-level drivers of heterogeneity. Overall, 17.9% (95% CI 13.6–22.7) of tested medicines failed quality standards. Failure rates were highest for corticosteroids (65.0%), uterotonics (43.9%), and hematinics (34.7%); antimalarials, antihypertensives, and antibiotics ranged from 15-20%. Estimates for corticosteroids and hematinics carried wide confidence intervals, reflecting sparse underlying data. Western and Central Africa had the greatest regional burdens, whereas Southern Africa showed lower pooled estimates but with sparse data. Substandard medicines accounted for most poor-quality products (pooled prevalence 12.8%), while falsified medicines were less common (1.2%). Therapeutic category, geographic subregion, and use of mystery-client purchasing were significant predictors of heterogeneity, whereas publication year and methodological quality were not. Nearly one in five essential MNCH and antimalarial medicines tested in Africa are SF, posing a major barrier to reducing preventable maternal, neonatal, and child mortality. Strengthened regulatory systems, risk-based post-market surveillance, and priority attention to high-risk therapeutics, particularly uterotonics and antimalarials, are urgently needed. As the African Medicines Agency becomes operational, this evidence base offers a concrete foundation for directing continental regulatory investment where it is most needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean Christophe Rusatira & Manuela Dorado Novoa & Jean Berchmans Uwimana & Cameron Persaud & Eishita Pal & Ayesha Khan & Henry Michtalik & Neelaveni Padayachee & Murray Lumpkin & Charles Preston & Sai, 2026. "Nearly one in five essential medicines fail quality standards in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis of MNCH medicines and antimalarials," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-18, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0006326
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0006326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0006326
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0006326&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0006326?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0006326. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.