Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Availability and affordability of biologic versus non-biologic anticancer medicines: a cross-sectional study in Punjab, Pakistan
  1. Anum Saqib1,
  2. Sadia Iftikhar2,
  3. Muhammad Rehan Sarwar1,2
  1. 1Department of Pharmacy, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan
  2. 2Department of Pharmacy Practice, Akhtar Saeed College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan
  1. Correspondence to Dr Muhammad Rehan Sarwar; rehansarwaralvi{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objectives Prime focus of this study was to evaluate the availability and affordability of originator brands (OBs) and lowest price generics (LPGs) of prescribed biologic and non-biologic anticancer medicines.

Design, settings and participants A descriptive, cross-sectional survey was conducted in 22 cancer-care hospitals (18 public hospitals and 4 private hospitals) and 44 private pharmacies in Punjab, Pakistan. Sampling population consisted of 4483 patients with cancer aged ≥18 years. The availability was determined by classifying anticancer medicines in four categories: absent/unavailability (medicines not present in any surveyed facility), low availability (medicines present in <50% of surveyed facilities), fairly high availability (medicines present in 50%–74% of surveyed facilities) and high availability (medicines present in >75% of surveyed facilities). Medicines were affordable if overall cost of all the prescribed anticancer medicines were 20% of the household capacity to pay. Data were analysed by using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, V.21.0).

Results A total of 5060 patients with cancer were approached out of which 4483 patients were included in the survey. Overall, 10 103 anticancer drugs were prescribed. Among them, 96.3% were non-biologics and 3.7% were biologics. Oncologists were reluctant to prescribe biologics due to high prices. 58.1% of non-biologics were affordable; whereas, the affordability of biologics was 3.3%. A total of 43.9% of both biologic and non-biologic OBs were available; whereas, their affordability was 44.2%. On the other hand, the availability of LPGs was 21.3%, and their affordability was 66.1%. For low-income patients, the affordability of non-biologics was 31.6% and the affordability of biologics was 1.1%.

Conclusions Most of the patients with cancer were prescribed non-biologics due to their low price and better affordability. In contrast to OBs, LPGs of both biologics and non-biologics had less availability but more affordability.

  • anticancer medicines
  • availability
  • affordability
  • originator brand
  • lowest price generics

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • AS and MRS contributed equally.

  • Contributors MRS conceptualised and designed the study. AS and SI analysed and interpreted the data. MRS and AS drafted the manuscript. SI and MRS critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Ethics approval The Pharmacy Research Ethics Committee (PREC) at Akhtar Saeed College of Pharmaceutical Sciences (reference: 14-2016/PREC, 25 December 2016).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement The raw data on which conclusions of this manuscript rely are available upon request. Please contact MRS at rehansarwaralvi@gmail.com.