ArticleBritish journal of cancer2014
Does the cancer drugs fund lead to faster uptake of cost-effective drugs? A time-trend analysis comparing England and Wales.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Scoping Review of International Experience of a Dedicated Fund to Support Patient Access to Cancer Drugs: Policy Implications for Thailand.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Bevacizumab in Colorectal Cancer: Current Role in Treatment and the Potential of Biosimilars.Targeted oncology · 2017Review
- Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?-lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2017Review
- Cancer Drug Pricing and Reimbursement: Lessons for the United States From Around the World.The oncologist · 2016Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) provides £200 million annually in England for 'anti-cancer' drugs.
methodsWe 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).
resultsThe 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)).
interpretationThese 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.