ArticlePharmacoEconomics2019
The Cancer Drugs Fund in Practice and Under the New Framework.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
- Establishing a Dedicated Fund to Improve Patient Access to Cancer Medicines: Key Considerations and Policy Implications for Thailand Comment on "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 · 2025Article
- Impact of medical insurance access negotiation on the utilization of innovative anticancer drugs in China: an interrupted time series analysis.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- 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
- Expanding access to high-cost medicines under the Universal Health Coverage scheme in Thailand: review of current practices and recommendations.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
- Comprehensive Review of Methods to Assess Uncertainty in Health Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Review
- What could health technology assessment learn from living clinical practice guidelines?Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of the TRansparent Uncertainty ASsessmenT (TRUST) Tool for Assessing Uncertainties in Health Economic Decision Models.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
objectivesOur 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsIn 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.
conclusionsData 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30941698What 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.