{"id":1299,"date":"2019-08-19T19:41:25","date_gmt":"2019-08-19T11:41:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bioactivescreeninglibrary.com\/?p=1299"},"modified":"2022-01-07T10:54:16","modified_gmt":"2022-01-07T02:54:16","slug":"important-considerations-choosing-technology-detecting-counterfeit-substandard","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.bioactivescreeninglibrary.com\/index.php\/2019\/08\/19\/important-considerations-choosing-technology-detecting-counterfeit-substandard\/","title":{"rendered":"Important considerations in choosing the appropriate technology for detecting counterfeit and substandard"},"content":{"rendered":"

Factors related to the testing site include whether there is a consistent electrical supply, what level of training the staff have, and if the purpose of the testing is either screening or confirmation. For regulatory authorities, importers of drugs, and others involved in pharmaceutical supply chains that wish to ensure that large batches of medicine are genuine, devices such as the CD3, Ramen and NIR are appropriate. These technologies do not destroy the product and can be used quickly by customs officers at ports. Government agencies and donor organizations may be better financed to afford the price of Ramen and NIR technologies, and the advent of the CD3 device should make these technologies more affordable for LMIC. In addition, these devices will ultimately have a lower cost per test as they require no reagents or laboratory facilities, and they can test hundreds of drugs within a day. For healthcare workers and others working to ensure that the drugs given to a patient are genuine, technologies for XAV939<\/a> visual inspection approaches such as the WHO check list are a useful first step, but is not sufficient to identify falsified and substandard products. Additional technologies such as paper chromatography, PharmaCheck, and GPHF-MiniLab may be required. These technologies allow clinicians to distinguish between drug resistance and treatment failure due to the organism or treatment failure due to a falsified or substandard drug. In these settings, cheap, highly feasible tests that require little training and supplies are essential. Highly sensitive technologies such as DART or DESI, HPLCMS and GC-MS are best suited for national reference laboratories for confirmation testing of field-identified falsified and substandard drugs. Given the high costs of these devices, and their facility and technical requirements for operation, very few laboratories in LMIC will be equipped for their use. Furthermore, the reagents and gasses needed for these devices can be difficult to procure. Nonetheless with national governments and donor organizations spending money on antibiotics, anti-malarials, and other drugs, ensuring the safety and efficacy of these drugs is critical. For example, globally $1.6 billion was spent on malaria Olaparib<\/a> control in 2010 including 228 million doses of ACT. National reference laboratories are also the best for forensic analyses by isotope ratio MS and other technologies to identify the geographic source of production of falsified and substandard products. Although this paper presents a systematic review of technologies for the detection of fake and substandard drugs, it has several limitations. First, information about the performance of technologies under development was not always available, and therefore this paper presents results from non-peer reviewed technical reports, other online information, and key informant interviews making it difficult to reproduce our results. In addition, there is no gold standard against which to compare all other technologies for detecting substandard and falsified drugs. The development of new technologies for detection of falsified and substandard drugs is a fast moving field, and new technologies may not have been included in our review. Despite these limitations, this paper serves as a framework for evaluating technologies and their suitability for use in LMIC.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Factors related to the testing site include whether there is a consistent electrical supply, what level of training the staff have, and if the purpose of the testing is either screening or confirmation. For regulatory authorities, importers of drugs, and others involved in pharmaceutical supply chains that wish to ensure that large batches of medicine … Continue reading “Important considerations in choosing the appropriate technology for detecting counterfeit and substandard”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.bioactivescreeninglibrary.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1299"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.bioactivescreeninglibrary.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.bioactivescreeninglibrary.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.bioactivescreeninglibrary.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.bioactivescreeninglibrary.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1299"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.bioactivescreeninglibrary.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1299\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1300,"href":"http:\/\/www.bioactivescreeninglibrary.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1299\/revisions\/1300"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.bioactivescreeninglibrary.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.bioactivescreeninglibrary.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.bioactivescreeninglibrary.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}