BMJ 2015;350:h2043 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2043 (Published 21 April 2015)
Page 1 of 1
Letters
LETTERS RELEASE OF AVASTIN
The GMC’s stance on Avastin Niall Dickson chief executive General Medical Council, London NW1 3JN, UK
It is wrong to suggest that the General Medical Council’s position is unclear or that it is the council that is putting doctors in a difficult position.1 It is also wrong to imply that the council’s guidance has recently been altered. Our prescribing guidance, which remains unchanged, was issued in January 2013.
The crucial factor is that our guidance must be lawful, and the law on this matter is unequivocal. Doctors cannot prescribe an unlicensed drug on grounds of cost if a licensed product is available. This was confirmed by a ruling in the case of European Commission v Republic of Poland (C-185/10) in 2012. At the same time we support the efficient use of NHS resources and are sympathetic to the argument that a better solution needs to be found for the use of Avastin (bevacizumab) in the treatment of wet age related macular degeneration. We recognise
too that doctors are placed in an invidious position as things currently stand.
Nevertheless, our guidance must support doctors to act within the law as it currently stands. We make it clear that doctors can prescribe unlicensed drugs (including for off-label use) outside the grounds for which they are licensed if the doctor judges it to be in the patient’s interests and there is no licensed alternative. Competing interests: None declared. 1
Cohen D. Why have UK doctors been deterred from prescribing Avastin? BMJ 2015;350:h1654. (1 April.)
Cite this as: BMJ 2014;350:h2043 © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2015
[email protected] For personal use only: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions
Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe
Page 1 of 1
Letters
LETTERS RELEASE OF AVASTIN
The GMC’s stance on Avastin Niall Dickson chief executive General Medical Council, London NW1 3JN, UK
It is wrong to suggest that the General Medical Council’s position is unclear or that it is the council that is putting doctors in a difficult position.1 It is also wrong to imply that the council’s guidance has recently been altered. Our prescribing guidance, which remains unchanged, was issued in January 2013.
The crucial factor is that our guidance must be lawful, and the law on this matter is unequivocal. Doctors cannot prescribe an unlicensed drug on grounds of cost if a licensed product is available. This was confirmed by a ruling in the case of European Commission v Republic of Poland (C-185/10) in 2012. At the same time we support the efficient use of NHS resources and are sympathetic to the argument that a better solution needs to be found for the use of Avastin (bevacizumab) in the treatment of wet age related macular degeneration. We recognise
too that doctors are placed in an invidious position as things currently stand.
Nevertheless, our guidance must support doctors to act within the law as it currently stands. We make it clear that doctors can prescribe unlicensed drugs (including for off-label use) outside the grounds for which they are licensed if the doctor judges it to be in the patient’s interests and there is no licensed alternative. Competing interests: None declared. 1
Cohen D. Why have UK doctors been deterred from prescribing Avastin? BMJ 2015;350:h1654. (1 April.)
Cite this as: BMJ 2014;350:h2043 © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2015
[email protected] For personal use only: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions
Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe
