schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Differences in cancer drug assessment between Spain and the United Kingdom

There is no Spanish Government agency resembling the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom (UK) that carries out a centralised evaluation and makes decisions about funding. Therefore, we aim to assess the differences between NICE and the Spanish bodies in ter... Full description

Journal Title: European Journal of Cancer September 2015, Vol.51(13), pp.1843-1852
Main Author: Lozano-Blázquez, Ana
Other Authors: Dickson, Rumona , Fraga-Fuentes, María-Dolores , Martínez-Martínez, Fernando , Calleja-Hernández, Miguel-Ángel
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
ID: ISSN: 0959-8049 ; E-ISSN: 1879-0852 ; DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.04.022
Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959804915003846
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: elsevier_sdoi_10_1016_j_ejca_2015_04_022
title: Differences in cancer drug assessment between Spain and the United Kingdom
format: Article
creator:
  • Lozano-Blázquez, Ana
  • Dickson, Rumona
  • Fraga-Fuentes, María-Dolores
  • Martínez-Martínez, Fernando
  • Calleja-Hernández, Miguel-Ángel
subjects:
  • Decision Making
  • Health Technology Assessment
  • Drug Reimbursement
  • Antineoplastic Agents
  • Medicine
ispartof: European Journal of Cancer, September 2015, Vol.51(13), pp.1843-1852
description: There is no Spanish Government agency resembling the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom (UK) that carries out a centralised evaluation and makes decisions about funding. Therefore, we aim to assess the differences between NICE and the Spanish bodies in terms of their respective processes. We compare the decisions concerning cancer drugs in the assessments made by NICE/Single Technology Appraisal with assessments made by MADRE methodology. We included all cancer drugs assessed by NICE and all MADRE reports made using a shared reports process (GENESIS) and reports from Catalonia (CAMDHA) and Andalucía (GFTHA). We compared the number of drugs assessed, the decisions taken by NICE and Spanish organizations and timelines. Between January 2011 and December 2013 NICE appraised 24 cancer drugs. In Spain, 44 reports were produced using MADRE methodology. For the 14 drugs assessed by both NICE and Spanish bodies, NICE rejected a high proportion of the drugs (50% versus 26%). GENESIS, with a median of 8 months, made decisions more quickly than NICE (13.5 months) and GFTHA (17 months). The slowest organisation was CAMDHA (24.5 months). More drugs are assessed in Spain than by NICE because there are more organisations in Spain doing this work and their processes are simpler. NICE rejects more drugs as it uses cost-effectiveness thresholds that lead to a ‘not-recommended’ decision, and Spanish bodies recommend cancer drugs for subgroups of patients where better results can be obtained. Timelines are better for Spanish Committees, probably because of the greater number of steps in the appraisal process by NICE.
language: eng
source:
identifier: ISSN: 0959-8049 ; E-ISSN: 1879-0852 ; DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.04.022
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 0959-8049
  • 09598049
  • 1879-0852
  • 18790852
url: Link


@attributes
ID766487996
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordiddoi_10_1016_j_ejca_2015_04_022
sourceidelsevier_s
recordidTN_elsevier_sdoi_10_1016_j_ejca_2015_04_022
sourcesystemOther
dbid
0--K
1--M
2.FO
3.~1
41B1
51P~
61~.
7457
84G.
97-5
108P~
119JM
12AABNK
13AAEDT
14AAKOC
15AAOAW
16AAQFI
17ABBQC
18ABFNM
19ABGSF
20ABMZM
21ABYKQ
22ACDAQ
23ACIUM
24ACRLP
25ADUVX
26AEHWI
27AEKER
28AEVXI
29AFKWA
30AFTJW
31AFXIZ
32AGHFR
33AGRDE
34AGUBO
35AGYEJ
36AHHHB
37AIKHN
38AITUG
39AJBFU
40AJOXV
41AJRQY
42AJUYK
43AMFUW
44ANZVX
45BLXMC
46BNPGV
47DOVZS
48EO8
49EO9
50EP2
51EP3
52FDB
53FGOYB
54FIRID
55FNPLU
56G-Q
57GBLVA
58HED
59HMK
60HMO
61J1W
62KOM
63LCYCR
64OAUVE
65OC~
66OO-
67P-8
68P-9
69PC.
70Q38
71R2-
72RPZ
73SAE
74SCC
75SDF
76SDG
77SDP
78SEL
79SES
80SEW
81SSH
82SSU
83SSZ
84T5K
85UV1
86Z5R
87~G-
pqid1703246497
galeid429251165
display
typearticle
titleDifferences in cancer drug assessment between Spain and the United Kingdom
creatorLozano-Blázquez, Ana ; Dickson, Rumona ; Fraga-Fuentes, María-Dolores ; Martínez-Martínez, Fernando ; Calleja-Hernández, Miguel-Ángel
ispartofEuropean Journal of Cancer, September 2015, Vol.51(13), pp.1843-1852
identifier
subjectDecision Making ; Health Technology Assessment ; Drug Reimbursement ; Antineoplastic Agents ; Medicine
descriptionThere is no Spanish Government agency resembling the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom (UK) that carries out a centralised evaluation and makes decisions about funding. Therefore, we aim to assess the differences between NICE and the Spanish bodies in terms of their respective processes. We compare the decisions concerning cancer drugs in the assessments made by NICE/Single Technology Appraisal with assessments made by MADRE methodology. We included all cancer drugs assessed by NICE and all MADRE reports made using a shared reports process (GENESIS) and reports from Catalonia (CAMDHA) and Andalucía (GFTHA). We compared the number of drugs assessed, the decisions taken by NICE and Spanish organizations and timelines. Between January 2011 and December 2013 NICE appraised 24 cancer drugs. In Spain, 44 reports were produced using MADRE methodology. For the 14 drugs assessed by both NICE and Spanish bodies, NICE rejected a high proportion of the drugs (50% versus 26%). GENESIS, with a median of 8 months, made decisions more quickly than NICE (13.5 months) and GFTHA (17 months). The slowest organisation was CAMDHA (24.5 months). More drugs are assessed in Spain than by NICE because there are more organisations in Spain doing this work and their processes are simpler. NICE rejects more drugs as it uses cost-effectiveness thresholds that lead to a ‘not-recommended’ decision, and Spanish bodies recommend cancer drugs for subgroups of patients where better results can be obtained. Timelines are better for Spanish Committees, probably because of the greater number of steps in the appraisal process by NICE.
languageeng
source
version6
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
backlink$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959804915003846$$EView_record_in_ScienceDirect_(Access_to_full_text_may_be_restricted)
search
creatorcontrib
0Lozano-Blázquez, Ana
1Dickson, Rumona
2Fraga-Fuentes, María-Dolores
3Martínez-Martínez, Fernando
4Calleja-Hernández, Miguel-Ángel
titleDifferences in cancer drug assessment between Spain and the United Kingdom
description
subject
0Decision Making
1Health Technology Assessment
2Drug Reimbursement
3Antineoplastic Agents
4Medicine
general
0English
1Elsevier Ltd
210.1016/j.ejca.2015.04.022
3ScienceDirect (Elsevier B.V.)
4ScienceDirect Journals (Elsevier)
sourceidelsevier_s
recordidelsevier_sdoi_10_1016_j_ejca_2015_04_022
issn
00959-8049
109598049
21879-0852
318790852
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2015
addtitleEuropean Journal of Cancer
searchscope
0elsevier_full
1elsevier2
scope
0elsevier_full
1elsevier2
lsr44$$EView_record_in_ScienceDirect_(Access_to_full_text_may_be_restricted)
tmp01ScienceDirect Journals (Elsevier)
tmp02
0--K
1--M
2.FO
3.~1
41B1
51P~
61~.
7457
84G.
97-5
108P~
119JM
12AABNK
13AAEDT
14AAKOC
15AAOAW
16AAQFI
17ABBQC
18ABFNM
19ABGSF
20ABMZM
21ABYKQ
22ACDAQ
23ACIUM
24ACRLP
25ADUVX
26AEHWI
27AEKER
28AEVXI
29AFKWA
30AFTJW
31AFXIZ
32AGHFR
33AGRDE
34AGUBO
35AGYEJ
36AHHHB
37AIKHN
38AITUG
39AJBFU
40AJOXV
41AJRQY
42AJUYK
43AMFUW
44ANZVX
45BLXMC
46BNPGV
47DOVZS
48EO8
49EO9
50EP2
51EP3
52FDB
53FGOYB
54FIRID
55FNPLU
56G-Q
57GBLVA
58HED
59HMK
60HMO
61J1W
62KOM
63LCYCR
64OAUVE
65OC~
66OO-
67P-8
68P-9
69PC.
70Q38
71R2-
72RPZ
73SAE
74SCC
75SDF
76SDG
77SDP
78SEL
79SES
80SEW
81SSH
82SSU
83SSZ
84T5K
85UV1
86Z5R
87~G-
startdate20150901
enddate20150931
lsr40European Journal of Cancer, September 2015, Vol.51 (13), pp.1843-1852
doi10.1016/j.ejca.2015.04.022
citationpf 1843 pt 1852 vol 51 issue 13
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[orcidid, pqid, galeid]
sort
titleDifferences in cancer drug assessment between Spain and the United Kingdom
authorLozano-Blázquez, Ana ; Dickson, Rumona ; Fraga-Fuentes, María-Dolores ; Martínez-Martínez, Fernando ; Calleja-Hernández, Miguel-Ángel
creationdate20150900
lso0120150900
facets
frbrgroupid6132725798012705270
frbrtype5
newrecords20190904
languageeng
topic
0Decision Making
1Health Technology Assessment
2Drug Reimbursement
3Antineoplastic Agents
4Medicine
collectionScienceDirect (Elsevier B.V.)
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Lozano-Blázquez, Ana
1Dickson, Rumona
2Fraga-Fuentes, María-Dolores
3Martínez-Martínez, Fernando
4Calleja-Hernández, Miguel-Ángel
jtitleEuropean Journal of Cancer
creationdate2015
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
aulast
0Lozano-Blázquez
1Dickson
2Fraga-Fuentes
3Martínez-Martínez
4Calleja-Hernández
aufirst
0Ana
1Rumona
2María-Dolores
3Fernando
4Miguel-Ángel
auinitA
auinit1A
au
0Lozano-Blázquez, Ana
1Dickson, Rumona
2Fraga-Fuentes, María-Dolores
3Martínez-Martínez, Fernando
4Calleja-Hernández, Miguel-Ángel
atitleDifferences in cancer drug assessment between Spain and the United Kingdom
jtitleEuropean Journal of Cancer
risdate201509
volume51
issue13
spage1843
epage1852
pages1843-1852
issn0959-8049
eissn1879-0852
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstract
pubElsevier Ltd
doi10.1016/j.ejca.2015.04.022
lad01European Journal of Cancer
orcidid0000-0002-6980-4379
date2015-09