Evaluation of Decentralized Verifiable Credentials to Authenticate Authorized Trading Partners and Verify Drug Provenance

Ghada L. Ashkar ,
Ghada L. Ashkar
Kalpan s. Patel ,
Kalpan s. Patel
Josenor De Jesus ,
Josenor De Jesus
Nikkhil Vinnakota ,
Nikkhil Vinnakota
Natalie Helms ,
Natalie Helms
Will Jack ,
Will Jack
William Chien Orcid logo ,
William Chien
Ben Taylor Orcid logo
Ben Taylor

Published: 21.10.2022.

Biochemistry

Volume 4, Issue 1 (2021)

https://doi.org/10.30953/bhty.v4.168

Abstract

Summary: In 2013, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) was signed into law to address the growing threat of counterfeit drugs and to ensure prescription drugs remain safe and effective for patients. As part of this law, US pharmaceutical supply chain stakeholders are required to confirm the authorized status of trading partners for transactions and information disclosures, even when there is no prior business relationship. While larger Authorized Trading Partners (ATPs) have connectivity solutions in place, newer and smaller ATPs have not traditionally participated, including tens of thousands of dispensers. To unlock the full potential of the interoperable system mandated by the DSCSA, the authors tested eXtended ATP (XATP), a blockchain-backed framework for ATP authentication and enhanced verification in a real-world pharmacy with genuine drug packages. The objective of this research study was to prove that electronic authentication and enhanced verification can be achieved between ATPs using a mobile-based solution. Moreover, we tested accurate reading of drug and associated electronic med guides, flagging of expired and recalled drugs, and correct generation of documentation to support saleable returns. Methods: This study involved two dispensers and three participating manufacturers. Dispensers were onboarded to a mobile application and used supporting documentation to authenticate their identities, and then scanned 2D drug barcodes to submit drug verification requests to manufacturers (including 11 additional, randomly selected manufacturers). Genuine and synthetic drug package barcodes were used to test workflows against genuine and synthetic manufacturer serialization data records. Manufacturers authenticated the identity of requesting dispensers with verifiable credentials and responded to verification requests. Results: Enhanced drug verification was achieved, with 100% of requests successfully delivered to participating manufacturers and 88% of requests being delivered to other manufacturers (based on the pharmacist selection of random packages from the pharmacy). Drug verification matching against synthetic serialization data records resulted in 86% accuracy, with the 14% error rate attributed to human factors. All barcodes were successfully scanned and provided package-accurate data, and 97% of randomly selected packages successfully generated drug package inserts. All synthetic recalls and expired drugs were successfully flagged. Four of the manufacturers contacted were among the top 15 pharmaceutical manufacturers globally; all four responded. Conclusions: The XATP framework provides a secure, reliable, and seamless remote method to conduct enhanced verification as required by law. Interoperability between manufacturers and dispensers with no prior business relationship can be achieved on ‘day zero’ using mobile devices that enable digital authentication and rapid barcode scanning. As users retain control of their own private keys, the framework also mitigates the single-point-of-attack risks associated with centrally managed systems.

Keywords

References

1.
Ashkar GL, Patel K s., De Jesus J, Vinnakota N, Helms N, Jack W, et al. Evaluation of Decentralized Verifiable Credentials to Authenticate Authorized Trading Partners and Verify Drug Provenance. Blockchain in Healthcare Today. 2021;
2.
2019;
3.
Callahan J. Council post: Know Your Customer (KYC) will be a great thing when it works. Forbes. 2018;
4.
Identifying trading partners under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act: guidance for industrydraft guidance. 4AD;
5.
Drug Supply Chain Security Act law and policies. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration.
6.
Freisleben J. VA: Healthcare Distribution Alliance. HAD.org Arlington. 2018;
7.
Standard 1.1 -applying the GS1 lightweight messaging standard for DSCSA verification of returned product identifiers. 2020;
8.
Jürgens G. Industry-wide DSCSA compliance pilot successfully completed. Medium.com. 2020;92.
9.
Framework for eXtended ATP authentication, enhanced verification, and saleable returns documentation. 2020;
10.
Chadwick D, Longley D, Sporny M. Verifiable credentials data model 1.0: expressing verifiable information on the web. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). 2019;
11.
Assessing current implementation of DSCSA serialization requirements. 2018;
12.
PDG FDA pilot program round-robin webinar series. Partnership for DSCSA Governance.
13.
Verification systems under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act for certain prescription drugs guidance for industry -draft guidance. 2018;
14.
Standard 1.2 -applying GS1 standards for DSCSA and traceability. 2016;
15.
GS1 lightweight messaging standard for verification of product identifiers. 2018;
16.
Wholesale distributor verification requirement for saleable returned /drug product and dispenser verification requirements when investigating a suspect or illegitimate product -compliance policies: guidance for industrydraft guidance. 2020;
17.
DSCSA pilot project program. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. 2019;
18.
Chien W, De Jesus J, Taylor B, Dods V, Alekseyev L, Shoda D, et al. The Last Mile: DSCSA Solution Through Blockchain Technology: Drug Tracking, Tracing, and Verification at the Last Mile of the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain with BRUINchain. Blockchain in Healthcare Today. 2020;
19.
Androulaki E, Barger A, Bortnikov V, Cachin C, Christidis K, De Caro A, et al. Hyperledger fabric. Proceedings of the Thirteenth EuroSys Conference. ACM; 2018.
20.
Gabay M. Federal Controlled Substances Act: Ordering and Recordkeeping. Hospital Pharmacy. 2013;48(11):919–21.
21.
Pharmacompass. Top 1000 global pharmaceutical companies. LePro PharmaCompass. 2021;
22.
Modeled after the regulatory requirement that credit and debit card receipts have truncated account numbers to prevent identity theft. 2007;
23.
Ashkar GL, Patel K s., De Jesus J, Vinnakota N, Helms N, Jack W, et al. Evaluation of Decentralized Verifiable Credentials to Authenticate Authorized Trading Partners and Verify Drug Provenance. Blockchain in Healthcare Today. 2021;
24.
Ghada L, Ashkar. apples-global-active-install-base-of-iphones-surpassed-900million-this-quarter. 4AD;
25.
Shuaib K, Saleous H, Shuaib K, Zaki N. Blockchains for Secure Digitized Medicine. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2019;9(3):35.
26.
Brook C. What’s the cost of a data breach in 2019? 2020 December 1.
27.
Keen E, Moore S. Gartner forecasts worldwide information security spending to exceed $124 billion in 2019. Sydney: Gartner. 2018;
28.
Ponemon L. What’s new in the 2019 cost of a data breach report. 2019;
29.
Steel A. Passwords are still a problem according to the. LastPass Blog. 2019;
30.
Lu D. How much are password resets costing your company? Okta. 2019;
31.
Bourque A. Ditching passwords and increasing ecommerce conversion rates by 54%. CIO. 2017;
32.
Stclair J, Ingraham A, King D, Marchant M, Mccraw F, Metcalf D. Blockchain, interoperability, and selfsovereign identity: trust me, it’s my data. BHTY. 2020;
33.
StClair J, Ingraham A, King D, Marchant MB, McCraw FC, Metcalf D, et al. Blockchain, Interoperability, and Self-Sovereign Identity: Trust Me, It’s My Data. Blockchain in Healthcare Today. 2020;

Citation

Copyright

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles