Author
Listed:
- Celia Sabry-Grant
(Symmetron Limited)
- Kinga Malottki
(Symmetron Limited)
- Alexander Diamantopoulos
(Symmetron Limited)
Abstract
Background The Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) was established in 2010 to improve access to treatments not routinely available. Having widely overspent, stricter budgeting rules were introduced in 2016. The CDF can now only include treatments with potential to be cost effective once sufficient data are collected. Objectives Our objective was to explore the process and criteria used for consideration of treatments under the new CDF framework and to describe the extent of evidence collection. Methods We identified CDF list, UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Scottish Medicines Consortium documents (10 May 2018). Data were collected on drugs and indications, reasons for inclusion in the CDF, data collection, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and corresponding recommendations for Scotland. Results In total, 12 drugs were listed on the CDF in 17 indications, 12 of which were considered end-of-life care. The most common cancers were non-small-cell lung (n = 4), urothelial (n = 3), lymphocytic leukaemia (n = 2) and multiple myeloma (n = 2). The companies’ ICERs were generally lower than those from the committee and the evidence review group. Drugs were included in the CDF for 6–42 months, with the majority included for ≥18 months. Data were frequently collected on overall survival (n = 16) and progression-free survival (n = 5) using NHS systems and, frequently, ongoing trials. Conclusions Data collection frequently included overall survival and exceeded the 2 years recommended in the CDF strategy. It appears the CDF is allowing patients access to drugs long before they may become available for routine use. Our results are limited by the availability of published information and the small dataset.
Suggested Citation
Celia Sabry-Grant & Kinga Malottki & Alexander Diamantopoulos, 2019.
"The Cancer Drugs Fund in Practice and Under the New Framework,"
PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(7), pages 953-962, July.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00793-6
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00793-6
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00793-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.