Cargando…
Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?—lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund
BACKGROUND: The NHS Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) was established in 2010 to reduce delays and improve access to cancer drugs, including those that had been previously appraised but not approved by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). After 1.3 billion GBP expenditure, a UK parliament...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5834015/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28453615 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx110 |
_version_ | 1783303580739960832 |
---|---|
author | Aggarwal, A. Fojo, T. Chamberlain, C. Davis, C. Sullivan, R. |
author_facet | Aggarwal, A. Fojo, T. Chamberlain, C. Davis, C. Sullivan, R. |
author_sort | Aggarwal, A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The NHS Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) was established in 2010 to reduce delays and improve access to cancer drugs, including those that had been previously appraised but not approved by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). After 1.3 billion GBP expenditure, a UK parliamentary review in 2016 rationalized the CDF back into NICE. METHODS: This paper analyses the potential value delivered by the CDF according to six value criteria. This includes validated clinical benefits scales, cost-effectiveness criteria as defined by NICE and an assessment of real-world data. The analysis focuses on 29 cancer drugs approved for 47 indications that could be prescribed through the CDF in January 2015. RESULTS: Of the 47 CDF approved indications, only 18 (38%) reported a statistically significant OS benefit, with an overall median survival of 3.1 months (1.4–15.7 months). When assessed according to clinical benefit scales, only 23 (48%) and 9 (18%) of the 47 drug indications met ASCO and ESMO criteria, respectively. NICE had previously rejected 26 (55%) of the CDF approved indications because they did not meet cost-effectiveness thresholds. Four drugs—bevacizumab, cetuximab, everolimus and lapatinib—represented the bulk of CDF applications and were approved for a total of 18 separate indications. Thirteen of these indications were subsequently delisted by the CDF in January 2015 due to insufficient evidence for clinical benefit—data which were unchanged since their initial approval. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude the CDF has not delivered meaningful value to patients or society. There is no empirical evidence to support a ‘drug only’ ring fenced cancer fund relative to concomitant investments in other cancer domains such as surgery and radiotherapy, or other noncancer medicines. Reimbursement decisions for all drugs and interventions within cancer care should be made through appropriate health technology appraisal processes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5834015 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58340152018-03-12 Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?—lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund Aggarwal, A. Fojo, T. Chamberlain, C. Davis, C. Sullivan, R. Ann Oncol Reviews BACKGROUND: The NHS Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) was established in 2010 to reduce delays and improve access to cancer drugs, including those that had been previously appraised but not approved by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). After 1.3 billion GBP expenditure, a UK parliamentary review in 2016 rationalized the CDF back into NICE. METHODS: This paper analyses the potential value delivered by the CDF according to six value criteria. This includes validated clinical benefits scales, cost-effectiveness criteria as defined by NICE and an assessment of real-world data. The analysis focuses on 29 cancer drugs approved for 47 indications that could be prescribed through the CDF in January 2015. RESULTS: Of the 47 CDF approved indications, only 18 (38%) reported a statistically significant OS benefit, with an overall median survival of 3.1 months (1.4–15.7 months). When assessed according to clinical benefit scales, only 23 (48%) and 9 (18%) of the 47 drug indications met ASCO and ESMO criteria, respectively. NICE had previously rejected 26 (55%) of the CDF approved indications because they did not meet cost-effectiveness thresholds. Four drugs—bevacizumab, cetuximab, everolimus and lapatinib—represented the bulk of CDF applications and were approved for a total of 18 separate indications. Thirteen of these indications were subsequently delisted by the CDF in January 2015 due to insufficient evidence for clinical benefit—data which were unchanged since their initial approval. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude the CDF has not delivered meaningful value to patients or society. There is no empirical evidence to support a ‘drug only’ ring fenced cancer fund relative to concomitant investments in other cancer domains such as surgery and radiotherapy, or other noncancer medicines. Reimbursement decisions for all drugs and interventions within cancer care should be made through appropriate health technology appraisal processes. Oxford University Press 2017-08 2017-04-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5834015/ /pubmed/28453615 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx110 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Reviews Aggarwal, A. Fojo, T. Chamberlain, C. Davis, C. Sullivan, R. Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?—lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund |
title | Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?—lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund |
title_full | Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?—lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund |
title_fullStr | Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?—lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund |
title_full_unstemmed | Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?—lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund |
title_short | Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?—lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund |
title_sort | do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?—lessons from the nhs cancer drugs fund |
topic | Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5834015/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28453615 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx110 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT aggarwala dopatientaccessschemesforhighcostcancerdrugsdelivervaluetosocietylessonsfromthenhscancerdrugsfund AT fojot dopatientaccessschemesforhighcostcancerdrugsdelivervaluetosocietylessonsfromthenhscancerdrugsfund AT chamberlainc dopatientaccessschemesforhighcostcancerdrugsdelivervaluetosocietylessonsfromthenhscancerdrugsfund AT davisc dopatientaccessschemesforhighcostcancerdrugsdelivervaluetosocietylessonsfromthenhscancerdrugsfund AT sullivanr dopatientaccessschemesforhighcostcancerdrugsdelivervaluetosocietylessonsfromthenhscancerdrugsfund |