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; (2017) Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?-lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund. Annals of oncology. ISSN 0923-7534 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx110

[img]
Preview
Text - Published Version
License:

Download (277kB) | Preview

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

Item Type: Article
Faculty and Department: Faculty of Public Health and Policy > Dept of Health Services Research and Policy
Related URLs:
PubMed ID: 28453615
Web of Science ID: 406790000019
URI: http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/3860796

Statistics


Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads since deposit
78Downloads
97Hits
Accesses by country - last 12 months
Accesses by referrer - last 12 months
Impact and interest
Additional statistics for this record are available via IRStats2

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item