Access to anticancer drugs: many evidence-based treatments are off-label and unfunded by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

The increasing costs of medicines and their implications for patients, physicians and the health system

Most new medicines entering the market are high-cost speciality drugs. These drugs can cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per course of treatment and in some cases millions of dollars per dose. Approximately half of all spending on medicines is projected to target only 2-3% of patients, raising important questions about resource allocation. While there is no doubt that breakthrough innovations have transformed clinical care in some disciplines, it is also true that cost is becoming one of the primary barriers to treatment access and that many new medicines do not provide value commensurate with their prices. This article examines pricing trends, the reasons for high prices and their implications for access and clinical practice.

Off-label use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of solid tumors: analysis of a nationwide patient sample

PURPOSE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become an indispensable part of clinical practice; however, off-label use of these agents is unknown. We aimed to define the patterns of off-label use of ICIs in a nationwide sample of patients.

METHODS

The online database (Reçetem) was retrospectively searched for off-label use cases related to ICIs approved during a 6-month period. Adult patients with metastatic solid tumors were included. Ethics approval was obtained. Reasons for off-label use were recorded in eight categories and cases were assessed for adherence to current guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed with GNU PSPP version 1.5.3.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy-seven reasons for use were recorded for 538 cases related to 527 patients (67.5% male). Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (35.9%) was the most common cancer type. Nivolumab (49%), pembrolizumab (25.5%), and atezolizumab (25%) were commonly used. The top reason for off-label use was lack of approval for the cancer type (37.1%), followed by use beyond the approved treatment line (21%). Nivolumab was more frequently used than atezolizumab and/or pembrolizumab in patients with malignant melanoma, kidney cancer, head and neck cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma (Chi-square goodness-of-fit test, p < 0.001). The guideline adherence rate was 60.5%.

CONCLUSION

Off-label use of ICIs was primarily related to (NSCLC), and most patients were treatment-naïve in contrast to the acceptance that off-label use results from exhausted treatment options. Lack of approval is a significant reason for the off-label use of ICIs.

Off-label indications of aspirin in gynaecology and obstetrics outpatients at two Chinese tertiary care hospitals: a retrospective cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of off-label aspirin indications and the level of scientific support for off-label indications of aspirin in gynaecology and obstetrics outpatients.

DESIGN

A retrospective cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Two tertiary hospitals (a general hospital and a women and children's specialised hospital) in Xiamen, a city located on the southeastern coast of China.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 4257 prescriptions were included for 2091 female patients aged >18 who visited the gynaecology and obstetrics outpatient clinics and received aspirin treatment.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary measure of this study was the proportion of off-label indications and of off-label indications supported by strong scientific evidence. Evidence from clinical guidelines and Micromedex is shown using descriptive statements. On-label indications of drugs in the same class as aspirin were also referred to for off-label aspirin use without strong evidence support.

RESULTS

All indications of aspirin on outpatient prescriptions were determined as off-label use in this study. The most frequent off-label indication was recurrent miscarriage (2244 prescriptions, 52.71%). Totally, 30.94% of the prescriptions were supported by strong evidence for indications, including recurrent miscarriage with antiphospholipid syndrome and prophylaxis for pre-eclampsia. No drugs in the same class as aspirin had on-label indications for off-label aspirin use without strong evidence support.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that all indications of aspirin used in gynaecology and obstetrics outpatients at the two tertiary hospitals were off-label and not always supported by strong evidence, implicating that physicians should be cautious when issuing off-label prescriptions. More original clinical research on off-label aspirin use is needed to provide reference for routine clinical practice.

Current Attitudes toward Unfunded Cancer Therapies among Canadian Medical Oncologists

Background: Despite successes in the development of innovative anticancer therapies, the fiscal and capacity restraints of the Canadian public healthcare system result in challenges with drug access. A meaningful proportion of systemic therapies ultimately do not receive public funding despite supporting clinical evidence. In this study, we assessed Canadian medical oncologists’ current attitudes toward discussing publicly unfunded cancer treatments with patients and predictors of different practices. Methods: A web-based survey consisting of multiple choice and case-based scenarios was distributed to medical oncologists identified through the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada directory. Results: A total of 116 responses were received. Almost all respondents reported discussing publicly unfunded treatments, including those who did so for Health Canada (HC) approved treatments (50%) and those who discussed off-label treatments (i.e., not HC approved) as guided by national guidelines (48%). Respondents in practice for over 15 years versus less than 5 years (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04–0.50, p = 0.002) and those who worked in a community practice versus comprehensive cancer center (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03–0.91, p = 0.04) were significantly less likely to discuss off-label treatment options with their patients. Almost half of respondents (47%) indicated that their institution did not permit the administration of unfunded treatments. Conclusions: There is variability in medical oncologists’ practices when it comes to discussing unfunded therapies. Given the limitations within Canada’s publicly funded healthcare system, physicians are faced with the challenge of navigating an increasingly complex balance between patient care and available resources. Engagement of relevant stakeholders and policy makers is crucial in the continued evaluation of Canada’s drug funding process.

The Off-Label Use of Antineoplastics in Oncology Is Limited But Has Notable Scientific Support in a University Hospital Setting

Purpose: The off-label (OL) use of antineoplastic drugs for the treatment of various types of tumors in patients of different disease stages is becoming a common occurrence. The objective of this study was to analyze these patterns by quantification and characterization of the OL use of antineoplastic drugs and their level of scientific evidence in a medium/high-complexity Spanish general university hospital. Method: All oncology patients who underwent OL treatment with one or several antineoplastics during the 10 years from 2002 to 2012 were retrospectively selected. The use of these drugs was considered OL if they were used for indications, stages, lines of treatment, or chemotherapy schemes not reflected in the summary of product characteristics published by the European Medicines Agency at the time of prescription. To calculate the prevalence of patients who received one or more OL treatments during the study period, all patients whose primary or secondary diagnosis had been coded with the diagnoses included in the study were selected through the minimum basic data set (MBDS). This database was cross-referenced with that of the Farmatools^® program (Dominion^®), which collects information on all patients receiving chemotherapy to obtain the total number of patients who received chemotherapy in the hospital during this period. Results: In total, 684 patients and 866 OL treatments were included. The prevalence of patients undergoing OL treatment with antineoplastics was 6%. OL treatments were used mainly for breast, gynecological, lung, and gastric tumors. The most often-used antineoplastic was paclitaxel, followed by gemcitabine, carboplatin, vinorelbine, and capecitabine, which were used mainly in monotherapy and with palliative intent. A total of 56.1% of the OL schemes used had a level of evidence of 2A according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and 55.3% had a level of evidence of 2B according to Micromedex^®. Conclusion: The OL use of antineoplastics in oncology patients is limited; their use is mainly focused in a small group of tumors and at advanced stages of disease. OL use of antineoplastics occurs under palliative therapeutic strategies with a limited number of drugs, preferably off-patent drugs. In addition, these OL treatments have high levels of clinical evidence.

Off-label use of tamoxifen in a Chinese tertiary care hospital

Background Tamoxifen is an estrogen receptor modulator used for the treatment of breast cancer; however, currently, it is used in many off-label indications. Objective To investigate the prevalence of tamoxifen off-label prescribing and explore available scientific evidence that supports those uses in outpatients. Setting Xiamen maternity and child health care hospital in Xiamen city of China. Method All the prescriptions of outpatients receiving tamoxifen were exported from an electronic prescribing system during a 1-year period. Tamoxifen use was then classified as either on- or off-label according to the criteria we established previously, and the details of the off-label prescriptions were collected. Logistic regression was applied to explore predictive variables. Evidence search was limited to Up-To-Date, the Micromedex database and PubMed. Main outcome measure The rate of off-label use, risk factors identified by logistic regression and evidence exhibition. Results A total of 75% of all the prescriptions available were classified as off-label use. Hyperplasia of the breast was the most frequently prescribed off-label indication. According to the analysis of logistic regression, male patients, patients less than 34 years old, and physicians with a higher professional title were more likely associated with off-label prescribing. After a search in Up-To-Date, the Micromedex database and PubMed, only male infertility, atypical hyperplasia, mastodynia, peripheral precocious puberty and gynecomastia were found to have strong evidence supporting the use of tamoxifen off-label (22.75%). Conclusion Although the off-label use of tamoxifen was common in our hospital, there was a relative shortage of evidence available supporting those uses.

Patient access to medicines in two countries with similar health systems and differing medicines policies: Implications from a comprehensive literature review

BACKGROUND

Countries with similar health systems but different medicines policies might result in substantial medicines usage differences and resultant outcomes. The literature is sparse in this area.

OBJECTIVE

To review pharmaceutical policy research in New Zealand and Australia and discuss differences between the two countries and the impact these differences may have on subsequent medicine access.

METHODS

A review of the literature (2008-2016) was performed to identify relevant, peer-reviewed articles. Systematic searches were conducted across the six databases MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Direct, Springer Links, Scopus and Google Scholar. A further search of journals of high relevance was also conducted. Using content analysis, a narrative synthesis of pharmaceutical policy research influencing access to medicines in Australia and New Zealand was conducted. The results were critically assessed in the context of policy material available via grey literature from the respective countries.

RESULTS

Key elements regarding pharmaceutical policy were identified from the 35 research papers identified for this review. Through a content analysis, three broad categories of pharmaceutical policy were found, which potentially could influence patient access to medicines in each country; the national health system, pricing and reimbursement. Within these three categories, 9 subcategories were identified: national health policy, pharmacy system, marketing authorization and regulation, prescription to non-prescription medicine switch, orphan drug policies, generic medicine substitution, national pharmaceutical schedule and health technology assessment, patient co-payment and managed entry agreements.

CONCLUSIONS

This review systematically evaluated the current literature and identified key areas of difference in policy between Australia and NZ. Australia appears to cover and reimburse a greater number of medicines, while New Zealand achieves much lower prices for medicines than their Australian counterparts and has been more successful in controlling national pharmaceutical expenditure. Delays in patient access to new therapies in New Zealand have considerable implications for overall patient access to medicines; however, higher patient co-payments and relative pharmaceutical expenditure in Australia and its effect upon patient access to medicines must also be considered.

Discussing and prescribing expensive unfunded anticancer drugs in Australia

OBJECTIVE

Australia has a publicly funded universal healthcare system which heavily subsidises the cost of most registered anticancer drugs. The use of anticancer drugs that are unfunded, that is, not subsidised by the government, entails substantial out-of-pocket costs for patients. We sought to determine how frequently Australian medical oncologists discuss and prescribe unfunded anticancer drugs, and their attitudes and beliefs about their use.

METHODS

Members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA) completed an online survey about their clinical practices over a recent 3-month period. A negative binomial regression model was used to examine the influence of respondent characteristics on the rate of discussions about, and prescription of, unfunded anticancer drugs.

RESULTS

Of the 154 respondents (27% of 575 MOGA members), 92% had discussed and 68% had prescribed at least one unfunded anticancer drug in the last 3 months. Respondents reported discussing unfunded anticancer drugs with an average of 2.5 patients per month (95% CI 2.1 to 2.9), and prescribed them to an average of 0.9 patients per month (95% CI 0.7 to 1.2). The rate of discussing unfunded anticancer drugs was associated with being fully qualified (p=0.01), and being in a metropolitan practice (p=0.009), the rate of prescription was associated only with being in metropolitan practice (p=0.006). The concerns about discussing and prescribing unfunded anticancer drugs rated most important were as follows: 'potential to cause financial hardship' and 'difficulty for patients to evaluate the benefits versus the costs'.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian medical oncologists frequently discuss and prescribe unfunded anticancer drugs, and are concerned about their patients having to face difficult decisions and financial hardship. Further research is needed to better understand the factors that affect how oncologists and patients value expensive, unfunded anticancer drugs.

It is time to review how unlicensed medicines are used

The safe and effective use of medicines is an integral part of the medicine safety agenda. We present a phenomenological topic review of the literature relating to the use of unlicensed medicines (ULM). There is evidence to demonstrate that the use of ULM is associated with increased incidence of adverse drug reactions, and that despite advances in medicine regulation and guidance from professional organisations, the use of ULM in at risk populations has not reduced. There is also evidence to suggest that patients and their carers are not being provided with adequate information about their medicines and that ULM are being used where safer licensed alternatives are available. This is contrary to the philosophy of "patient-focussed care". We conclude that organisational governance processes and professional guidelines have not kept pace with regulatory developments or changes in legal and ethical understanding. We recommend that governance procedures for ULM be updated across healthcare settings to ensure that patients are involved in the decisions made about their medicines including the regulatory status of the medicine. This includes ensuring adequate consent is obtained from the patient (or their advocate). We also recommend that professional bodies clarify their position on when ULM can be used instead of licensed medicines to ensure that licensed medicines are used wherever possible. In the current economic environment, commissioners and clinicians must resist the temptation to use lower-quality ULM in place of licensed ones to cut costs. We go on to recommend areas of further research including the extent of ULM prescribing where licensed alternatives exist and the geographical and social factors that influence clinician prescribing of ULM.

Outcomes of off-label drug uses in hospitals: a multicentric prospective study

PURPOSE

The study aims to assess the clinical evidence, outcome and cost of off-label use of medicines in the hospital setting.

METHODS

A multicentric prospective cohort study of patients treated with off-label medicines was carried out in five tertiary hospitals from May 2011 to May 2012. Information on clinical characteristics of patients, drugs, outcomes and costs was collected. Patients were followed up to 6 months, and information was assessed by reviewing clinical records and interviewing physicians.

RESULTS

A total of 226 patients were included. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) age of patients was 46 (33-62) years; 59 % were women. Patients had received a median of three previous treatments, and a lack of response (or suboptimal) was the main reason for off-label use (72.1 %). A total of 232 off-label medicines were administered for 102 different indications. The most frequent medicines were rituximab (49; 21.1 %), botulinum toxin (25; 10.7 %) and omalizumab (14; 6.0 %). In 117 (51.8 %) cases, the level of clinical evidence for their use was low. A partial clinical response was observed in 82 patients (36.3 %), complete response in 71 (31.4 %) and stabilization in 11 (4.9 %). A total of 58 (26.5 %) patients had adverse effects, which in 11 (4.9 %) were severe. The median (IQR) cost per patient was 2,943.07 (541.9-5,872.54).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high variability of off-label medicines and indications. Although the clinical evidence of off-label medicines was often low, clinical response was observed in many patients with previous multiple treatment failure, but at the expense of some adverse effects and a high cost. Registers of patients would be helpful for clinical decisions, although clinical trials are needed.

Roles of cancer registries in enhancing oncology drug access in the Asia-Pacific region

Cancer registries help to establish and maintain cancer incidence reporting systems, serve as a resource for investigation of cancer and its causes, and provide information for planning and evaluation of preventive and control programs. However, their wider role in directly enhancing oncology drug access has not been fully explored. We examined the value of cancer registries in oncology drug access in the Asia-Pacific region on three levels: (1) specific registry variable types; (2) macroscopic strategies on the national level; and (3) a regional cancer registry network. Using literature search and proceedings from an expert forum, this paper covers recent cancer registry developments in eight economies in the Asia-Pacific region - Australia, China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand - and the ways they can contribute to oncology drug access. Specific registry variables relating to demographics, tumor characteristics, initial treatment plans, prognostic markers, risk factors, and mortality help to anticipate drug needs, identify high-priority research area and design access programs. On a national level, linking registry data with clinical, drug safety, financial, or drug utilization databases allows analyses of associations between utilization and outcomes. Concurrent efforts should also be channeled into developing and implementing data integrity and stewardship policies, and providing clear avenues to make data available. Less mature registry systems can employ modeling techniques and ad-hoc surveys while increasing coverage. Beyond local settings, a cancer registry network for the Asia-Pacific region would offer cross-learning and research opportunities that can exert leverage through the experiences and capabilities of a highly diverse region.