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

BACKGROUND

The off-label use of a drug refers to a use outside the terms of its approval by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). It is also possible to prescribe unlicensed drugs under the TGA's special access scheme. A high rate of off-label prescribing has previously been reported in cancer. Our study aimed to document the disparity between evidence-based clinical guidelines for anticancer therapy, product approval and funding status of these agents within an academic tertiary/quaternary cancer centre.

METHODS

All chemotherapy protocols approved for use in our specialist oncology centre were assessed to determine if the drugs were off-label or unlicensed for that indication based on review of their current product information. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) funding status for each protocol was subsequently assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 448 protocols containing 82 different drugs across 15 tumour groups was identified. Overall, 189 (42.2%) of protocols were off-label, and three (0.7%) were unlicensed. This resulted in all 192 protocols being unfunded by the PBS. Of the 189 off-label protocols, 132 (69.9%) were based on established evidence-based treatment guidelines, and a further 39 (20.6%) was based on phase II or III clinical trial data.

CONCLUSION

Over 90% of off-label protocols are supported by established treatment guidelines or published peer-reviewed research even though the medications are not approved for that particular use by the TGA. However, these off-label protocols are unfunded by the PBS; this results in a marked inequality of access to appropriate medications for cancer patients across Australia.

A cost analysis of febrile neutropenia management in Australia: ambulatory v. in-hospital treatment

BACKGROUND

Adult febrile neutropenic oncology patients, at low risk of developing medical complications, may be effectively and safely managed in an ambulatory setting, provided they are appropriately selected and adequate supportive facilities and clinical services are available to monitor these patients and respond to any clinical deterioration.

METHODS

A cost analysis was modelled using decision tree analysis, published cost and effectiveness parameters for ambulatory care strategies and data from the State of Victoria's hospital morbidity dataset. Two-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation were performed to evaluate the uncertainty of costs and outcomes associated with ambulatory care.

RESULTS

The modelled cost analysis showed that cost savings for two ambulatory care strategies were ~30% compared to standard hospital care. The weighted average cost saving per episode of 'low-risk' febrile neutropenia using Strategy 1 (outpatient follow-up only) was 35% (range: 7-55%) and that for Strategy 2 (early discharge and outpatient follow-up) was 30% (range: 7-39%). Strategy 2 was more cost-effective than Strategy 1 and was deemed the more clinically favoured approach.

CONCLUSION

This study outlines a cost structure for a safe and comprehensive ambulatory care program comprised of an early discharge pathway with outpatient follow-up, and promotes this as a cost effective approach to managing 'low-risk' febrile neutropenic patients.

Gabapentin for neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of patient data.

OBJECTIVE

To present two years of experience in the use of gabapentin for the alleviation of neuropathic pain in spinal cord injury patients.

SETTING

Supra-regional Spinal Cord Service, Melbourne, Australia.

METHOD

Data were retrieved from the medical records of all spinal cord injury patients prescribed gabapentin for neuropathic pain. Pain was assessed prior to and during treatment at 1, 3 and 6 months with a 10 cm visual analogue scale which ranged from 0 ('no pain') to 10 ('worst pain imaginable'), or by the documentation of a verbal description of pain.

RESULTS

Seventy-six per cent of patients receiving gabapentin reported a reduction in neuropathic pain. In those patients with data at all four measurement points, the mean pretreatment score was 8.86. Following treatment with gabapentin the score dropped to 5.23, 4.59 and 4.13 at 1, 3 and 6 months, respectively. Where only a verbal description of pain was documented, the trend was that the pretreatment report of 'unbearable' was replaced by 'liveable' during treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our experience suggests that gabapentin offers an effective therapeutic alternative for the alleviation of neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury. Controlled clinical trials are now required to confirm these observations.