ReviewPharmacoEconomics2026
Re-anchoring the Value of Innovative Therapies in NICE Decision Making When Comparators are Cost Ineffective: A Case Study of Late-Onset Pompe Disease.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fail to Compare, Prepare to Fail: Comparator Omission in NICE Single Technology Appraisals.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Comprehensive review of recent advances in Pompe disease: pathogenesis, management, and future directions.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal processes assume that the standard of care (SoC) is itself cost effective. However, many treatments in use in the UK National Health Service (NHS), particularly in rare diseases, were historically commissioned without formal value assessment and are priced without reference to cost-effectiveness thresholds. Cost-ineffective comparators distort how value is ascribed to new technologies, undermining the coherence of NICE's decision-making framework, and imposing substantial opportunity costs on the NHS. Using late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD) as an exemplar, we demonstrate the implications of a cost-ineffective comparator in assessments of innovative therapies. A clinically superior enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) may command a lower value-based price than current ERTs, whilst a hypothetical curative gene therapy is valued at over £4 million against current ERT, but just £629,392 when re-anchored against best supportive care. Here, value is driven by displacement of costs rather than health gain, raising affordability concerns that may limit access to genuine innovation. The 2025 NHS 10-Year Plan grants new NICE statutory powers to withdraw access to cost-ineffective therapies, presenting an opportunity to reform technology appraisal. We propose several policy responses, including comprehensive reassessment of active guidance with decisions made with respect to a standard cost-effectiveness frontier, reviews triggered by new comparators, and use of flexible decision rules within existing frameworks. These changes could allow the evolving value of medicines to be reflected in NHS practice, redefining NICE as a body that takes a dynamic, whole-lifecycle view of value. Deliberative public and stakeholder engagement is essential for success, given the potential consequences for manufacturers and patients.
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.