Real-World Healthcare Cost Savings and Reduced Relapse Rate with Off-Label Rituximab versus Disease-Modifying Treatments Approved for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Nationwide Cost-Effectiveness Study.

OBJECTIVE: Although off-label use of rituximab is a common alternative to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved for multiple sclerosis (MS) in several countries, the impact of this on treatment cost-effectiveness is not well known. METHODS: We evaluated the relative cost-effectiveness of rituximab and MS-approved DMTs in a register-based cohort study of Swedish residents with relapsing-remitting MS, aged 18-65 years, starting treatment with rituximab, natalizumab, fingolimod, or dimethyl fumarate between January 2010 and July 2016, and followed through July 2021 (n = 5,924). By linking the population-based Swedish MS register to several Swedish health care and demographic registers, we estimated health care costs in relation to number of relapses, over 5 years from treatment start. Differences between treatments were estimated in inverse probability of treatment-weighted regression models, adjusting for a broad range of potential confounders covering demographics, medical history, and MS-related clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Off-label rituximab was associated with both lower total health care costs (mean cost savings ranged $35,000-$66,000 vs. each approved DMT), and fewer relapses (mean number of prevented relapses ranged 0.12-0.22), per started therapy over 5 years. Results were robust to variations in discounting and pricing of health care visits, with the main driver of cost-savings being the price of the index drug itself. INTERPRETATION: The cost-effectiveness of rituximab dominated the MS-approved alternatives. Off-label, low-dose rituximab should be considered for persons with MS and could reduce barriers to treatment, especially in resource-limited settings. ANN NEUROL 2024;95:1099-1111.

Association of Supporting Trial Evidence and Reimbursement for Off-Label Use of Cancer Drugs.

Importance: In many health systems, access to off-label drug use is controlled through reimbursement restrictions by health insurers, especially for expensive cancer drugs. Objective: To determine whether evidence from randomized clinical trials is associated with reimbursement decisions for requested off-label use of anticancer drugs in the Swiss health system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used reimbursement requests from routinely collected health records of 5809 patients with drug treatment for cancer between January 2015 and July 2018 in 3 major cancer centers, covering cancer care of approximately 5% of the Swiss population, to identify off-label drug use. For each off-label use indication with 3 or more requests, randomized clinical trial evidence on treatment benefits was systematically identified for overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). Data were analyzed from August 2018 to December 2020. Exposures: Available randomized clinical trial evidence on benefits for OS or PFS for requested off-label use indications. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the association between evidence for treatment benefit (expressed as improved OS or PFS) and reimbursement in multivariable regression models. Results: Among 3046 patients with cancer, 695 off-label use reimbursement requests in 303 different indications were made for 598 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [53-73] years; 420 [60%] men). Off-label use was intended as first-line treatment in 311 requests (45%). Reimbursement was accepted in 446 requests (64%). For 71 indications, including 431 requests for 376 patients, there were 3 or more requests. Of these, 246 requests (57%) had no supporting evidence for OS or PFS benefit. Reimbursement was granted in 162 of 246 requests without supporting evidence (66%). Of 117 requests supported by OS benefit, 79 (67%) were reimbursed, and of 68 requests supported by PFS benefit alone, 54 (79%) were reimbursed. Evidence of OS benefit from randomized clinical trials was not associated with a higher chance of reimbursement (odds ratio, 0.76, 95% CI, 0.45-1.27). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that in a health care system enabling access to off-label use, it was frequently intended as a first-line treatment in cancer care. Availability of randomized clinical trial evidence showing survival benefit was not associated with reimbursement decisions for off-label anticancer drug treatment in Switzerland. A transparent process with criteria considering clinical evidence is needed for evidence-based reimbursement decisions to ensure fair access to cancer treatments.

Pharmacoepidemiology of testosterone: Impact of reimbursement policy on curbing off-label prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact on testosterone prescribing over 3 years following the 2015 tightening of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) criteria. DESIGN: Analysis of testosterone prescribing data from PBS and private (non-PBS) sources between 2012 and 2018 covering 2015 change in PBS prescribing criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: New and total PBS testosterone prescriptions estimating usage by quarter analyzed by product type, patient age-group, indication and prescriber type. Total national testosterone prescriptions (private plus PBS) was verified from an independent data supplier (IQVIA). RESULTS: PBS usage peaked in 2014 declining by 30% in 2017-8 with PBS prescribing covering a fall from 97.6% by usage in 2014 to 74% in 2017-18 of all testosterone prescribing. The tighter 2015 PBS restrictions sustained the selective reduction in GP initiation of prescriptions for middle-aged men without pathological hypogonadism whereas specialist initiations and prescription for adult hypogonadism or pediatric/prepubertal indications were largely unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: The tightening of PBS criteria from 1 April 2015 to curb off-label prescribing remained effective and selective over 3 years yet total national testosterone prescribing continued with little change, reflecting a shift to private prescriptions. The continuation of off-label testosterone prescribing for unproven indications suggests that long-term androgen dependence is created in men without pathological hypogonadism who commence testosterone. This highlights the need to avoid prescribing testosterone to men without pathological hypogonadism in the absence of sound evidence of efficacy and safety, the latter including the little unrecognized risks of long-term androgen dependency when trying to quit.

Evolution of the AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions.

DISCLOSURES: No funding was required for this project. The authors are or have been members of the Format Executive Committee.

Contrasting evidence to reimbursement reality for off-label use (OLU) of drug treatments in cancer care: rationale and design of the CEIT-OLU project.

Background: Off-label use (OLU) of a drug reflects a perceived unmet medical need, which is common in oncology. Cancer drugs are often highly expensive and their reimbursement is a challenge for many healthcare systems. OLU is frequently regulated by reimbursement restrictions. For evidence-based healthcare, treatment ought to be reimbursed if there is sufficient clinical evidence for treatment benefit independently of patient factors not related to the treatment indication. However, little is known about the reality of OLU reimbursement and its association with the underlying clinical evidence. Here, we aim to investigate the relationship of reimbursement decisions with the underlying clinical evidence. Methods/ design: We will extract patient characteristics and details on treatment and reimbursement of cancer drugs from over 3000 patients treated in three Swiss hospitals. We will systematically search for clinical trial evidence on benefits associated with OLU in the most common indications. We will describe the prevalence of OLU in Switzerland and its reimbursement in cancer care, and use multivariable logistic regression techniques to investigate the association of approval/rejection of a reimbursement requests to the evidence on treatment effects and to further factors, including type of drug, molecular predictive markers and the health insurer. Discussion: Our study will provide a systematic overview and assessment of OLU and its reimbursement reality in Switzerland. We may provide a better understanding of the access to cancer care that is regulated by health insurers and we hope to identify factors that determine the level of evidence-based cancer care in a highly diverse western healthcare system.

Managed care opportunities and approaches to supporting appropriate selection of treatment for sight preservation.

When evaluating the impact of vision-destroying diseases, pharmacologic therapies represent a significant cost to patients, insurance providers, and society. Currently, up to 11 million people in the United States have some form of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which is one of the leading causes of vision loss in older Americans. Ophthalmologists have administered more than 6 million intravitreal injections of aflibercept, bevacizumab, pegaptanib, and ranibizumab last year. Comprehensive assessment requires managed care administrators and clinicians to understand the direct and indirect costs of vision loss as well as the comparative safety and efficacy profiles for each agent. In AMD, it is critical to understand the established and emerging treatment patterns.

Patterns of alternative access: Unpacking the Slovak extraordinary drug reimbursement regime 2012-2016.

Many countries employ "alternative access schemes" (e.g. compassionate use, early access programs, off-label use) that seek to provide patients with access to drugs not included on a positive drug list. These schemes offer flexibility to policy-makers but often lack transparency and clear rules. This ambiguity allows for dynamic responses to weaknesses in the main drug approval and reimbursement systems, but also opportunistic use by the health professionals, industry or patients. Yet, most descriptions of these schemes focus on the de jure rather than the de facto situation, presenting a potentially misleading picture. We describe one such scheme in practice: the Slovak "extraordinary reimbursement regime" (ERR), using semi-structured interviews with 18 experts and a new dataset of ERR drugs. The ERR expanded rapidly, doubling between 2012 and 2016. It combined features of four reimbursement schemes: (1) a backdoor market access for expensive drugs; (2) a compassionate use scheme for investigational drugs combined with a "legacy drugs" scheme for older unlicensed drugs; (3) a disease-specific scheme for cancer and orphan drugs; and (4) a scheme for off-label and "off-indication" drugs. These four features reflect broader challenges facing the Slovak reimbursement system. We conclude that detailed study of the type, size and evolution over time of alternative access schemes can serve as indicators of health policy objectives neglected by standard reimbursement systems.

Evaluation of Clinical Compendia Used for Medicare Part D Coverage Determinations for Off-label Prescribing in Dermatology.

Importance: When making coverage determinations for off-label prescribing, Medicare Part D recognizes 2 compendia: the American Hospital Formulary Service (AHFS) Drug Information and the DRUGDEX Information System. Deficiencies in the accuracy and completeness of these compendia could result in coverage denials for necessary, effective, evidence-based treatments. Objective: To evaluate these compendia for dermatologic conditions, with a focus on less common conditions that often require systemic treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted from July 1, 2018, through September 30, 2018. To identify diseases for which dermatologists may often need access to off-label systemic treatments, a list of 22 chronic, noninfectious, nonneoplastic diseases with at least 4 systemic therapies (including 1 in the first-line therapies and less than 25% approved by the US Food and Drug Administration) were selected for evaluation. With use of Treatment of Skin Disease, 5th Edition, a list of first-, second-, and third-line medications was created, including the level of evidence for each disease. A search of AHFS and DRUGDEX compendia was performed to evaluate for inclusion of the evidence-based therapies. In addition, the references cited in the compendia to justify inclusion of the therapy were examined qualitatively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of treatment options included in each compendium, stratified by level of evidence and position on the therapeutic ladder. Concordance between the 2 compendia was assessed using Cohen κ. Results: Overall, 73 of 238 treatments (30.7%) evaluated were included in either compendium. Among individual diseases, 10 of 22 (45%) had 1 or fewer treatments included in the DRUGDEX compendium and 15 of 22 (68%) had 1 or fewer treatments included in the AHFS compendium. Discrepancies in which a medication was included in one compendium but not in the other compendium occurred for 53 of the 238 medications (22.3%) evaluated. Literature use did not follow a discernible pattern and was often based on decades-old sources. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that treatment options listed in these compendia are incomplete, outdated, idiosyncratic, and unpredictable. To ensure that patients can access treatments for their disease, it appears that policies to reduce the reliance on these compendia for coverage determinations should be developed.

Controversies in off-label prescriptions in dermatology: the perspective of the patient, the physician, and the pharmaceutical companies.

The term "off-label drug use" involves the prescription of medications for unapproved indications or in unapproved dosage, dosage form, or route of administration. Off-label medications are common in the management of dermatologic diseases. In the recent years, new indications for botulinum toxin, biologics, spironolactone, topical calcineurin, and topical vitamin D analogues emerged, and these drugs are being used off-label to treat a variety of conditions. The high cost and long time required for the approval discourage pharmaceutical companies from developing studies and pursuing the approval by regulatory agencies. Patients and physicians may have a different perspective regarding the off-label use of medications. The ethical discussion is based on the different opinions concerning the need for informed consent by the patient and how this could be applicable in the clinical practice.

Implications for pharmaceutical companies and clinicians from the Bayer v NHS judgement: an increasing budgetary focus for both.

The English High Court recently dismissed the Bayer pharmaceutical company's challenge against a regional clinical commissioning group's policy allowing NHS Trusts to use a cheaper, but unlicensed, alternative to a sight preserving eye treatment. This makes sober reading for companies marketing "on-label" sales of medicines which are more expensive than off-label or unlicensed alternatives. Unsurprisingly, Bayer has sought to appeal the judgement. The Court has also created legal uncertainty for the NHS: the test for lawfulness is shifted from the Clinical Commission Groups and their policies to individual trusts which must ensure that every unlicensed use is lawful. This could generate legal action against NHS Trusts and ironically drive up costs for the public purse. What is clear is that the Court's conclusions were heavily influenced by fiscal constraints which it accepted as a legitimate counterweight to the commercial interests of pharmaceutical companies. It also appears to establish in law the duty for doctors to have concern for the wider societal costs of prescribed treatments. This article summarises this complex judgement and offers advice for navigating the increasing focus on limited budgets, both for companies and physicians.

Off-Label Use of Antipsychotic Agents in Dementia: Evidence for the Revision of the Reimbursement Policy.

BACKGROUND: Harmonized requirements apply for the marketing authorization of medicinal products in the EU Member States. On the contrary, the national legislations on the drug reimbursement are not harmonized. The aim of this study was to find out if they are robust enough to ensure high standards of public health protection with focus on the symptomatic treatment of dementia in the elderly. METHODS: A computerized search of authorized therapeutic indications of haloperidol and trihexyphenidyl in the national databases of 8 EU member states and an analysis of the national legislation on reimbursement policies in Lithuania and Latvia was performed. RESULTS: There is a discrepancy in the decisions on the marketing authorization vs the reimbursement in Lithuania and Latvia (reimbursement of haloperidol and trihexyphenidyl for the off-label treatment of dementia). CONCLUSIONS: National legislation on the drug reimbursement in Lithuania and Latvia does not provide safeguards for public health at the same level as the marketing authorization does. Absence of a revision of former decisions in the light of new evidence is a critical weakness of the drug reimbursement in Lithuania and Latvia. Reimbursement for the off-label indications may pose a risk to public health.

State Remedies For Costly Prescription Drugs.

(1) At least 74.7 million Americans use three or more prescription drugs in a 30-day period. (2) Eighty percent of the U.S. public views prescription drug costs as "unreasonable," while 17 percent say "reasonable," according to a recent poll. (3) An influenza drug has a cash price of $100, but a patient with insurance may pay $125 because of a "gag clause" that restricts pharmacists from disclosing price options.

Comparison of blood product use and costs with use of 3-factor versus 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for off-label indications.

PURPOSE: Results of a comparison of blood product use and cost outcomes with use of 3-factor versus 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) for indications other than warfarin reversal are presented. METHODS: Consecutive patients who received 3-factor PPC (PCC3) or 4-factor PCC (PCC4) for non-warfarin-related indications at 2 U.S. hospitals during a 19-month period were identified. The primary outcome was in-hospital blood product use, with a focus on plasma use. Total hemostasis costs, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, and other outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Indications for PCC3 use (n = 118) or PCC4 use (n = 64) included intraoperative bleeding, nonintraoperative bleeding, coagulopathy of liver disease, and reversal of direct-acting oral anticoagulant effects. The proportion of patients who received plasma was 56.8% with PCC3 use versus 53.1% with PCC4 use (p = 0.643); the corresponding median volumes of plasma received were 638 mL (interquartile range [IQR], 550-1,355 mL) and 656 mL (IQR, 532-1,136 mL), respectively. The median total hemostasis costs were $5,559 (IQR, $3,922-$8,159) with PCC3 use and $7,771 (IQR, $6,366-$9,205) with PCC4 use (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PCC3 use and PCC4 use were associated with similar blood product use, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality when given for non-warfarin-related indications. However, relative to PCC3 use, PCC4 use was associated with an increase in costs that was primarily due to drug costs.

The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration-A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective.

BACKGROUND: The discussion on the use of bevacizumab is still ongoing and often doctors are deterred from using bevacizumab due to legal or political issues. Bevacizumab is an effective, safe and inexpensive treatment option for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), albeit unregistered for the disease. Therefore, in some countries ophthalmologists use the equally effective but expensive drugs ranibizumab and aflibercept. We describe the economic consequences of this dilemma surrounding AMD treatment from a societal perspective. METHODS: We modelled cost-effectiveness of treatment with ranibizumab (as-needed), aflibercept (bimonthly) and bevacizumab (as-needed). Effectiveness was estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis. The drug with the most favourable cost-effectiveness profile compared to bevacizumab was used for threshold analyses. First, we determined how much we overspend per injection. Second, we calculated the required effectiveness to justify the current price and the reasonable price for a drug leading to optimal vision. Finally, we estimated how much Europe overspends if bevacizumab is not first choice. RESULTS: Bevacizumab treatment costs €27,087 per year, about €4,000 less than aflibercept and €6,000 less than ranibizumab. With similar effectiveness for all drugs as shown by meta-analysis, bevacizumab was the most cost-effective. Aflibercept was chosen for threshold analyses. Aflibercept costs €943 per injection, but we determined that the maximum price to be cost-effective is €533. Alternatively, at its current price, aflibercept should yield about twice the visual gain. Even when optimal vision can be achieved, the maximum price for any treatment is €37,453 per year. Most importantly, Europe overspends €335 million yearly on AMD treatment when choosing aflibercept over bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab is the most cost-effective treatment for AMD, yet is not the standard of care across Europe. The registered drugs ranibizumab and aflibercept lead to large overspending without additional health benefits. Health authorities should consider taking steps to implement bevacizumab into clinical practice as first choice.

Public Reimbursement of Prescription Drugs Used For Off-Label Indications in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: A Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) therapeutic review concluded that bevacizumab and ranibizumab have similar efficacy and safety in treating retinal conditions and recommended bevacizumab be used as preferred initial therapy based on a cost-saving perspective. Such use would be off-label because bevacizumab is not approved for these conditions and has a serious safety warning (SSW) in its Product Monograph (PM) about intravitreal use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the Ontario Public Drug Programs (OPDP) reimbursement is provided only for off-label use for serious, life-threatening or severely debilitating conditions and not when the drug's PM contains a SSW against such use. METHODS: OPDP reimbursement criteria for non-palliative drugs from its frequently-requested Exceptional Access Program (EAP) and Limited Use (LU) lists were compared with approved indications and SSWs in the drugs' PMs. RESULTS: Of 125 unique frequently-requested non-palliative EAP drugs, 12 included off-label use for serious conditions for which no alternative treatment exists. Eight of the 12 had SSWs, but only one warning for orally-administered sirolimus related directly to the OPDP-reimbursed off-label use. Of 29 injectable non-palliative LU drugs, one had off-label LU criteria allowing reimbursement for an unapproved indication and a SSW unrelated to the reimbursable indication. CONCLUSION: Presently, OPDP only reimburse drugs for off-label use for the treatment of serious, life-threatening or severely debilitating conditions for which no alternative treatment exists. OPDP should not diverge from this approach by allowing cost-savings to trump appropriate drug use, which would set a unique and unprecedented example.

New Therapeutic Uses for Existing Drugs.

Eighty percent of drugs that enter human clinical testing are never approved for use. This means that for every five drugs that make it into the clinic, there are four that failed to show effectiveness for treating the disease or condition the drug was designed to treat.This high failure rate means there are many existing, partially developed therapeutic candidates with known pharmacology, formulation, and potential toxicity. Finding new uses for existing experimental drugs or biologics "repositioning" builds upon previous research and development efforts, so new candidate therapies can be advanced to clinical trials for a new use more quickly than starting from scratch.Federal funding initiatives in the U.S. and UK started to support pre-clinical /or early stage trials for repositioning existing experimental drugs or biologics (therapies). This chapter covers some of the process issues that have been solved and the remaining challenges that are still in need of solutions. The chapter is primarily written from a U.S. federal funding perspective. The general concepts could be applied more globally to benefit rare and neglected disease populations. The drug development and process bottlenecks are the same for both rare and common disease.