IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0268661.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the return on investment of technologies to detect substandard and falsified amoxicillin: A Kenya case study

Author

Listed:
  • Colleen R Higgins
  • Betty Kobia
  • Sachiko Ozawa

Abstract

The prevalence of substandard and falsified medicines in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is a major global public health concern. Multiple screening technologies for post-market surveillance of medicine quality have been developed but there exists no clear guidance on which technology is optimal for LMICs. This study examined the return on investment (ROI) of implementing a select number of screening technologies for post-market surveillance of amoxicillin quality in a case study of Kenya. An agent-based model, Examining Screening Technologies using Economic Evaluations for Medicines (ESTEEM), was developed to estimate the costs, benefits, and ROI of implementing screening technologies for post-market surveillance of substandard and falsified amoxicillin for treatment of pediatric pneumonia in Kenya. The model simulated sampling, testing, and removal of substandard and falsified amoxicillin from the Kenyan market using five screening technologies: (1) Global Pharma Health Fund’s GPHF-Minilab, (2) high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), (3) near-infrared spectroscopy (NIR), (4) paper analytical devices / antibiotic paper analytical devices (PADs/aPADs), and (5) Raman spectroscopy. The study team analyzed the population impact of utilizing amoxicillin for the treatment of pneumonia in children under age five in Kenya. We found that the GPHF-Minilab, NIR, and PADs/aPADs were similar in their abilities to rapidly screen for and remove substandard and falsified amoxicillin from the Kenyan market resulting in a higher ROI compared to HPLC. NIR and PADs/aPADs yielded the highest ROI at $21 (90% Uncertainty Range (UR) $5-$51) each, followed by GPHF-Minilab ($16, 90%UR $4 - $38), Raman ($9, 90%UR $2 - $21), and HPLC ($3, 90%UR $0 - $7). This study highlights screening technologies that can be used to reduce costs, speed up the removal of poor-quality medicines, and consequently improve health and economic outcomes in LMICs. National medicine regulatory authorities should adopt these fast, reliable, and low-cost screening technologies to better detect substandard and falsified medicines, reserving HPLC for confirmatory tests.

Suggested Citation

  • Colleen R Higgins & Betty Kobia & Sachiko Ozawa, 2023. "Comparing the return on investment of technologies to detect substandard and falsified amoxicillin: A Kenya case study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268661
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268661
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268661&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0268661?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:pone00:0268661. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.