Comments on: RFID is DEAD…at Unit-Level in Pharma

By: Jim Kaye

Jim Kaye — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 08:44:22 +0000

I read the blog with interest but wonder, RFID is a fantastic tool and has several benefits to different areas of any supply chain but, surely it does not have to be all or nothing?

Using RFID to shipping carton level has benefits for everyone as demonstrated in the graphs.

RFID at individual carton level has limited gains for warehouse and local pharmacie stock control but at local level this has to be offset against the high cost of setup.

RFID however, I feel is not helpfull at individual item level and its costs far out weigh any benfits. This level would be far better served by 2D codes.

There should be no problem using 2D codes on blister or vial level etc. Then aggregate these with RFID on the consumer pack and shipping container. In this way all parties can profit and still complete the data trail.

By: MBA Dissertation Revisited 3: Hypothesis proved? « NHSTrace Blog

MBA Dissertation Revisited 3: Hypothesis proved? « NHSTrace Blog — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:31:50 +0000

[...] Towards UHF RFID for Savings” (Dec 2008), but at least one pundit believes “RFID is DEAD… at Unit-Level in Pharma.” [...]

By: Duane Sword

Duane Sword — Fri, 21 May 2010 07:38:32 +0000

Full disclosure, I work with a vendor who sells analytical instruments.

Authentication at the molecular level is done in the field today. There are several techniques, and the use of handheld vibrational spectroscopy is growing favor with regulators, customs, and brand-security teams. Namely the use of Raman and NIR (near infrared) based instruments.

NAFDAC (Nigerian FDA) has announced their multi-level strategy to combat counterfeits but also substandard drugs. They are employing a series of complementary and confirmatory techniques from packaging authentication to tablet/injectable/capsule authentication using Raman spectroscopy and MiniLab kits.

Substandard drugs can be as dangerous as counterfeits. Degradation at the molecular level of pharmaceuticals, vaccines, anti-malarials through exposure to light, temperature, expired, and humidity can cause the authentic drug to have less effectiveness, or no effect at all.

By: Plancon

Plancon — Thu, 20 May 2010 18:28:05 +0000

There is a lot of talk about sms (text message) authentication/serialization too. Check yesterday’s wall street journal and google businessmonitor’s article about a program by the regulatory agencies in west africa.

By: Robert Urquhart

Robert Urquhart — Mon, 10 May 2010 08:58:45 +0000

Dirk
This is a good article and if you don’t mind I would like to put another slant on it if I may.
The issue of counterfeiting and illegal diversion is most acute in Asia where the supply chain is the highly fragmented with a large number of regulatory hurdles. This is the largest growth area for Pharmaceutical and Healthcare products and yet this region is often forgotten about. Direct to pharmacy here is not an option.
Cost of equipment and the lack of standards are also major obstacles. Implementing any new technology in this environment is a huge task. This is made much more complicated when one considers that the different countries wish to pursue their own regulations – Korea & China to name a few.
Having studied both options in depth, serialisation is the only option going forward. That said it has some big challenges in capturing and managing the data that becomes attached to the serial number as it moves through the supply chain.

By: John Danese

John Danese — Mon, 03 May 2010 19:15:11 +0000

Dirk,
Excellent blog and I think this post is right on the money, based on discussions with customers and what I’m reading elsewhere.
Here’s another data point that points to a downward trend of interest in RFID among manufacturers (cross industry). This article in Managing Automation talks about search trends using it’s search tool:
“As recently as January, RFID software ranked number four on the list, but in February it slipped to number 14, and in March RFID technology did not make the top 15 categories browsed.”
http://www.managingautomation.com/maonline/exclusive/read/MES__Production_Planning_Tools_Among_Most_Popular_Manufacturing_Software_27756247

By: RFID is Dead…at the Unit Level in Pharma « Maxiom Group Blog

RFID is Dead…at the Unit Level in Pharma « Maxiom Group Blog — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:10:14 +0000

[...] on track and trace/brand integrity, published what we’ve all been waiting for…realization that RFID is Dead (at the unit level for pharmaceuticals) on his RxTrace blog. I say “that we’ve all been [...]

By: George Gilfoil

George Gilfoil — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:45:07 +0000

Have you factored in your comparative analysis the benefit differentials between the two major technologies under consideration? This has to be a signification consideration in determining the final selection.

By: Nawaz Anwarudeen

Nawaz Anwarudeen — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:25:21 +0000

Dirk – You summed up what our customers (packagers) are saying.
Few of our customers are open to tagging at a carton level if the supply chain partners require.
Most of our customers will tag case and pallet.

Almost all of our customers prefer 2D serialization at unit level.

By: Dirk Rodgers

Dirk Rodgers — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:33:27 +0000

Dan,
Good points, thanks. Your comment about two technologies on each unit for redundancy reminds me that I should clarify my point about the need for multiple reader technology. Having both RFID and 2D barcodes on each unit is the ideal situation for wholesalers and pharmacies. In that case, the serial number (the SGTIN) encoded into each of the two carriers must be identical. Having both carriers on every unit would be an even greater cost to be borne by the manufacturer, and it would allow each downstream trading partner to choose to read whichever carrier is most convenient at any given readpoint. This is distictly different from my comparison of one carrier technology with the other because my analysis assumes that the manufacturer chooses to apply only one or the other. Thanks for reminding me about that.

I’m very skeptical about the combined barcode/RFID mobile devices that you mention, but I have not tested any of them. It seems to me that the physical motions…the “aim” of the device would depend on which technology the user was attempting to use at a given time. I suppose that’s just a training issue and users would get used to it. In a world where multiple reader technologies are a must, these devices will be essential. I just hope they work well and they don’t break down twice as often.

Dirk.