Advertising


News

Tighten Paxlovid eligibility: PBAC advice


Jolyon Attwooll


9/01/2024 4:55:47 PM

The committee that looks at PBS listings has recommended the first-line COVID-19 treatment be limited to the highest risk patients aged 50–69 years.

Paxlovid
Criteria for PBS access to the first-line COVID-19 oral antiviral may be changing again.

Access to nirmatrelvir and ritonavir COVID-19 oral antiviral treatment (sold as Paxlovid) should revert to a more stringent setting, according to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC).
 
The oral antiviral for those with mild to moderate COVID-19 most at risk of progressing to serious illness is currently accessible on the PBS for anyone aged over 70, and for those aged 50–69 with one or more risk factors.
 
The PBAC recommendation, which has not yet been put in place, would mean the first-line treatment would be limited for those aged 50–69 years with at least two risk factors if it is taken up.
 
‘The PBAC recommended that, at its current price, there should be a change to the restriction for patients aged 50–69 years, which currently allows access for patients with one or more additional risk factors, to revert to the requirement for two or more risk factors, due to reduced cost-effectiveness in this lower risk population,’ the advice states.
 
‘The PBAC advised that a price reduction is required from the current price because cost-effectiveness has almost certainly declined since the initial decision to recommend listing on the PBS was made.’
 
This is a reversal of previous recommendations, with the criteria first loosened in April last year to allow patients aged 60–69 years with one extra risk factor to access the oral antiviral on the PBS – reportedly extending access to more than 160,000 extra people.
 
The same step was subsequently taken for the younger cohort aged 50–59 years last July.
 
Dr Ken McCroary, a GP in the south-west of Sydney who sits on the RACGP Expert Committee – Quality Care (REC–QC), is unhappy with the latest advice.
 
‘That’s very disappointing, especially with the current strain and increase in cases,’ he told newsGP.
 
He said he was currently seeing an influx of patients with breathlessness and chest symptoms.
 
‘We never had evidence of cost efficiency, that was never part of the use of antivirals,’ he said.
 
‘It was to try and keep people out of hospital, keep people from dying and minimise the long-term sequelae of long COVID.
 
‘We never had cost efficiency, it was always a public health decision.’
 
He said many of his patients within the age category with one risk factor often face significant long-term health and economic costs.
 
‘It is cutting back for a group of people that are already doing it really tough anyway – a lot of these guys are the ones that don’t have healthcare cards and are still trying to work, even if it’s part time, with one significant chronic illness,’ he said.
 
‘They are often the group unable to access bulk-billing incentives.’

When the latest change was made in July, the PBAC said it was satisfied with the clinical benefit and safety for the proposed new patient group, although it did place a caveat on its advice at the time.
 
‘The listing will be cost-effective in the expanded population for so long as pharmaceutical benefits dispensed are sourced from the stock already purchased by the Commonwealth, and which might otherwise expire unused,’ its recommendation stated at the time.
 
‘As such, the PBAC recommended that this expansion of patient eligibility only apply until the Commonwealth purchased stock is exhausted or has expired.’
 
The first batches of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir were due to expire in July last year.

In its latest recommendations, the PBAC reiterated its previous stance that nirmatrelvir and ritonavir should be preferred over the other oral antiviral available on the PBS, molnupiravir (sold as Lagevrio), if clinically appropriate.
 
The report of the November 2023 meeting also noted that the higher number of molnupiravir prescriptions compared to nirmatrelvir and ritonavir ‘did not reflect clinical guidelines’.
 
‘The sponsor and Department of Health and Aged Care [should] explore initiatives to support the safe and effective use of oral antiviral medicines for COVID-19, consistent with quality use of medicines principles,’ the PBAC said.
 
While recommended as the first-line treatment, nirmatrelvir and ritonavir has a number of contraindications, including in patients with severe renal or hepatic impairment, as well as having significant drug/drug interactions.
 
Log in below to join the conversation.



COVID-19 COVID-19 oral antivirals Paxlovid


newsGP weekly poll Which RACGP request would you most like the Government to fund in the upcoming Federal Budget?
 
13%
 
0%
 
86%
 
0%
 
0%
Related





newsGP weekly poll Which RACGP request would you most like the Government to fund in the upcoming Federal Budget?

Advertising

Advertising


Login to comment

Dr Ian Rivlin   10/01/2024 9:22:41 AM

I believe Paxlovid is often given when unnecessary. It has some very complex interactions with other medications, and I doubt if adequate attention is given to this issue. We should also be aware that Paxlovid had some serious adverse effects - especially endothelial. Many of my patients have done a R.A.T, found it positive. They have zero symptoms but still attended the emergency department, who repeat the RAT, then give Paxlovid to that man and wife and send them home. $2600 cost to the taxpayer. Symptoms - often none at all. There has to be some sanity injected into this issue. At the moment, it's purely knee jerk reactions.


Dr Samuel Christopher Ognenis   10/01/2024 10:23:56 AM

I disagree Dr Rivlin.

Firstly, the patients in question may have been asymptomatic at the start, and then developed severe infection.

Secondly, there is a not insignificant risk of long COVID in patients with asymptomatic COVID (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9863678/#:~:text=The%20PP%20for%20at%20least,21.38%25%20in%20the%20VOC%20period.) - less than those with symptomatic disease but still significant. Still 10% fatigue several months post-infection, for example. Apart from the health effects, that has a cost to the taxpayer and society, as well.

Thirdly, as Dr McCroary says, what was the initial cost-effectiveness data anyway?


Dr Nikolai Alexandrov Manassiev   16/01/2024 12:40:41 AM

Neither Paxlovid nor molnupiravir are effective against infection in immunised individuals. The fact they are being prescribed for Covid in immunised individuals is testament to the poor understanding of medical research and inability to read and understand medical trials. The original trials in NEJM were on NON-immunised patients. Below copy and paste from Paxlovid SPC no less:
Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 - High-Risk Patients (EPIC-HR) . The study excluded individuals with a known history of prior COVID-19 infection or vaccination.

Sad, regrettable, lamentable? You don't say. What does it tell you about the medical profession, especially all professors and epidemiologists in the advisory committees? I'll leave it to you to decide.