NHS will save hundreds of millions of dollars worth of drugs



[ad_1]

An eye

Author's right of the image
Olga Ignatova

Legend

Macular degeneration associated with wet age affects about 26,000 people in the UK

A landmark decision against two leading pharmaceutical companies could save the NHS "hundreds of millions" a year.

Novartis and Bayer were trying to prevent NHS doctors from prescribing less expensive treatment for serious eye disease.

Health officials said the decision could reduce the power of companies to set prices.

The pharmaceutical company Novartis said it was "deeply disappointed" because patients were being asked to accept unlicensed treatment to save the NHS money.

The case focused on the treatment of patients with common eye disease, age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

12 NHS organizations located in northeastern England offered Avastin patients a less expensive alternative to the licensed drug, Lucentis.

David Hambleton, general manager of the NHS South Tyneside Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), one of the NHS groups involved in the case, praised the judgment, saying it was a good one. day for patients and the NHS.

"We have always said that we believe it is important that patients have the choice between a very effective treatment for wet AMD and that this is actually a fraction of the cost of other alternatives.

"So, I think what we are doing now, is to offer patients that choice.We believe that they will very strongly support a cost-effective and safe treatment and save a lot of money. at the NHS – it's a common sense win over commercial interests. "

What was the dispute?

The case was introduced by pharmaceutical giants Bayer and Novartis against twelve NHS GCCs in northern England.

NHS groups offered patients the choice between Lucentis and Eylea – drugs approved for eye treatment – and the much cheaper drug Avastin, recommended by the World Health Organization to treat eyes, but only allowed in the UK -United. .

Novartis and Bayer manufacture the two most expensive licensed drugs – Lucentis, which costs £ 561 and Eylea, which costs £ 800.

In comparison, Avastin costs around £ 28 per injection.

Avastin is widely used worldwide, especially in the United States, but is not currently licensed in the United Kingdom.

In January, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) concluded that Avastin was as safe and effective as the two licensed drugs, Lucentis and Eylea.

Mike Burden, President of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, said, "Licensing laws are designed to protect patients from unproven, poorly regulated drugs, but it's up to pharmaceutical companies to apply for a license.

"We are treating 40,000 new diagnoses of wet AMD each year – the savings could reach 500 million pounds a year, which is equivalent to the annual construction of a district hospital."


What is AMD?

  • Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is an eye condition that affects more than 600,000 people, 26,000 of whom suffer from wet AMD.
  • It causes people to lose central vision, usually both eyes
  • It is more common with age and there are two main types: wet AMD and dry AMD.
  • Reading becomes harder, colors appear less vivid and faces can be difficult to recognize
  • Wet AMD develops when abnormal blood vessels form and damage the cells located at the back of the eye.
  • Wet AMD can be treated if it is taken early. Medications are injected into the eye to stop the growth of abnormal blood vessels

Author's right of the image
Photophotographie

Legend

Wet AMD can be treated with injections

David Hambleton of the CGC South Tyneside of the NHS said the decision would result in a review of NICE and the MHRA, the UK's drug regulatory body.

"At least I think we have real legal clarity now, so the two bodies – NICE and the MHRA – will need to look at what their guidelines say.

"Now they have the option of allowing the use of so-called" off-label "drugs."

In response to this decision, a spokesman for Novartis Pharmaceuticals said: "Novartis is deeply disappointed by this decision and remains of the opinion that this policy undermines the well-established legal and regulatory framework to protect patient safety and ensure health professionals can prescribe with confidence. "

[ad_2]
Source link