Charity says NICE takes too long to assess cancer drugs
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
A cancer charity is calling for reform of the way in which cancer drugs are made available on the NHS, claiming that there are sometimes delays of up to three years between a drug being licensed and it becoming widely available.
CancerBACUP, an information service for people with cancer, says that approval for a total of 23 cancer treatments is being held up because of delays in the system.
After drugs are granted a licence, they still have to be approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) before being prescribed routinely throughout the NHS.
CancerBACUP chief executive Joanne Rule: Treatments should be examined within three months of being licensed
"Cancer treatments should be examined within three months of a licence being granted," said the charity's chief executive, Joanne Rule.
Delays can begin with the initial referral from the Department of Health to NICE for approval. Some drugs have been waiting a year for referral, says the charity. NICE's approval process can take at least 14 months on top of that, it says.
During this period, it says, most patients find that newly licensed drugs are unavailable in large areas of the country. Treatment becomes a postcode lottery.
One treatment, rituximab for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, is subject to a three year delay and another, cetuximab for advanced colorectal cancer, has been delayed for two and a half years, says CancerBACUP.
Instead of the current procedure, the charity says that there should be a group of experts, including oncologists, who monitor forthcoming treatments, look at outcomes from the drug within three months of it being licensed, and recommend which should be fast tracked by NICE.
NICE's chief executive, Andrew Dillon, said that NICE was trying to improve the situation. He added that there was no ban on prescribing licensed drugs that had not been appraised by NICE. The Department of Health issued instructions to the NHS in 1999 that, in the absence of NICE guidance or while guidance was being developed, local organisations should make their own assessment of available evidence before deciding how, and whether, to fund the drug locally ( Health Service Circular 1999; (176)).(Lynn Eaton)
CancerBACUP, an information service for people with cancer, says that approval for a total of 23 cancer treatments is being held up because of delays in the system.
After drugs are granted a licence, they still have to be approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) before being prescribed routinely throughout the NHS.
CancerBACUP chief executive Joanne Rule: Treatments should be examined within three months of being licensed
"Cancer treatments should be examined within three months of a licence being granted," said the charity's chief executive, Joanne Rule.
Delays can begin with the initial referral from the Department of Health to NICE for approval. Some drugs have been waiting a year for referral, says the charity. NICE's approval process can take at least 14 months on top of that, it says.
During this period, it says, most patients find that newly licensed drugs are unavailable in large areas of the country. Treatment becomes a postcode lottery.
One treatment, rituximab for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, is subject to a three year delay and another, cetuximab for advanced colorectal cancer, has been delayed for two and a half years, says CancerBACUP.
Instead of the current procedure, the charity says that there should be a group of experts, including oncologists, who monitor forthcoming treatments, look at outcomes from the drug within three months of it being licensed, and recommend which should be fast tracked by NICE.
NICE's chief executive, Andrew Dillon, said that NICE was trying to improve the situation. He added that there was no ban on prescribing licensed drugs that had not been appraised by NICE. The Department of Health issued instructions to the NHS in 1999 that, in the absence of NICE guidance or while guidance was being developed, local organisations should make their own assessment of available evidence before deciding how, and whether, to fund the drug locally ( Health Service Circular 1999; (176)).(Lynn Eaton)