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

Abstract

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.

The right amount of chemotherapy in non-curable disease: Insights from health economics

“…We reviewed and applied the concepts of "Choice of Comparator", "Use of QALYs" and "Equating MB to MC", demonstrating how they fit when considering the question of the optimal amount of chemo for non-curable disease. Many current efforts underway to improve healthcare can be viewed as applications of these key economic principles e.g., the ABIM Foundation's Choosing Wisely [40], the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Triple Aim [41], the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review's Deliberative Framework [42], or the Cancer Drug Fund in the UK [43,44]. While it may be difficult to quantify when applying some of the concepts, the true value is in the concepts themselves (not in the calculation).…”

Did It Matter That the Cancer Drugs Fund Was Not NICE? A Retrospective Review

“…There is already evidence that the first incarnation of the CDF did expedite uptake of cost-effective drugs subsequently approved by NICE (50).…”

Challenges for the new Cancer Drugs Fund

“…'Nos' are to be expected because evidence suggests the CDF did not speed up the process of adopting drugs that NICE positively assessed. 9 Moreover, the proposed criteria for drugs entering the CDF are similar to those that NICE currently uses in its appraisal process. So the only way that the 'no' judgements can be avoided in the future is if the new process allows the NHS to negotiate more freely on price than they have in the past.…”