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.
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.
Authors: M P Coleman; D Forman; H Bryant; J Butler; B Rachet; C Maringe; U Nur; E Tracey; M Coory; J Hatcher; C E McGahan; D Turner; L Marrett; M L Gjerstorff; T B Johannesen; J Adolfsson; M Lambe; G Lawrence; D Meechan; E J Morris; R Middleton; J Steward; M A Richards Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rumona Dickson; Angela Boland; Rui Duarte; Eleanor Kotas; Nerys Woolacott; Robert Hodgson; Rob Riemsma; Sabine Grimm; Bram Ramaekers; Manuela Joore; Nasuh Büyükkaramikli; Eva Kaltenthaler; Matt Stevenson; Abdullah Pandor; Steve Edwards; Martin Hoyle; Jonathan Shepherd; Xavier Armoiry; Miriam Brazzelli Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Richard Grieve; Keith Abrams; Karl Claxton; Ben Goldacre; Nicholas James; Jon Nicholl; Mahesh Parmar; Chris Parker; Jasjeet S Sekhon; Liam Smeeth; David Spiegelhalter; Mark Sculpher Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-09-27