Cost savings of paper analytical devices (PADs) to detect substandard and falsified antibiotics: Kenya case study

Abstract

Background: Over 10% of antibiotics in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are substandard or falsified. Detection of poor-quality antibiotics via the gold standard method, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), is slow and costly. Paper analytical devices (PADs) and antibiotic paper analytical devices (aPADs) have been developed as an inexpensive way to estimate antibiotic quality in LMICs. Aim: To model the impact of using a rapid screening tools, PADs/aPADs, to improve the quality of amoxicillin used for treatment of childhood pneumonia in Kenya. Methods: We developed an agent-based model, ESTEEM (Examining Screening Technologies with Economic Evaluations for Medicines), to estimate the effectiveness and cost savings of incorporating PADs and aPADs in amoxicillin quality surveillance in Kenya. We compared the current testing scenario (batches of entire samples tested by HPLC) with an expedited HPLC scenario (testing smaller batches at a time), as well as a screening scenario using PADs/aPADs to identify poor-quality amoxicillin followed by confirmatory analysis with HPLC. Results: Scenarios using PADs/aPADs or expedited HPLC yielded greater incremental benefits than the current testing scenario by annually averting 586 (90% uncertainty range (UR) 364–874) and 221 (90% UR 126–332) child pneumonia deaths, respectively. The PADs/aPADs screening scenario identified and removed poor-quality antibiotics faster than the expedited or regular HPLC scenarios, and reduced costs significantly. The PADs/aPADs scenario resulted in an incremental return of $14.9 million annually compared with the reference scenario of only using HPLC. Conclusion: This analysis shows the significant value of PADs/aPADs as a medicine quality screening and testing tool in LMICs with limited resources.