ArticleCureus2023
Appraisal of Novel Oncological Therapies by the Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: A Comparative Study of Six Years of Data.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The European Union's Health Technology Assessment Regulation (EU-HTA R) Will Prosper Despite Major Setbacks.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims Pharmacoeconomic assessment of novel oncological therapies is an increasingly important factor in determining patient access to therapies. Organisations such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) in Scotland assess medications for their cost-effectiveness through health technology assessments (HTA) and provide guidance on whether the public health service should fund a therapy. We assessed six years of data to determine if there were any differences in timescales and decisions between NICE and SMC for new oncological therapies. Methods and results Time (days) from marketing authorisation (MA) to publication of final HTA guidance was calculated for single technology appraisals published by NICE and SMC between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022, for oncological therapies. We assessed 161 HTAs by NICE and 148 HTAs by SMC published in the study period. The median time from MA to publication of HTA guidance was 291 days (IQR 222-406) for SMC and 257 days (IQR 167-448) for NICE (p=0.054). For solid organ cancer therapies, NICE was significantly faster in publishing guidance, with a median of 231.5 days (IQR 148-392.25), compared to SMC, which took 273 days (IQR 202-378) (p=0.039). Overall recommendation of technologies was similar between the SMC and NICE (90.5% and 89.4%, respectively), with discordance in a minority of cases (12.6%). Conclusions Recommendation rates for single HTAs are similar between NICE and SMC for oncological therapies with discordance in a minority of cases. The time from MA to publication of HTA guidance was similar overall, but NICE was faster in publishing HTA guidance for solid organ cancer indications. Differences in methodology and process between the two organisations, in particular the presence of the Cancer Drugs Fund in England, may explain this difference in publication times.
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.