Pisani Elizabeth, Rahmawati Ayu, Mulatsari Esti, Rahmi Mawaddati, Nathanial William, Anggriani Yusi
Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Pancasila, Lenteng Agung, Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia.
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024 Dec 12;4(12):e0003999. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003999. eCollection 2024.
The World Health Organization warns that substandard and falsified medicines threaten public health in low- and middle-income countries. However, medicine quality surveys are often small and unrepresentative of the market, and the true scale of the problem remains unknown. We conducted a large field survey of essential medicines in Indonesia, and investigated how weighting survey results by market volume altered estimates of medicine quality. We collected 1274 samples of allopurinol, amlodipine, cefixime, amoxicillin and dexamethasone from the internet and a randomised sample of all outlet-types where medicines are sold or dispensed in seven districts across the world's fourth most populous nation. We conducted compendial testing for identity, assay, dissolution and uniformity. Samples that failed any chemical test were considered substandard. We compared raw prevalence of substandard medicines with prevalence adjusted by the national sales volume of each brand, relative to its weight among survey samples. The weighted prevalence of substandard products was 4.4%, 47% lower than the raw estimate (8.2%). Only 0.5% of samples (unweighted 1.2%) deviated from permitted limits by more than 10%. More antibiotics failed testing than other medicines (weighted prevalence 8.5 vs 3.1; raw prevalence 13.6 vs 4.9, both p<0.000). We found no relationship between quality and price; branded status; public procurement status; or outlet type. In Indonesia, unweighted survey data appeared to substantially over-estimate the health threat posed by substandard or falsified medicines. The types of sampling bias that led to over-representation of poor quality products in our survey are also indicated in other published surveys, possibly exaggerating the scale of the threat to public health posed by substandard and falsified medicines globally. Weighting survey results by sales volume likely improves robustness of estimates of medicine quality measured in field surveys.
世界卫生组织警告称,不合格和伪造药品威胁着低收入和中等收入国家的公众健康。然而,药品质量调查往往规模较小,无法代表市场情况,问题的真实规模仍然未知。我们在印度尼西亚对基本药物进行了大规模实地调查,并研究了按市场销量对调查结果进行加权如何改变药品质量估计。我们从互联网上收集了1274份别嘌醇、氨氯地平、头孢克肟、阿莫西林和地塞米松的样本,并在这个世界第四人口大国的七个地区,对销售或配发药品的所有销售点类型进行随机抽样。我们进行了鉴别、含量测定、溶出度和均匀度的药典检测。任何化学检测不合格的样本都被视为不合格。我们将不合格药品的原始流行率与根据每个品牌的全国销售量进行调整后的流行率进行了比较,相对于其在调查样本中的权重。不合格产品的加权流行率为4.4%,比原始估计值(8.2%)低47%。只有0.5%的样本(未加权为1.2%)偏离允许限度超过10%。抗生素检测不合格的比例高于其他药品(加权流行率8.5%对3.1%;原始流行率13.6%对4.9%,两者p<0.000)。我们发现质量与价格、品牌地位、公共采购地位或销售点类型之间没有关系。在印度尼西亚,未加权的调查数据似乎大幅高估了不合格或伪造药品对健康造成的威胁。导致我们调查中低质量产品被过度代表的抽样偏差类型在其他已发表的调查中也有体现,这可能夸大了全球不合格和伪造药品对公众健康构成威胁的规模。按销量对调查结果进行加权可能会提高实地调查中所测药品质量估计的稳健性。