ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025
The UK early access to medicines scheme: uptake, approvals, and reimbursement.
Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe UK Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS), launched in 2014, enables pre-license access to medicines for areas of high unmet medical need. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of the scheme by analyzing subsequent marketing authorization (MA), health technology assessment (HTA), and commissioning decisions.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of all completed EAMS programs from 2014 to April 2025, reviewing MA, HTA, and commissioning outcomes.
resultsFifty-one EAMS programs were completed, over half in oncology. Median times from Scientific Opinion (SO) to MA, and reimbursement outcomes in England and Scotland were 4.3 (Q1: 2.6 and Q3: 7.3), 14.5 (Q1: 9.4 and Q3: 20.9), and 15.0 months (Q1: 11.4 and Q3: 18.1), respectively. Of 48 products appraised by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) or National Health Service (NHS) England, 50 percent received positive recommendations, 44 percent were optimized, and 6 percent were rejected. Of 45 products appraised by the Scottish Medicines Consortium or NHS Scotland, 73 percent were positive, 18 percent optimized, and 9 percent rejected. EAMS was qualitatively referenced in 48 percent of NICE appraisals and quantitatively in 18 percent.
conclusionsCompared to non-EAMS products, those entering the scheme achieve faster MA and HTA timelines and higher regulatory success. However, EAMS is referenced quantitatively in less than a fifth of NICE appraisals, and fewer than half of Promising Innovative Medicine designations progress to a full SO. Administrative burdens, data demands, and liability concerns may limit uptake; addressing these barriers could enhance the scheme's impact.
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.