Substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature
Objective: To explore the evidence available of poor quality (counterfeit and substandard) medicines in the literature. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: Databases used were EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, including articles published till January 20...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
2013
|
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/3142/ |
| Summary: | Objective: To explore the evidence available of poor quality
(counterfeit and substandard) medicines in the literature.
Design: Systematic review.
Data sources: Databases used were EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, including articles published till January 2013.
Eligibility criteria: Prevalence studies containing original data. WHO definitions (1992) used for
counterfeit and substandard medicines. Study appraisal and synthesis: Two reviewers independently scored study methodology against recommendations from the MEDQUARG Checklist. Studies were classified according to the World Bank classification of countries by income.
Data extraction: Data extracted: place of study; type
of drugs sampled; sample size; percentage of substandard/counterfeit medicines; formulations
included; origin of the drugs; chemical analysis and
stated issues of counterfeit/substandard medicines.
Results: 44 prevalence studies were identified, 15 had
good methodological quality. They were conducted in
25 different countries; the majority were in low-income
countries (11) and/or lower middle-income countries
(10). The median prevalence of substandard/counterfeit
medicines was 28.5% (range 11–48%). Only two studies differentiated between substandard and counterfeit medicines. Prevalence data were limited to antimicrobial drugs (all 15 studies). 13 studies involved antimalarials, 6 antibiotics and 2 other medications. The majority of studies (93%) contained samples with inadequate amounts of active ingredients. The prevalence of substandard/counterfeit antimicrobials was significantly higher when purchased from unlicensed outlets (p<0.000; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.32). No individual data about the prevalence in upper middle-income countries and high-income countries
were available.
Limitations: Studies with strong methodology were
few. The majority did not differentiate between
substandard and counterfeit medicines. Most studies
assessed only a single therapeutic class of
antimicrobials.
Conclusions: The prevalence of poor-quality
antimicrobial medicines is widespread throughout
Africa and Asia in lower income countries and lower
middle-income countries . The main problem identified
was inadequate amounts of the active ingredients. |
|---|