Abstract
BackgroundEnvironmental impact assessments of pharmaceuticals typically consider only a part of the pharmaceutical supply chain, e.g. tablet formulation. While the environmental impact can be expressed in environmental Human Health burden due to resource use and emissions, the Human Health benefit of the pharmaceutical treatment of patients is currently not simultaneously taken into account. The study aims include a cradle-to-grave assessment of all Human Health impacts of the production, administration and disposal of two antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia. This is complemented with the environmental impact of health care providers such as hospitals. The aim is to holistically quantify to what extent the environmental Human Health burden compares to the Human Health benefit associated with the treatment.MethodsWe applied an overall framework which included Life Cycle Assessment to model the environmental Human Health impacts of the pharmaceutical supply chain, administration and disposal of the drug and health care providers. To model the patient benefit, this was complemented with a Markov model with a 1-year time horizon. Three patient groups were modeled: medicine coverage of paliperidone palmitate for either one month (PP1M) or three months (PP3M) at a time, and compared to Treatment Interruption (TI) as a control group. Outcomes were quantified using Years of Life Lost (YLL), Years Lived with Disability (YLD) and Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALY).ResultsThe main environmental impacts were visits to the psychiatrist and psychiatric hospitals. The pharmaceutical supply chain had a limited impact. For 1000 patients for 1 year, PP1M and PP3M respectively avoided 0.38 and 0.49 environmental DALYs compared to TI. PP1M and PP3M further avoided 45.60 and 57.87 YLL and 23.31 and 29.91 YLD compared to TI. The main outcome was the sum of environmental DALYs, YLL and YLD, in which PP1M and PP3M respectively avoided 69.29 and 88.26 DALYs. Alternative analysis of Quality-Adjusted Life Years confirmed the results.ConclusionsThe overall environmental burden was lower for PP1M and PP3M treatment than Treatment Interruption because patients are kept more stable, which reduces the environmental burden due to hospitals. Moreover, the Human Health burden was outweighed by the Human Health benefit.
Highlights
Environmental impact assessments of pharmaceuticals typically consider only a part of the pharmaceutical supply chain, e.g. tablet formulation
There is a striking difference in order of magnitude between the avoided patient Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALY) and environmental DALYs: respectively 184 and 180 times more patient DALYs than environmental DALYs were avoided for Paliperidone palmitate one-monthly injection (PP1M) and Paliperidone palmitate three-monthly injection (PP3M) versus Treatment Interruption (TI)
We consider the treatment of patients with schizophrenia in Belgium with paliperidone palmitate once-monthly or paliperidone palmitate three-monthly long-acting injections
Summary
Environmental impact assessments of pharmaceuticals typically consider only a part of the pharmaceutical supply chain, e.g. tablet formulation. The field of environmental impact assessment of pharmaceutical products has evolved in recent years, shifting its focus from the pharmaceutical supply chain to a complete health care pathway This has been made explicit in guidance and policy documents by the Sustainable Development Unit (SDU) of the English National Health Service (NHS) [1]. Health care pathways represent a clear Human Health benefit to patients, which should be included in a holistic assessment and compared to the environmental Area of Protection Human Health burden This is recognized by the Swedish national pharmaceutical strategy [7]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.