Last November spoke to a group of senior Mexican health officials on the issue of healthcare technology assessment (HTA). One of my co-panelists was Michael Drummond of University of York. Dr. Drummond is a regular reviewer for NICE (the UK's National Institute for Clinical Excellence). He has a new editorial in the British Medical Journal on how NICE assessments are dealing with clinical excellence in the absence of evidence.
(For more on the Mexican conference, see here: Hecho en Mexico
He makes some good points -- but misses one key one: what about new types of evidence? Pharmacogenomic evidence to be precise. Another interesting point is that at the end of the editorial he notes that he does work both for NICE and for pharmaceutical companies. Good for him. The point here is that being paid by the government to do healthcare technology assessments is as much of a conflict as doing work for private industry.
Nuff said.
Here's the complete editorial:
Rationing new medicines in the UK
(For more on the Mexican conference, see here: Hecho en Mexico
He makes some good points -- but misses one key one: what about new types of evidence? Pharmacogenomic evidence to be precise. Another interesting point is that at the end of the editorial he notes that he does work both for NICE and for pharmaceutical companies. Good for him. The point here is that being paid by the government to do healthcare technology assessments is as much of a conflict as doing work for private industry.
Nuff said.
Here's the complete editorial:
Rationing new medicines in the UK
In England and Wales the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) issues guidance on the appropriate use of medicines that is based on an assessment of evidence submitted by the manufacturer. The scope of the assessment depends on whether the appraisal concerned is a single technology appraisal or a multiple technology appraisal. NICE recently terminated four single technology appraisals of cancer drugs because it did not receive submissions from drug companies that met the institute’s specification of evidence (1).As a result, NICE was unable to recommend the use of the products for the clinical indications for which they were licensed, but it stated that, after considering the reasons for the lack of guidance, NHS organisations could still use the drugs. In contrast, the Scottish Medicines Consortium approves medicines only if drug companies submit evidence, so non-submission results in a recommendation not to use the drugs concerned in the Scottish NHS (2).
This situation is one consequence of NICE’s switch to undertaking more single technology appraisals, the main advantage of which is a shorter time between the drug’s marketing approval and a preliminary decision. However, in shortening the time allowed for the appraisal, NICE is largely reliant on information provided by the manufacturer, whereas under the original (multiple) technology appraisal process, the independent review group contracted by NICE also undertook an analysis.
One concern is that, in the future, companies could terminate an appraisal by failing to submit data if they thought the chance of a positive NICE recommendation was small. Clinicians or patient organisations could then bring pressure to bear on local decision makers, whereas this would not be possible after a negative NICE appraisal. In most jurisdictions that use an evidence based approach to drug use, this situation cannot arise because a formal application must be made by the manufacturer for inclusion on the national formulary or "positive list." (3) In the United Kingdom, however, most licensed drugs are automatically available for prescribing on the NHS, unless guidance from NICE, the Scottish Medicines Consortium, or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group limits their use. If terminated appraisals effectively delegate decisions to the local level, this could exacerbate the "postcode lottery" that NICE was created to tackle (4).
So what could be done? Moving towards a comprehensive approach for evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of all new drugs, linked to listing for reimbursement, raises a wide range of questions, not least that of whether NICE could cope with the workload. Certainly, without substantial extra resources it would have to simplify its procedures greatly. In particular, it would need to limit stakeholder involvement and perhaps be less rigorous with its reviews, thereby increasing its reliance on manufacturers’ submissions.
Alternatively, NICE could follow the approach used by the Scottish Medicines Consortium and, in the absence of a submission, rule that the drug is not recommended for use. This approach would remove the incentive not to submit. However, this equates absence of evidence with evidence of absence (of clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness), and it may deny patients access to drugs that might be cost effective. A third option would be for NICE to negotiate a "coverage with evidence" agreement with the manufacturer. Under this scenario, the drug would be available for use in NHS patients, but access would be conditional on a commitment by the manufacturer to provide evidence on outcomes and costs at a set date in the future when the NICE decision would be reviewed. This approach may be useful if non-submission reflects an absence of evidence for the relevant patient group (for example, the terminated appraisals on carmustine implants for recurrent glioma (TA149) and cetuximab for colorectal cancer (TA150)). However, it would be of little use if the drug company chose not to submit because the limited available evidence indicates that the drug is unlikely to be cost effective when assessed against NICE’s cost per quality adjusted life year threshold (for example, bevacizumab for breast cancer (TA147)). In such situations a coverage with evidence approach could provide a perverse incentive for companies to claim that no data exist, to increase the chances of market access for their product.
A fourth possibility, arguably more in keeping with NICE’s ethos, would be to commit to convert a single technology appraisal to a multiple technology appraisal if and when it becomes clear that the manufacturer is not intending to make a submission in accordance with the institute’s specification. This might lengthen the appraisal process and may be unsatisfactory if the manufacturer fails to give access to unpublished data. However, it is more likely to encourage submissions from manufacturers wherever possible, because the incentive to the manufacturer would be to ensure that its point of view was adequately reflected in the appraisal.
None of these strategies is without its drawbacks. Nevertheless, simply terminating appraisals runs the risk that the NHS in England and Wales will have to make difficult decisions in the context of an absence of evidence. The fourth option, of converting single technology appraisals to multiple technology appraisals when the manufacturer fails to make a submission, would be the best way forward.
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:a3182
Michael Drummond, professor of health economics, Anne Mason, research fellow in health economics
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York YO10 5DD
Competing interests: MD and AM have worked on technology assessment reviews, for which the Centre for Health Economics at The University of York receives funding from NICE. They have also received funding for research from, and undertaken consultancy projects for, several drug companies. MD is chair of one of NICE’s guideline review panels.
