IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0012199.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Website Pharmacy Drug Quality: Safer Than You Think?

Author

Listed:
  • Roger Bate
  • Kimberly Hess

Abstract

Background: Internet-sourced drugs are often considered suspect. The World Health Organization reports that drugs from websites that conceal their physical address are counterfeit in over 50 percent of cases; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) works with the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) to regularly update a list of websites likely to sell drugs that are illegal or of questionable quality. Methods and Findings: This study examines drug purchasing over the Internet, by comparing the sales of five popular drugs from a selection of websites stratified by NABP or other ratings. The drugs were assessed for price, conditions of purchase, and basic quality. Prices and conditions of purchase varied widely. Some websites advertised single pills while others only permitted the purchase of large quantities. Not all websites delivered the exact drugs ordered, some delivered no drugs at all; many websites shipped from multiple international locations, and from locations that were different from those advertised on the websites. All drug samples were tested against approved U.S. brand formulations using Raman spectrometry. Many (17) websites substituted drugs, often in different formulations from the brands requested. These drugs, some of which were probably generics or perhaps non-bioequivalent copy versions, could not be assessed accurately. Of those drugs that could be assessed, none failed from “approved”, “legally compliant” or “not recommended” websites (0 out of 86), whereas 8.6% (3 out of 35) failed from “highly not recommended” and unidentifiable websites. Conclusions: Of those drugs that could be assessed, all except Viagra® passed spectrometry testing. Of those that failed, few could be identified either by a country of manufacture listed on the packaging, or by the physical location of the website pharmacy. If confirmed by future studies on other drug samples, then U.S. consumers should be able to reduce their risk by relying on credentialing agencies recommended lists and by using common sense when examining packaging and pills.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger Bate & Kimberly Hess, 2010. "Assessing Website Pharmacy Drug Quality: Safer Than You Think?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-8, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0012199
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012199
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012199&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0012199?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roger Bate & Ginger Zhe Jin & Aparna Mathur, 2012. "In Whom We Trust: The Role of Certification Agencies in Online Drug Markets," NBER Working Papers 17955, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Yuetao Gao, 2018. "On the Use of Overt Anti-Counterfeiting Technologies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(3), pages 403-424, May.
    3. Levaggi, Rosella & Marcantoni, Claudio & Filippucci, Laura & Gelatti, Umberto, 2012. "Not a good buy: Value for money of prescription drugs sold on the Internet," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(3), pages 241-245.
    4. Bate Roger & Jin Ginger Zhe & Mathur Aparna, 2013. "In Whom We Trust: The Role of Certification Agencies in Online Drug Markets," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 111-150, December.

    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:pone00:0012199. 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.