Methods for abandoning old drugs in favor of new must be improved

Feb 26, 2010

Decisions about which drugs to abandon to fund new treatments recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) are inconsistent and may be contributing to the postcode lottery - one of the key issues that NICE was set up to tackle, warn experts in the British Medical Journal today.

Dyfrig Hughes and Robin Ferner argue that the methods for identifying drugs that can be discontinued need to be as rigorous as those for assessing potential new treatments to ensure best use of NHS resources.

The aim of NICE guidance on medicines and other health technologies is to derive the maximum health benefit from finite NHS resources, explain the authors.

The NHS in England and Wales is legally obliged to fund treatments recommended by NICE but does not receive extra money to do so. This means that the funding of new, expensive medicines relies increasingly on releasing funds by displacing other treatments, but NICE does not specify which.

But if the treatments being displaced are not the least effective, overall population health is reduced. So how should we establish which medicines to discontinue, ask the authors?

Obvious targets for disinvestment include treatments that have been superseded by newer, more effective medicines and others that bring only trivial benefits over existing therapies while costing much more. Meanwhile, new measures to increase rates of generic prescribing are expected to produce annual savings of £72m by 2013.

However, the authors point out that sometimes it makes sense to maintain an older treatment that is only marginally less effective but much cheaper than a new . Disinvestment is also impractical when new treatments are not substitutes for old ones but are used in addition, or in sequence.

The authors acknowledge that implementing guidance on the withdrawal of NHS use of existing medicines on the grounds of poses a different challenge from adoption of approved treatments. However, they argue that NICE is well positioned to recommend candidates for disinvestment.

As such, they call for an explicit framework for the identification and appraisal of medicines for disinvestment to provide better value for money while reducing inequity.

Explore further: Japan first nation to approve Novartis psoriasis drug

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The NHS and the cost-benefit dilemma

Jan 25, 2010

New research by health economists at the University of York has raised concerns over any move to broaden the range of costs and economic benefits considered in the analysis of new NHS treatments.

NICE guidelines ration affordable osteoporosis drugs

Dec 11, 2009

Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC (December 11, 2009) - Low cost osteoporosis drugs are strictly rationed for the under 75s, and UK physicians hampered by restrictive guidelines, according to findings ...

Britain disallowing two cancer drugs

Aug 21, 2006

The watchdog for Britain's National Health Service won't allow doctors to prescribe two new drugs for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer.

Recommended for you

Express Scripts turns to AbbVie in huge hepatitis C deal

Dec 22, 2014

The nation's largest pharmacy benefits manager is throwing its weight into the fight over high-cost hepatitis C drugs with a coverage restriction that might ultimately lower prices and improve patient access ...

User comments : 0

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.