In a win for rural communities across Australia, the Department of Health this week confirmed the drug Tenecteplase, commonly known as Metalyse, will remain on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).
ACRRM President, Associate Professor Ruth Stewart, personally welcomed the news, as the drug once saved her husband’s life.
“Three years ago, my husband Tony was given Metalyse in the back of an ambulance on the roadside near Mareeba in far north Queensland. He had developed chest pain after going all out to win a 50km mountain bike race. The ambulance ECG confirmed he was having a heart attack,” she said.
“I have no doubt Metalyse saved my husband’s life that day.”
The medication is one of a class of drugs that dissolves blood clots. It is used to re-establish blood flow through the coronary arteries when there is a clot blocking the blood supply to the muscles of the heart.
The introduction of this class of drugs saw a dramatic improvement in the morbidity and mortality from heart attack (myocardial infarction).
The Australian Heart Foundation advises that where catheterisation of coronary arteries can be performed within 90 minutes of presentation with acute myocardial infarction it is the preferred treatment option, but where this is not possible clot dissolving medication should be used.
Many people living in rural and remote areas are much further than 90 minutes away from a coronary stenting service, and so they must have access to the safest clot dissolving drug.
“I was shocked to learn that Boehringer-Ingelheim – the drug company that produces Metalyse – had applied to have it removed from the PBS.
“That would have been disastrous for rural and remote Australians, who are 44% more likely to die from heart disease than are their city cousins,” said A/Prof Stewart.
“ACRRM and the Rural Doctors Association of Australia successfully campaigned to prevent the PBS delisting of Metalyse, but rural and remote people must be included in decision making for Australian health care.
“If that consultation does not occur, decisions might be made that have terrible and adverse impacts on vulnerable rural or remote populations.”