For example, a human generic paracetamol/codeine tablet costs approximately 3p at wholesaler prices.
By comparison, an almost identical licensed veterinary equivalent costs ten times as much.
The requirement for veterinary surgeons to prescribe expensive veterinary-licensed medications over cheaper unlicensed medications or drugs licensed for human use was first introduced though EU Directive 2001/82/EC in 2001, which the UK was legally required to implement in the form of the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013.
The main objectives of the EU directive were to safeguard public health by regulating medicines used in food-producing animals, to ensure the health and welfare of animals by requiring veterinary medicines to be authorised based on quality, safety and efficacy, to facilitate the free movement of medicines between member states and to encourage pharmaceutical innovation.
Whilst there is a strong rationale for the use of licensed medicines in food-producing animals, primarily to protect the public from medicine residues, the case for cats and dogs is weaker.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that legislators considered the increased cost to pet owners of implementing Directive 2001/82/EC, and the potential unintended consequences.
14 years later, this new research shows that the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 may in fact harm companion animal welfare and stifle pharmaceutical innovation.
In terms of harm, the survey found that 38.8% of veterinary surgeons noted that owners are unable to afford the veterinary licensed drugs they are obliged to prescribe between 1-4 times per week.
Another 25.8% of vets said this happened very often, ie at least once a week.
Another 24% said it happened at least once a month.
From these figures, the authors calculated that 438,000 owners may be unable to afford vet licensed drugs over cheaper human-use generics.
In requiring vets to prescribe veterinary-licensed medications, there should obviously be a clear, measurable benefit to animal welfare.
For example, if it were possible to argue that the regulation has reduced the occurrence of adverse reactions to medication or inefficacy.
However, in the US, where no comparable regulation is in place and the same drugs are used, there is no evidence of this being the case, despite the very much larger population.
There is also evidence to suggest that the system may stifle, rather than promote the development of novel treatments, as pharmaceutical companies have prioritised the veterinary licensing of human use drugs over the development of new ones, because it costs them far less and carries less risk of failure.
Since the introduction of Directive 2001/82/EC, pharmaceutical companies have launched six novel veterinary medicines for companion animals in the EU, namely Frunevetmab, fluralaner, lokivetmab, bedinvetmab, lotilaner and pradofloxacin.
By contrast, over the same time period, there have been 13 human use drugs licensed for veterinary use, with no evidence to support the idea that they have become safer, better or more effective in animals than they were when the cheaper human-use variants were prescribed before the Directive was introduced.
David Mills MRCVS, lead author of the article, said: "It is incumbent on veterinary legislators and regulators to consider the impact of their legislation and regulation on the cost to the consumer and consequently on animal welfare.
"In this case, they need to consider whether the benefits of licensing are real and measurable, and that they outweigh any harm caused by impact of licensing on the cost of treatments.
"Whilst it is only right that pharmaceutical companies should be rewarded for developing novel treatments, removing the requirement for vets to prescribe licensed medication when a human generic exists, or even simply allowing discretionary use of unlicensed medication on the grounds of cost are all simple solutions that would better serve animal welfare, reduce costs to owners and promote research of new drugs."
PDF
Reference
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
Rebekah Robinson Yes, but a predictably cloth-eared response that didnt address any of the points raised by the paper, just repeated old dogma for which there is no supporting evidence: https://www.vettimes.com/news/vets/wellbeing-at-work/purgatory-warning-as-review-of-cascade-raises-drug-cost-concern
Really interesting article, I wonder has this been forwarded on to the RCVS and VMD?