UK’s NICE Rejects Three Cancer Drugs Over Cost
4 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // February 9th, 2010 // 7:36 am
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellent declined to recommend two expensive cancer drugs from Novartis and another from Bristol-Myers Squibb from being used within the state-run health service, Reuters writes.
NICE rebuffed Afinitor as a second-line treatment for kidney cancer, adding there was limited data about how long it could extend life. And the agency declined to recommend Tasigna and Bristol’s Sprycel for chronic myeloid leukaemia in patients who are intolerant to Gleevec - an older drug from Novartis - because effectiveness evidence was “very poor” and their cost was “extremely high”.
“It would be heartening to hear that the pharmaceutical company manufacturers are prepared to share some of the very high cost of the drugs with the NHS (National Health Service),” NICE director Peter Littlejohns says in a statement. NICE has struck several previous deals with companies to reduce the cost of medicines before recommending them for use in the NHS.
Former Pharma Marketing Director
There is really a couple of things going on.
I have much empathy for patinets who need access to both Sprycel and Tasigna. But both of these drugs are very costly.
On the other hand, there are some excellent results in Europe from patients going on “combo” trials with Interferon and Gleevec and in some cases Interferon and Sprycel and Tasigna. Some of these patients are actually able to stop drugs and have achieved a long term drug free remission.
If Novartis and BMS were really inclined ot negotiate they would sit down and work out a deal to get as many patients off the drug as possible.
In the meantime the Pharma companies have fanned the fires and stirred up the patients. The patients are going after the governments demanding that these drugs be reimbursed. Do not get me wrong, these drugs should be reimbursed. THe patients should also be going after their government demanding wider access to combination trials that could lead to many of them getting off drugs - that would be a true win win solution.
Pharma is busy hoping patients will not see what the battle is really all about….
I hope the patient groups over there wake up before it is too late….
They will miss a golden opportunity to get off drugs….And they will be playing right into the hands of Pharma… BAD NEWS for all of them….
Ed, keep an eye on this…
gpawelski
I remember years ago, NICE determined that platinum/Taxol should no longer be considered as standard first-line ovarian cancer therapy, and that a range of therapies are equally acceptable. This, based on clinical trial results showing no difference between single-agent platinums versus platinum/Taxol (GOG Trial #132, ICON3, ICON4, Lancet 2002;360:500-501, 505-515).
Patients receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin had more occurrence of alopecia, fever and sensory neuropathy than patients receiving carboplatin alone. According to Dr. Peter Harper, leader of the ICON group, single-agent carboplatin might be regarded as the preferred treatment because of its better toxicity profile.
In the U.S., where the administration of platinum/Taxol had been much more profitable to the treating oncologist than single agent platinum, there had been the dogged insistance that platinum/Taxol remain the standard, despite clear lack of support for this position, based on the entirety of the clinical trials literature.
Rhonda
As a pharma watcher and a person with CML this development in the UK is very important to me. First, Sprycel is working great for me and I can’t imagine the UK deciding that a stem cell transplant is better than Sprycel–or more cost efficient. How ridiculas.
If a patient can’t tolerate Gleevac and none of the newer treatments are supplied, the only option is Interferon (BAD option for quality of life), or a stem cell transplant. The death percentage for those undergoing stem cell transplant is high. Most people on Interferon have a hard time working. So, the option is to take a person who likely could work and help ‘pay the bills’ and send them off to use a lowercost drug that will drag down the quality of life until they can’t work. OR… a stem cell transplant which will absolutely remove the patient from the working world for a long time and perhaps kill them in the process.
Can’t see where the outcomes research is proving the UK’s case. It just doesn’t add up.
Former Pharma Marketing Director
Rhonda,
I hear exactly what you are saying. How long do you plan on taking Sprycel? What if it stops working for you?
Do you have a plan to get off the drugs?
Stem cell transplants are not a good option, but what do you think it is going to take to get you safely off of drugs and healthy?
What and when do you think a cure will come?