Win for the NHS

Aituk7

Aituk7

Striker
NHS to save millions in landmark drug ruling

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

Novartis and Bayer were trying to stop NHS doctors from prescribing a cheaper treatment for a serious eye condition.

Twelve NHS bodies in the north east of England were offering patients Avastin, a cheaper alternative to the licensed drug, Lucentis.

Health bosses said the ruling may reduce the power of companies to set prices.
 


Novartis and Bayer manufacture the two more expensive licensed drugs - Lucentis which costs £561 and Eylea which costs £800.

By comparison, Avastin costs about £28 per injection.

:oops: Pharmaceutical companies man....... Anyone who would want more of that in an American style system are insane.
 
Aituk7 said:
NHS to save millions in landmark drug ruling

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

Novartis and Bayer were trying to stop NHS doctors from prescribing a cheaper treatment for a serious eye condition.

Twelve NHS bodies in the north east of England were offering patients Avastin, a cheaper alternative to the licensed drug, Lucentis.

Health bosses said the ruling may reduce the power of companies to set prices.
Click to expand...
Ah, Bayer! the company that brought us, that famous cough suppressant, heroin, mustard gas, Zyklon B , aids infected blood products for hemophilia, agent orange and many more little niceties and our government see fit to use them to supply our NHS. you couldn't make it up.
 
Teed said:
Ah, Bayer! the company that brought us, that famous cough suppressant, heroin, mustard gas, Zyklon B , aids infected blood products for hemophilia, agent orange and many more little niceties and our government see fit to use them to supply our NHS. you couldn't make it up.
Click to expand...
I don't know about those incidents and I thought zyklon b was invented by a company called degesh or something similar. But just look at the price difference man. What are these daft contracts forcing you to buy from certain sources.

This is the hypocrisy of conservatives I don't understand. They love a free market, so let it be free. Let the nhs choose their supplier.... and while your on it let pubs choose their brewerys and some of them might not be shutting down either.
 
Aituk7 said:
I don't know about those incidents and I thought zyklon b was invented by a company called degesh or something similar. But just look at the price difference man. What are these daft contracts forcing you to buy from certain sources.

This is the hypocrisy of conservatives I don't understand. They love a free market, so let it be free. Let the nhs choose their supplier.... and while your on it let pubs choose their brewerys and some of them might not be shutting down either.
Click to expand...
Its not about who to buy it from though is it?
 
pavarotti1980 said:
Its not about who to buy it from though is it?
Click to expand...
It read that way to me. The cheaper drug isn't officially licensed meaning it technically shouldn't be used by the nhs even though it is signed off as safe for use by the world health organisation.

Same way certain pubs are licensed to only purchase from certain brewerys when it should be a free market. Aslong as the product meets safety standards by the relevant authority it should be fair game and you have to compete.

The truth is it's the oldest capitalist hypocrisy. Saying you love the free market when really you love protectionism and monopoly's.

kingmonkey said:
Hopeful the money the NHS has saved. can be used to fund brexit instead.
Click to expand...
@WHD stick this on a bus :lol::lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
Aituk7 said:
It read that way to me. The cheaper drug isn't officially licensed meaning it technically shouldn't be used by the nhs even though it is signed off as safe for use by the world health organisation.

Same way certain pubs are licensed to only purchase from certain brewerys when it should be a free market. Aslong as the product meets safety standards by the relevant authority it should be fair game and you have to compete.

The truth is it's the oldest capitalist hypocrisy. Saying you love the free market when really you love protectionism and monopoly's.
Click to expand...
Not quite as simple as that.

Avastin (bevacizumab) is licensed for oncology indications as per its EMA license. Therefore anything outside of that license is regarded as unlicensed which means it has been tested through clinical trials in that indication. That isnt to say it is not safe as this has been proven through the phase II and III trials for it to get its license in the first. it just hasnt been studied "officially" for treating wAMD. There is anecdotal evidence of it being of benefit in wAMD as it is from the same class of drugs as Lucentis (ranibizumab) and Eylea (alfibercept) so the mechanism of action will be similar and they would expect similar efficacy. The only difference in this is that Roche who manufacture Avastin have not applied to have this indication licensed. Add into that the fact Lucentis and Eylea are still within their protected patent and you can see why the drug companies want to protect the patent for their brands. They are allowed a 15 year patent from the year of approval by EMA and this allows them to generate the profit to pay for the R&D in bringing the drug to market. This cost can run into £/$billions so there has to be some incentive for drug companies to develop drugs.

They were obviously unhappy that Avastin was being used for an unlicensed indication hence the court case. They will have argued the point of patent protection and also potential harm to patients as to make Avastin available for patients some aseptic manipulation is required. Aseptic manipulation is common place and shouldnt really raise too many concerns but it will have been a point they used. They quote rightly will argue there is patent issues by using and unlicensed drug when a licensed alternative is available.

Its not capitalism but enshrined in law regarding patents and this decision is a little suprising so expect to see an appeal of they have been given that option.

There is likely to be no change of position from the current situation unless this has ran its course, which no doubt they will try and do.
 
pavarotti1980 said:
Not quite as simple as that.

Avastin (bevacizumab) is licensed for oncology indications as per its EMA license. Therefore anything outside of that license is regarded as unlicensed which means it has been tested through clinical trials in that indication. That isnt to say it is not safe as this has been proven through the phase II and III trials for it to get its license in the first. it just hasnt been studied "officially" for treating wAMD. There is anecdotal evidence of it being of benefit in wAMD as it is from the same class of drugs as Lucentis (ranibizumab) and Eylea (alfibercept) so the mechanism of action will be similar and they would expect similar efficacy. The only difference in this is that Roche who manufacture Avastin have not applied to have this indication licensed. Add into that the fact Lucentis and Eylea are still within their protected patent and you can see why the drug companies want to protect the patent for their brands. They are allowed a 15 year patent from the year of approval by EMA and this allows them to generate the profit to pay for the R&D in bringing the drug to market. This cost can run into £/$billions so there has to be some incentive for drug companies to develop drugs.

They were obviously unhappy that Avastin was being used for an unlicensed indication hence the court case. They will have argued the point of patent protection and also potential harm to patients as to make Avastin available for patients some aseptic manipulation is required. Aseptic manipulation is common place and shouldnt really raise too many concerns but it will have been a point they used. They quote rightly will argue there is patent issues by using and unlicensed drug when a licensed alternative is available.

Its not capitalism but enshrined in law regarding patents and this decision is a little suprising so expect to see an appeal of they have been given that option.

There is likely to be no change of position from the current situation unless this has ran its course, which no doubt they will try and do.
Click to expand...
Good explanation mate but at the same time why are the nhs not allowed to use whatever drugs they see fit.
 
Aituk7 said:
Novartis and Bayer manufacture the two more expensive licensed drugs - Lucentis which costs £561 and Eylea which costs £800.

By comparison, Avastin costs about £28 per injection.

:oops: Pharmaceutical companies man....... Anyone who would want more of that in an American style system are insane.
Click to expand...
Beggars belief that they`d even have the cheek to bring such a case. If the companies had one it would have resulted in a half a billion pounds loss to the NHS. Absolutely disgusting how the NHS can be leached on like this. Why should the NHS be forced to buy their over priced products??

Teed said:
Ah, Bayer! the company that brought us, that famous cough suppressant, heroin, mustard gas, Zyklon B , aids infected blood products for hemophilia, agent orange and many more little niceties and our government see fit to use them to supply our NHS. you couldn't make it up.
Click to expand...
That is a list of humanity`s shame.
 
mickb2112 said:
Beggars belief that they`d even have the cheek to bring such a case. If the companies had one it would have resulted in a half a billion pounds loss to the NHS. Absolutely disgusting how the NHS can be leached on like this. Why should the NHS be forced to buy their over priced products??


That is a list of humanity`s shame.
Click to expand...
I agree mate. I get the idea of safety first, but this seems like it's completely safe and a stupid legal ruling is trying to get in the way.
 

Back
Top