Abstract
Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor eye injections have become the most accepted and effective treatment for some of the leading causes of blindness. Aflibercept (Eylea; Bayer) is the most expensive item on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, (PBS) with ranibizumab (Lucentis; Roche/Novartis) ranked eighth. In 2011 the pharmaceutical cost for these treatments was A$237 million – now the figure is A$665 million and climbing. Bevacizumab (Avastin; Roche) is part of the original molecular lineage for a group of biologic agents, which were originally designed for cancer therapy. It is now administered worldwide on an off-label basis and in very large numbers for retinal vascular disease. It has a proven efficacy and safety profile. Bevacizumab is thirty times cheaper than the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)-approved alternatives and its use could reduce PBS costs by hundreds of millions of dollars. Should the TGA be the sole arbiter in the approval of drugs, or should alternative bodies have some say in the approval of off-label usage under such compelling circumstances? Legislation for this approach has been approved in France, the UK, and Italy. Only by eliminating the legal risk to authorising bodies and physicians, and the financial disincentive to the patient associated with off-label use, will drugs such as bevacizumab be more widely adopted.