Dataset Information

The extent to which off-patent registered prescription medicines are used for off-label indications in Australia: A scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

The aim of this scoping review was to determine the extent of off-patent prescription medicine use beyond registered indications in various Australian clinical settings.

Method

The review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute approach and reported using PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. Online databases were used to identify published literature about off-patent registered prescription medicines used for off-label indications in Australian public hospital, community and primary healthcare settings. In addition, empirical data from the Queensland and the South Australian state-wide medicine formularies were screened for the same medication/off-label indication dyads identified in the literature, and other locally approved uses.

Results

Overall, fourteen studies were included, conducted in public hospitals (n = 11), palliative care units (n = 2) and the community setting (n = 1). There were 213 reports extracted from the literature describing off-patent registered prescription medicines used for off-label indications, representing 128 unique medication/off-label indication dyads and 32 different medicines. Of these, just five medication/off-label indication dyads were approved for use on both the Queensland and South Australian state-wide medicine formularies, with 12 others only approved for use in Queensland and 16 others only approved for use in South Australia. Further examination of these state-wide formularies demonstrated that the use of off-patent registered prescription medicines beyond registered indications is more extensive than has been reported to date in the literature. There were 28 additional medication/off-label indication dyads approved on the Queensland state-wide medicine formulary and 14 such examples approved for use in South Australia. Of these, just two medication/off-label indication dyads were approved for use on both formularies.

Conclusion

The extent to which off-patent registered prescription medicines have been repurposed in clinical settings for off-label indications in Australia is greater than previously reported in the literature. Usage and funded availability of certain medication/off-label indication dyads, varies across Australia. These results further expose the two tiered system of medicines regulation in Australia, and its impact on equity of access to medicines. Further research is required to support policy change to encourage submission of registration updates for off-patent prescription medicines.

SUBMITTER: Howe K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8641869 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOff-label use of medicines is generally discouraged. However, several off-patent, low-cost cancer medicines remain off-label for indications in which they are commonly used in daily practice, supported by high-level evidence based on results of phase III clinical trials. This discrepancy may generate prescription and reimbursement obstacles as well as impaired access to established therapies.MethodsA list of cancer medicines that remain off-label in specific indications despite the presence of high-level evidence was generated and subjected to European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) expert peer review to assess for accountability of reasonableness. These medicines were then surveyed on approval procedures and workflow impact. The most illustrative examples of these medicines were reviewed by experts from the European Medicines Agency to ascertain the apparent robustness of the supporting phase III trial evidence from a regulatory perspective.ResultsA total of 47 ESMO experts reviewed 17 cancer medicines commonly used off-label in six disease groups. Overall, high levels of agreement were recorded on the off-label status and the high quality of data supporting the efficacy in the off-label indications, often achieving high ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores. When prescribing these medicines, 51% of the reviewers had to implement a time-consuming process associated with additional workload, in the presence of litigation risks and patient anxiety. Finally, the informal regulatory expert review identified only 2 out of 18 (11%) studies with significant limitations that would be difficult to overcome in the context of a potential marketing authorisation application without additional studies.ConclusionsWe highlight the common use of off-patent essential cancer medicines in indications that remain off-label despite solid supporting data as well as generate evidence on the adverse impact on patient access and clinic workflows. In the current regulatory framework, incentives to promote the extension of indications of off-patent cancer medicines are needed for all stakeholders.

Project description:BackgroundEuropean Union law prohibits companies from marketing drugs off-label. In the United Kingdom--as in some other European countries, but unlike the United States--industry self-regulatory bodies are tasked with supervising compliance with marketing rules. The objectives of this study were to (1) characterize off-label promotion rulings in the UK compared to the whistleblower-initiated cases in the US and (2) shed light on the UK self-regulatory mechanism for detecting, deterring, and sanctioning off-label promotion.Methods and findingsWe conducted structured reviews of rulings by the UK self-regulatory authority, the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), between 2003 and 2012. There were 74 off-label promotion rulings involving 43 companies and 65 drugs. Nineteen companies were ruled in breach more than once, and ten companies were ruled in breach three or more times over the 10-y period. Drawing on a typology previously developed to analyse US whistleblower complaints, we coded and analysed the apparent strategic goals of each off-label marketing scheme and the practices consistent with those alleged goals. 50% of rulings cited efforts to expand drug use to unapproved indications, and 39% and 38% cited efforts to expand beyond approved disease entities and dosing strategies, respectively. The most frequently described promotional tactic was attempts to influence prescribers (n = 72, 97%), using print material (70/72, 97%), for example, advertisements (21/70, 30%). Although rulings cited prescribers as the prime target of off-label promotion, competing companies lodged the majority of complaints (prescriber: n = 16, 22%, versus companies: n = 42, 57%). Unlike US whistleblower complaints, few UK rulings described practices targeting consumers (n = 3, 4%), payers (n = 2, 3%), or company staff (n = 2, 3%). Eight UK rulings (11%) pertaining to six drugs described promotion of the same drug for the same off-label use as was alleged by whistleblowers in the US. However, while the UK cases typically related to only one or a few claims made in printed material, several complaints in the US alleged multifaceted and covert marketing activities. Because this study is limited to PMCPA rulings and whistleblower-initiated federal cases, it may offer a partial view of exposed off-label marketing.ConclusionThe UK self-regulatory system for exposing marketing violations relies largely on complaints from company outsiders, which may explain why most off-label promotion rulings relate to plainly visible promotional activities such as advertising. This contrasts with the US, where Department of Justice investigations and whistleblower testimony have alleged complex off-label marketing campaigns that remain concealed to company outsiders. UK authorities should consider introducing increased incentives and protections for whistleblowers combined with US-style governmental investigations and meaningful sanctions. UK prescribers should be attentive to, and increasingly report, off-label promotion.

Project description:Switching or reclassifying medicines with established safety profiles from prescription to non-prescription aims to increase timely consumer access to medicines, reduce under-treatment and enhance self-management. However, risks include suboptimal therapy and adverse effects. With a long-standing government policy supporting switching or reclassifying medicines from prescription to non-prescription, the United Kingdom is believed to lead the world in switch, but evidence for this is inconclusive. Interest in switching medicines for certain long-term conditions has arisen in the United Kingdom, United States, and Europe, but such switches have been contentious. The objective of this study was then to provide a comprehensive comparison of progress in switch for medicines across six developed countries: the United States; the United Kingdom; Australia; Japan; the Netherlands; and New Zealand.A list of prescription-to-non-prescription medicine switches was systematically compiled. Three measures were used to compare switch activity across the countries: "progressive" switches from 2003 to 2013 (indicating incremental consumer benefit over current non-prescription medicines); "first-in-world" switches from 2003 to 2013; and switch date comparisons for selected medicines.New Zealand was the most active in progressive switches from 2003 to 2013, with the United Kingdom and Japan not far behind. The United States, Australia and the Netherlands showed the least activity in this period. Few medicines for long-term conditions were switched, even in the United Kingdom and New Zealand where first-in-world switches were most likely. Switch of certain medicines took considerably longer in some countries than others. For example, a consumer in the United Kingdom could self-medicate with a non-sedating antihistamine 19 years earlier than a consumer in the United States.Proactivity in medicines switching, most notably in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, questions missed opportunities to enhance consumers' self-management in countries such as the United States.

Project description:Background and objective: Best-value biological medicines may generate competition in the off-patent biologicals market, resulting in having more resources available to provide patients with access to necessary medicines while maintaining high-quality care. Belgium is a country known to have low biosimilar market shares, suggesting a malfunctioning market for off-patent biologicals. This study aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the Belgian off-patent biologicals market, by looking at the evolution in volumes and costs of the relevant products in the market. Methods: This study included a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative part of this study consisted of the analysis of market data obtained by the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI) for all relevant products in the Belgian off-patent biologicals market (i.e. TNF-inhibitors, insulins, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, epoetins, rituximab, trastuzumab). In addition, for the qualitative part of this study, semi-structured interviews with Belgian stakeholders were conducted between December 2019 and March 2020. Results: Belgian market data and stakeholder perceptions suggest a suboptimal market environment for off-patent biological and biosimilar medicines. Shifts are observed after loss of exclusivities of originator biologicals toward second-generation products or new therapeutic class products, at a higher cost and often limited added value. Moreover, cost reductions for off-patent biologicals after biosimilar market entry are mainly determined by mandatory price reductions applicable to both originator and biosimilar products, and not by lower prices induced by competition. For products used in the retail setting, significant mandatory price reductions for both originator and reference products with low biosimilar volumes were pointed out as the main reasons for the lack of price competition. For products dispensed in hospitals, the hospital financing system is important. First, it does not always encourage the use of lower cost alternatives. Second, competition mainly takes place at the level of confidential discounts in tenders. Most interviewees acknowledged the lack of a competitive environment, which is not supportive of a sustainable Belgian off-patent biologicals market. Conclusion: Market data and stakeholder perceptions indicate that the sustainability of the Belgian market for off-patent biologicals is challenged. A sustainable market ensures access to biological therapies now and in the future.

Project description:BackgroundIn Australia, the distribution of occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and podiatrists density (per 10,000 population) by measure of location/rurality, usual resident population, and area-level socioeconomic status has not been described.ObjectiveTo describe the national as well as states-and territories-wide distribution of registered allied health workforce-occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and podiatrists-by measures of rurality and area-level socioeconomic position in Australia.MethodsA linked data study that brings together (1) the location of health practitioners' principal place of practice from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, (2) a measure of location/rurality-Modified Monash Model (MMM), and (3) an area-level measure of socioeconomic status-Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD). The provider-to-population ratio (i.e., density) of three Australia's allied health workforce (occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and podiatrists) was calculated according to the MMM classifications (i.e., Modified Monash 1-7) and IRSAD quintiles at state and national level.ResultsNationwide, the density of occupational therapists and physiotherapists was highest in metropolitan areas (Modified Monash 1) and decreased with the increasing levels of the MMM categories. The national density of podiatrists was highest in Modified Monash 3 areas. The density of occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and podiatrists was highest in areas with IRSAD quintile 5 (i.e., the highest socioeconomic position) and decreased with the declining levels of the IRSAD quintiles nationwide. Moreover, there were notable disparities in the density of occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and podiatrists across each state and territory in Australia when stratified by the MMM classifications and IRSAD quintiles.ConclusionsThere was uneven distribution of registered occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and podiatrists when stratified by measures of location/rurality and area-level socioeconomic status across Australian jurisdictions. The density of these three groups of allied health workforce tended to be more concentrated in metropolitan and most advantaged areas while remote and most disadvantaged areas exhibited less allied health workforce distribution across each state and territory.