Cargando…

Does the cancer drugs fund lead to faster uptake of cost-effective drugs? A time-trend analysis comparing England and Wales

BACKGROUND: The Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) provides £200 million annually in England for ‘anti-cancer' drugs. METHODS: We used a controlled pre-/post-intervention design to compare IMS Health dispensing data for 15 cancer drugs (2007–2012) in England vs Wales, stratified by pre-CDF NICE drug appro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chamberlain, C, Collin, S M, Stephens, P, Donovan, J, Bahl, A, Hollingworth, W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4453744/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24569469
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.86
_version_ 1782374509634912256
author Chamberlain, C
Collin, S M
Stephens, P
Donovan, J
Bahl, A
Hollingworth, W
author_facet Chamberlain, C
Collin, S M
Stephens, P
Donovan, J
Bahl, A
Hollingworth, W
author_sort Chamberlain, C
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) provides £200 million annually in England for ‘anti-cancer' drugs. METHODS: We used a controlled pre-/post-intervention design to compare IMS Health dispensing data for 15 cancer drugs (2007–2012) in England vs Wales, stratified by pre-CDF NICE drug approval status (rejected, mixed recommendations, recommended, not appraised). RESULTS: The CDF was associated with increased prescribing in England for three of five drugs rejected or with mixed NICE recommendations. The prescribing volume ratios (PVR) ranged from 1.29 (95% CI 1.00, 1.67) for sorafenib to 3.28 (2.59, 4.14) for bevacizumab (NICE rejected) and 0.93 (0.81, 1.06) and 1.35 (1.21, 1.49) for sunitinib and imatinib respectively (mixed recommendations). Post CDF prescribing in England increased for both drugs awaiting NICE appraisal pre-CDF (lapatinib PVR=7.44 (5.81, 9.54), panitumumab PVR=5.40 (1.20, 24.42)) and subsequently rejected. The CDF was not associated with increased prescribing in England of NICE-recommended drugs. The three most recently launched, subsequently recommended drugs were adopted faster in Wales (from pazopanib PVR=0.51 (0.28, 0.96) to abiraterone PVR=0.78 (0.61–0.99)). INTERPRETATION: These data indicate that the CDF is used to access drugs deemed not cost-effective by NICE. The CDF did not expedite access to new cost-effective cancer agents prior to NICE approval.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4453744
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44537442015-06-10 Does the cancer drugs fund lead to faster uptake of cost-effective drugs? A time-trend analysis comparing England and Wales Chamberlain, C Collin, S M Stephens, P Donovan, J Bahl, A Hollingworth, W Br J Cancer Clinical Study BACKGROUND: The Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) provides £200 million annually in England for ‘anti-cancer' drugs. METHODS: We used a controlled pre-/post-intervention design to compare IMS Health dispensing data for 15 cancer drugs (2007–2012) in England vs Wales, stratified by pre-CDF NICE drug approval status (rejected, mixed recommendations, recommended, not appraised). RESULTS: The CDF was associated with increased prescribing in England for three of five drugs rejected or with mixed NICE recommendations. The prescribing volume ratios (PVR) ranged from 1.29 (95% CI 1.00, 1.67) for sorafenib to 3.28 (2.59, 4.14) for bevacizumab (NICE rejected) and 0.93 (0.81, 1.06) and 1.35 (1.21, 1.49) for sunitinib and imatinib respectively (mixed recommendations). Post CDF prescribing in England increased for both drugs awaiting NICE appraisal pre-CDF (lapatinib PVR=7.44 (5.81, 9.54), panitumumab PVR=5.40 (1.20, 24.42)) and subsequently rejected. The CDF was not associated with increased prescribing in England of NICE-recommended drugs. The three most recently launched, subsequently recommended drugs were adopted faster in Wales (from pazopanib PVR=0.51 (0.28, 0.96) to abiraterone PVR=0.78 (0.61–0.99)). INTERPRETATION: These data indicate that the CDF is used to access drugs deemed not cost-effective by NICE. The CDF did not expedite access to new cost-effective cancer agents prior to NICE approval. Nature Publishing Group 2014-10-28 2014-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4453744/ /pubmed/24569469 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.86 Text en Copyright © 2014 Cancer Research UK http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Chamberlain, C
Collin, S M
Stephens, P
Donovan, J
Bahl, A
Hollingworth, W
Does the cancer drugs fund lead to faster uptake of cost-effective drugs? A time-trend analysis comparing England and Wales
title Does the cancer drugs fund lead to faster uptake of cost-effective drugs? A time-trend analysis comparing England and Wales
title_full Does the cancer drugs fund lead to faster uptake of cost-effective drugs? A time-trend analysis comparing England and Wales
title_fullStr Does the cancer drugs fund lead to faster uptake of cost-effective drugs? A time-trend analysis comparing England and Wales
title_full_unstemmed Does the cancer drugs fund lead to faster uptake of cost-effective drugs? A time-trend analysis comparing England and Wales
title_short Does the cancer drugs fund lead to faster uptake of cost-effective drugs? A time-trend analysis comparing England and Wales
title_sort does the cancer drugs fund lead to faster uptake of cost-effective drugs? a time-trend analysis comparing england and wales
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4453744/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24569469
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.86
work_keys_str_mv AT chamberlainc doesthecancerdrugsfundleadtofasteruptakeofcosteffectivedrugsatimetrendanalysiscomparingenglandandwales
AT collinsm doesthecancerdrugsfundleadtofasteruptakeofcosteffectivedrugsatimetrendanalysiscomparingenglandandwales
AT stephensp doesthecancerdrugsfundleadtofasteruptakeofcosteffectivedrugsatimetrendanalysiscomparingenglandandwales
AT donovanj doesthecancerdrugsfundleadtofasteruptakeofcosteffectivedrugsatimetrendanalysiscomparingenglandandwales
AT bahla doesthecancerdrugsfundleadtofasteruptakeofcosteffectivedrugsatimetrendanalysiscomparingenglandandwales
AT hollingworthw doesthecancerdrugsfundleadtofasteruptakeofcosteffectivedrugsatimetrendanalysiscomparingenglandandwales