P071 The views of dermatology patients concerning the environmental impact of their biologic medication

Abstract The pharmaceutical industry produces approximately 0.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The European Commission’s Draft Packaging Regulation excuses medical packaging from recyclability targets until 2034, meaning that pharmaceutical companies do not have to meet agreed targets implemented for other industries. The viewpoints of dermatology patients regarding their recycling practices of topical agents have proved favourable. We conducted a single-centre prospective cohort study by distributing an anonymous questionnaire to dermatology patients on biologic medication to assess their views on the environmental impact of their biologic medication, as there are no data examining this. In total, 175 responded (median age 46.9 years, range 18–85), of whom 56% (n = 98) were male. Regarding biologic medications, 53% (93 of 175) were prescribed anti-tumour necrosis factor agents, 2% (4 of 175) interleukin (IL)-12/23 agents, 2% (3 of 175) anti-IL-13 agents, 4% (7 of 175) anti-IL-17 agents and 39% (68 of 175) anti-IL-23 agents. Although 99% (174 of 175) felt that recycling was worthwhile and 98% (172 of 175) separated household waste into the correct bin, only 25% (44 of 175) were aware of the circular economy. On their biologic medication, 65% (113 of 175) stated that their injection came with too much packaging and 80% (140 of 175) recycled this packaging. The remaining 20% (35 of 175) disposed of it in general waste or their sharps bin. Regarding disposal of the drug delivery device, 98% (172 of 175) disposed of the used device in their sharps bin. In total, 61% (106 of 175) believed the contents of their sharps bin were incinerated, while 10% (18 of 175) thought they were recycled. The remaining 29% (51 of 175) did not know or thought it was disposed of in a landfill. On the environment, 61% (106 of 175) had at least some concern about the environmental impact of their biologic medication and 85% (149 of 175) would prefer a biologic with a recyclable dispensing device. Factors influencing their choice of drug included a partly recyclable device in 38% (67 of 175), a drug requiring less frequent administration in 26% (46 of 175) and both in 26% (45 of 175). The remainder of the patients asked about influencing the choice of drug would not be influenced by either factor. When asked about the energy used to produce their medication, 37% (64 of 175) believed the majority went into manufacturing the dispensing device, whereas 16% (28 of 175) felt it was the active drug and 47% (83 of 175) did not know. The most important factor for the patient when choosing treatment was complete clearance of skin for 71% (124 of 175), followed by long-term efficacy for 19% (33 of 175), while none rated the environmental impact of medication. This pilot study has provided insight into dermatology patients’ knowledge and views on the sustainability of their biologic medications.