Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29903783›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Availability and affordability of biologic versus non-biologic anticancer medicines: a cross-sectional study in Punjab, Pakistan.

Anum Saqib, Sadia Iftikhar, Muhammad Rehan Sarwar

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Experience of Pharmacists with Anti-Cancer Medicine Shortages in Pakistan: Results of a Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Low-Cost, Large-Scale Production of the Anti-viral Lectin Griffithsin.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anum Saqib *Department of Pharmacy, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan.
Sadia IftikharDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Akhtar Saeed College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan.
Muhammad Rehan Sarwar *Department of Pharmacy, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-4312-9157

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrime 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

participantsA 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).

resultsA 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%.

conclusionsMost 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.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAntineoplastic AgentsBiological FactorsCosts and Cost AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesDrugs, GenericFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPakistanYoung AdultAntineoplastic AgentsBiological FactorsDrugs, Genericaffordabilityanticancer medicinesavailabilitylowest price genericsoriginator brand

Identifiers

PMID29903783
PMCPMC6009472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.