Is the United Kingdom (UK) medicines pricing policy failing patients? The impact of terminated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) appraisals for multi-indication products on patients

Helen Mitchell, Qian Xin, Jack Hide, Clement Halin, Swarali Sunil Tadwalkar, Sabera Hashim, Richard Hudson
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.06.24311489

Abstract

Background National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) data regarding manufacturer-driven terminations indicate that some patients in the United Kingdom (UK) are unable to access treatments that are available in other European countries, which may result in reduced survival and quality of life (QoL). This study aims to quantify the health impact of NICE appraisals for multi-indication products terminated for reasons not related to clinical trial failure on the UK population.

Methods Terminated NICE appraisals (2014–2023) for multi-indication products were identified and a targeted literature search was conducted to identify data on the health impact of the interventions. The potential incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) loss and impact on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and QoL was calculated.

Results Over 16,000 QALYs/year were potentially lost (with one QALY equal to one year of life in perfect health) across approximately 829,000 patients in the UK due to NICE appraisals for multi-indication products being terminated for reasons not related to clinical trial failure. Across oncology indications (approximately 18,900 patients), OS and PFS may have been reduced by over 9,400 years and 9,000 years, respectively. The potential impact of the treatments for non-oncology indications for which NICE appraisals were terminated on QoL was an incremental improvement of 13% (weighted average).

Conclusions Due to the increasing number of NICE terminations for multi-indication products, patients cannot access therapies that could lengthen their lives and increase their QoL. As the UK uniform pricing policy is likely to influence manufacturer-driven terminations, introducing alternative reimbursement arrangements such as indication-based pricing (IBP) agreements to ensure that prices remain commensurate with therapeutic value could improve access to therapies in the UK, thereby improving public health.

Highlights

  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) termination data indicate that some patients in the United Kingdom (UK) are unable to access treatments available in other European countries, which could potentially prolong their lives and improve their quality of life (QoL)

  • Across approximately 829,000 patients in the UK, over 16,000 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per year (with one QALY equal to one year of life in perfect health) are potentially lost as a result of NICE appraisals for multi-indication products that have been terminated for reasons not related to clinical trial failure

  • Assessing reimbursement options such as indication-based pricing (IBP) agreements for treatments that would typically not meet NICE’s cost-effectiveness criteria at the current price provides an opportunity to improve access to therapies in the UK, thereby improving public health

Introduction

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the health technology appraisal (HTA) body for England and Wales, technology appraisal process relies on companies submitting evidence, in line with NICE’s specification. If companies do not make a submission, which may be because the company feels that they cannot succeed with the appraisal, or if NICE is not satisfied that the evidence submission is adequate to reach a decision, then the appraisal is terminated. Consequently, NICE is unable to make a recommendation about the use of the technology in the National Health Service (NHS) and the medicine is not made routinely available (1). There has recently been a substantial rise in terminated NICE appraisals, with 16.6% of all appraisals for multi-indication and single-indication products terminated in 2017, increasing to 25.6% in 2022 (2). Terminations disproportionately impacted products with multiple indications; appraisals for multi-indication products accounted for 57.0% of all NICE submissions made post July 2016 to September 2023, but made up 63.9% of terminations (2). In 2022, appraisals for multi-indication products (n=37) accounted for 22% more submissions than single-indication appraisals (n=45), but resulted in double the number of terminations (2). Although the overall number of NICE terminations in 2023 fell slightly compared to 2022 (3, 4), the data still pose serious concerns about potential systemic pricing barriers affecting patient access in England and Wales. While some of these terminations may have been due to clinical trial failure, the rise in terminations indicates that companies may be increasingly choosing not to submit to NICE on the basis that demonstrating cost-effectiveness at the current price will be too difficult under the current system. The United Kingdom (UK) uniform pricing policy currently limits recognition of the therapeutic value of multi-indication products because the lowest cost-effective price determined for any indication must be implemented across all indications, including those already assessed by NICE (5). Consequently, the price of multi-indication products may not remain commensurate with therapeutic value. In practice this means that follow-on indications would have to be launched at loss despite increased numbers of patients receiving the drug overall. To prevent this, indication-based pricing (IBP) agreements could allow price to vary by indication, or take the form of a single price based on a weighted average of value and usage across indications, allowing the therapeutic value of each indication to be fully recognised (6). The issue has been highlighted in the recently published Commercial Framework for New Medicines (7), and grows ever more urgent as the number of treatments receiving regulatory approval for multiple indications increases; for example, 75% of all targeted treatments in oncology were licenced for multiple indications as of 2018 (8).

The increase in NICE terminations means that patients in the UK are missing out on innovative treatments that could improve their survival and increase their quality of life (QoL), and contributes to disparity with other European countries. For every 100 patients who access a new medicine in its first year of launch in other parts of the European Union (EU), just 21 patients in the UK receive access (9). In some cases, NICE terminations, which apply in England and Wales, have also created inequalities within the UK. Manufacturers are obliged to make a separate submission to the HTA body in Scotland, the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), which has issued a positive opinion for a small number of medicines with no NICE recommendation. For example, tisagenlecleucel was accepted for use within NHS Scotland for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) after two or more lines of systemic therapy under the end of life and ultra-orphan medicine process (2019) (10), but the corresponding NICE appraisal was terminated (2023) (11).

The standard measure used by NICE to determine the incremental benefit of one treatment over another is the quality-adjusted life year (QALY), where one QALY is equal to one year of life lived in perfect health. This provides a way of standardising assessments to ensure all treatments are judged fairly against a common unit. In the current study, the health impact of terminated NICE appraisals for products with multiple indications across multiple therapy areas was determined by calculating total annual QALYs foregone to the UK population, along with the impact on survival and QoL.

Methods

NICE appraisals for products with multiple indications terminated over the past 10 years (2014–2023) for reasons not related to clinical trial failure were identified. As no manufacturer submissions providing health outcomes are available for terminated appraisals, a targeted literature search was conducted to identify data on the health impact of the interventions. The potential incremental QALY loss vs. standard of care (SoC) resulting from NICE terminations was estimated for all indications and, where data were available, additional qualitative analysis was conducted to explore other potential health impacts that could not be quantified at the population level due to a lack of data. The potential impact on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated for oncology indications, and the overall QoL impact was calculated for non-oncology indications.

Identification of Terminated NICE Appraisals and Targeted Literature Searching

A “step-by-step” methodology was used to evaluate terminated NICE appraisals for products with multiple indications. The NICE website was searched to identify all terminated appraisals for multi-indication products over the past 10 years (2014–2023), excluding appraisals with evidence that termination was due to clinical trial failures, or appraisals followed by a resubmission.

A targeted literature search was conducted in February 2024 using PubMed and Google Scholar, to identify data on the health impact of the interventions belonging to the identified terminated appraisals. The eligibility criteria for publications related to the terminated indications are described in Table 1.

View this table:
Table 1: Publication eligibility criteria

Where available, epidemiology data for the patient populations of interest in the UK were sourced from a proprietary database (12), and supplementary targeted literature searching was used to fill any gaps in the available data. For most interventions for which NICE appraisals were terminated, the corresponding SMC submission was also terminated or there was no submission to the SMC. Therefore, all population size estimates in this study were based on the UK perspective.

Data Analysis

A proprietary database was used to determine the relevant drug-treatable incident/prevalent populations for all populations of interest, corresponding to the description in the terminated NICE appraisal (12). For all oncology indications, diagnosed incident populations, or populations based on relevant line of therapy, resectability status or stage of diagnosis, as described in the terminated appraisal, were estimated. For non-oncology indications, diagnosed prevalent populations, or corresponding populations with additional stratifications or a mutation positive treatable population, were estimated. United Nations projected population estimates were used to estimate the case counts for the year 2023 (13).

To determine the potential incremental QALY loss vs. current standard of care resulting from the identified NICE terminations, annual incremental QALYs were estimated for each indication using the total incremental QALYs and the time horizon reported in the literature for the indication. Where no time horizon was reported, a lifetime horizon was assumed. The actual time horizon (in years) for a lifetime model was estimated using both the national population life expectancy and the average age in the trial. Potential QALY losses were analysed both overall and within the oncology and non-oncology subgroups. To determine the potential impact on OS and PFS, mean survival was collected or estimated using published survival analyses for each oncology indication, and survival impact was aggregated to the population level based on population size. In cases where only median survival or survival rates at specific time points were provided, a simple exponential distribution was assumed to convert these values to mean survival, to facilitate analysis on a consistent scale. The UK general population life expectancy was included as an upper limit for the estimated PFS and OS in the analysis (14).

For the QoL analysis, considering that published studies used various disease specific QoL questionnaires, the absolute change in QoL scores is not informative. Therefore, the incremental percentage change in QoL scores from baseline was estimated. The overall QoL impact was calculated as the weighted average improvement, with weights assigned based on the estimated patient numbers for each indication. Additional qualitative analysis was conducted for all indications, where available, to explore other potential health impacts that could not be quantified at the population level due to a lack of data.

Role of Funding

This study was funded by Sanofi, with funding used to conduct the analysis and for writing support.

Results

Terminated NICE Appraisals for Products with Multiple Indications

In total, 25 NICE appraisals for products with multiple indications meeting the inclusion criteria were terminated between 2014 and 2023 (Figure 1), 23 of which were included in the final analysis once duplicated indications were removed to avoid double counting (Table 2). The exclusion of duplicated indications was based on the availability, relevance, and quality of the collected evidence. Of these 23 appraisals, seven were in oncology indications and 16 were in non-oncology indications.

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

Selection of terminated NICE appraisals for products with multiple indications

View this table:
Table 2: Summary of included NICE appraisals for multi-indication products

Targeted Literature Searching

Thirty-six studies were included in the final analyses, including 19 cost-effectiveness analyses, six meta-analyses or literature reviews, six randomized control trials, two Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reports, one NICE technical appraisal, one indirect treatment comparison study, and one observational study. Most of the included studies were based in the UK or had an international scope, with a selection originating from the US, Canada, Japan, Singapore, and China. The full details of the included studies can be found in Appendix 1.

Health Impact

Patient Demographics

Patient demographics for each analysis, aggregated across indications, are described in Table 3. The majority of patients included in the QALY analysis and the survival analysis (OS and PFS) were female, and the majority of patients included in the QoL analysis were male (Table 3). The mean age of patients included in the QALY analysis, the survival analysis, and the QoL analysis was 52 years, 66 years, and 50 years, respectively.

View this table:
Table 3: Patient demographic information across included studies

Population Estimates

Relevant incident/prevalent populations for all populations of interest are presented in Table 4. As most treatments with terminated NICE appraisals for multi-indication products either had a corresponding terminated SMC appraisal or were not submitted to the SMC, all population size estimates were based on the UK perspective. The estimated total population of interest was 831,871 patients (n=18,887 for oncology, n=812,984 for non-oncology).

View this table:
Table 4: Population size estimates

Impact on QALY

The potential incremental QALY loss resulting from the termination of NICE appraisals for multi-indication products for reasons not related to clinical trial failure was 16,079 QALYs/year, with 277 QALYs/year potentially lost for oncology populations and 15,802 QALYs/year for non-oncology populations (Table 5). The largest loss of incremental QALYs because of NICE terminations for any oncology indication was in the relapsed follicular lymphoma population, where an estimated 150 QALYs/year were lost. The largest loss of incremental QALYs because of NICE terminations for any non-oncology indication was in the overweight and obesity in young people aged 12 to 17 years population, where an estimated 9,361 QALYs/year were lost.

View this table:
Table 5: Potential annual QALY loss

Impact on Survival

To determine the potential impact of NICE terminations on OS and PFS in oncology, mean survival was collected or estimated using survival analysis for each indication, and survival impact was aggregated to a population level based on population size. As a result of NICE terminations for multi-indication products due to reasons not related to clinical trial failure, OS and PFS in the overall oncology population were potentially reduced by 113,109 months (9,426 years) and 109,064 months (9,089 years), respectively (Table 6). The largest impact on OS was in the relapsed, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer population, where OS was reduced by 48,324 months (4,027 years), and the largest impact on PFS was in the EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC population, where PFS was reduced by 77,819 months (6,485 years).

View this table:
Table 6: Potential impact on OS and PFS (oncology only)

Impact on QoL

The potential impact of the treatments for non-oncology indications for which NICE appraisals for multi-indication products were terminated for reasons not related to clinical trial failure on QoL was an incremental improvement of 13% (weighted average) (Table 7).

View this table:
Table 7: Potential impact of the treatments for which NICE appraisals for multi-indication products were terminated for reasons not related to clinical trial failure on patient QoL

Impact on Other Health Outcomes

Additional qualitative analysis was conducted to explore other potential health impacts that could not be quantified at the population level due to a lack of data. This analysis indicated that the technologies from the terminated NICE appraisals for multi-indication products assessed in this study could potentially reduce the need for rescue therapy, surgery, hospitalization, and transfusions (29, 33, 34, 38). Additionally, some of these technologies have been associated with a minor positive effect on caregiver QoL and their ability to achieve major life goals related to education, work, or family life (27).

Discussion

This analysis highlighted the impact of terminated NICE appraisals for multi-indication products on patient QALYs, survival, and QoL in the UK. The potential incremental QALY loss in the UK as a result of NICE appraisals for multi-indication products terminated for reasons not related to clinical trial failure was 16,079 QALYs/year across approximately 829,000 patients in the UK, with 277 QALYs/year potentially lost for oncology populations (approximately 18,900 patients) and 15,802 QALYs/year for non-oncology populations (approximately 810,000 patients). As a result of terminated NICE appraisals for multi-indication products for oncology indications, the mean OS and PFS in the overall oncology population were potentially reduced by 113,109 months (9,426 years) and 109,064 months (9,089 years), respectively, with the largest impact on OS in the relapsed, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer population and the largest impact on PFS in the EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC population. The potential impact of the treatments for non-oncology indications for which NICE appraisals were terminated for reasons not related to clinical trial failure on QoL was an incremental improvement of 13% (weighted average). Treatments not available to patients in the UK due to terminated NICE submissions could potentially also reduce the need for rescue therapy, surgery, hospitalization, and transfusions (29, 33, 34, 38), therefore reducing the burden on the NHS, or have a minor positive effect on caregivers’ QoL and their ability to achieve major life goals related to education, work, or family life (27).

The increase in terminated NICE appraisals for multi-indication products limits the availability of innovative healthcare technologies to NHS patients and creates disparity with other European countries, as well as within the UK, where these treatments have been reimbursed and may be available as the SoC. The 23 treatments and indications with terminated NICE appraisals included in the current, UK-based study were analysed across seven other European countries using HTA evaluation reports from national HTA agencies. Up to 21 were accepted for reimbursement in other countries (Figure 2) (62).

Figure 2:
Figure 2:

Reimbursement status† of the 23 treatments and indications for which NICE appraisals‡ were terminated across eight other European countries§

Overall, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations Patients (EFPIA) Waiting to Access Innovative Therapies (WAIT) Indicator 2023 Survey reported that England is ranked ninth in Europe for total availability of approved medicine (2019–2022), falling behind all other EU5 countries (63). On average, 43% of innovative medicines with marketing authorisation via the centralised European Medicines Agency (EMA) process between 2019 and 2022 (n=72/167 products) were available to patients in the EU, and 40% of available products had limited availability (n=29/72) (63). In England, whilst 56% of products (n=93/167) were available, 49% of available products had limited availability (n=46/93) (63). In comparison, 88% of products (n=147/167) were available in Germany, the country ranked first in Europe for total availability of approved medicine, only 1% of which had limited availability (n=1/147) (63).

The termination of NICE appraisals for multi-indication products for reasons not related to clinical trial failure has prevented NHS patients from accessing innovative healthcare technologies that could provide clinical benefit and are available in other European countries. An example of this is the treatment of adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), a type 2 inflammatory disease of the paranasal mucosa that is associated with significant morbidity and a high symptom burden, such as rhinorrhea, loss of smell, and nasal congestion, which reduces physical and mental HRQoL, including sleep quality (64, 65). Currently available interventions for patients with CRSwNP in the UK are associated with recurrence of nasal polyps and accompanying symptoms, along with a risk of adverse effects, particularly with long-term or repeated use (64), highlighting a clear unmet need for further treatment options. Three different biologics (dupilumab, omalizumab and mepolizumab), all multi-indication products, are licensed in Europe for the treatment of CRSwNP that is uncontrolled with intranasal corticosteroids (66–68). All have demonstrated significant improvements in the reduction of nasal polyps and accompanying symptoms (65, 69–71). The use of biologics is recommended by British and international guidelines for a clearly defined group of patients (72, 73), but none are available on the NHS due to terminated NICE appraisals (74–76). This means that patients in the UK have no access to any biologic therapy in this indication, despite these treatments being widely reimbursed outside the UK; for example, dupilumab is currently reimbursed for the treatment of patients with CRSwNP in 30 different countries, including all other EU5 countries (France, Germany, Italy and Spain), Canada, the US, and Japan.

The impact of the increase in terminated NICE appraisals for products with multiple indications for reasons not related to clinical trial failure on OS and PFS in oncology may contribute to the poor global ranking of the UK for cancer survival; the 2024 analysis of international data by the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce concluded that the UK ranks 28th, 26th and 21st for five-year survival of lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and liver cancer, respectively, out of 33 countries of comparable wealth and income levels (77). Of the eight terminated NICE appraisals for oncology indications assessed by this study, three were for patients with lung cancer (TA436 (15, 16)), pancreatic cancer (TA750 (21)) or liver cancer (TA609 (22)). The termination of NICE appraisals for these indications means that patients in the UK are unable to access innovative treatments which may have impacted their survival.

In countries such as France and Germany, the value of treatments is assessed primarily on the clinical benefits to patients, with pricing processes and negotiations conducted separately (78, 79). In countries such as Italy and Spain, multiple elements of value are assessed, including both clinical and cost-effectiveness (78, 79). However, in the UK, the incremental clinical benefits and costs are combined into one measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and value is assessed based on cost-effectiveness analysis (79, 80), with access decisions typically based on a willingness-to-pay threshold (80), which may hinder the reimbursement of products with multiple indications. The UK uniform pricing policy limits recognition of the value of multi-indication products, as the lowest cost-effective price determined for any indication must be implemented across all indications (5). Therefore, the UK uniform pricing policy is likely to be a factor for manufacturer-driven termination of appraisals to NICE. Given the approach to value assessment and pricing in the UK, more flexible pricing options are needed to ensure that access to treatments is in line with other countries in Europe.

A potential solution is IBP agreements, which can enable price to vary by indication and reflect the therapeutic value of the treatment (6). In a 2020 global survey across 16 countries (N=73; respondents represented industry [37%], payers [27%], regulators [16%] and academics [10%], among other stakeholders), including the UK (n=17), 78% of respondents agreed that some form of IBP agreements would be a good thing (81). More than half of all respondents (57%) thought that all stakeholders could stand to gain from IBP agreements (81). If successfully applied, IBP agreements can contribute towards better resource allocation, improve patient access to treatments, and incentivise research and development (6, 82), which could increase price competition at the indication-level, ultimately resulting in lower prices and better value to health systems (6). IBP agreements could take the form of a single price based on a weighted average of value and usage across indications (6). Alternatively, discount levels or rebates that vary by indication could be applied, or agreements between manufacturers and payers that adjust price according to realised performance (6). For example, value-based discounts have applied by individual insurers for dupilumab in the United States, Germany and Australia (83), the latter of which assesses value based on cost-effectiveness analysis like the UK. Adoption of IBP agreements could help to minimise the termination of NICE appraisals for products with multiple indications by allowing price to remain commensurate with the therapeutic value of the product in each indication, an increasingly urgent issue as the number of products with multiple indications rises, with 46.3% of NICE appraisals in development for multi-indication products as of September 2023 (84).

This study has several limitations. The results presented reflect potential QALY and survival foregone based on targeted literature searches conducted to identify data on the health impact of the interventions, as there are no manufacturer evidence submissions for the identified terminated appraisals. Due to the large number of indications, a targeted literature search was performed for each indication rather than a systematic literature review, which may have resulted in some relevant studies being missed in the analysis. Several assumptions were made due to lack of data: in the absence of direct evidence, studies published in a similar indication were used as proxies; an exponential distribution was employed for all survival analyses; and when calculating the annual incremental QALY, an even distribution across the modelled time horizon was assumed. Therefore, accurate estimates of QALY and survival loss are very difficult to assess. The intent behind this analysis is to provide a broad estimate of the health impact of the lack of access to treatments with multiple indications for which NICE appraisals have been terminated on the UK population, to stimulate discussion about the UK pricing environment.

Conclusion

The increasing number of NICE terminations, particularly for multi-indication products, means that patients are unable to access therapies that could potentially lengthen their lives and increase their QoL. Addressing access barriers to bring access in line with other European countries, through solutions like IBP agreements, could provide an opportunity to improve UK public health.

Author Declarations

The authors declare that all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, all necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained, all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms archived. The authors declare their understanding that any clinical trials described should be registered with an internationally recognized trial registry and the trial ID included in the manuscript.

Competing Interest Statement

The study was funded by Sanofi, and Helen Mitchell, Clement Halin, and Richard Hudson are employees and stockholders of Sanofi. Qian Xin, Jack Hide, Swarali Sunil Tadwalkar, and Sabera Hashim are employees of Clarivate, an institution which received funding from Sanofi to conduct the analysis and for writing support. The authors indicated no further potential conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by Sanofi, with funding used to conduct the analysis and for writing support from Clarivate.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Sanofi. The authors received writing support from Eleanor Ward and Sophie Doran, as well as quality checking/validation support for methods and calculations from Margaux Cornell and Carina Bektur, employees of Clarivate. The authors also received data extraction and manuscript review support from Adele Schulz.

References

  1. 1.↵
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual. Accessed June 2024. Available online at: [https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/resources/nice-health-technology-evaluations-the-manual-pdf-72286779244741]. 2023.
  2. 2.↵
    Mitchell H, Rashid H, Hastie J, Hudson R. HTA133 The number of NICE appraisal terminations is increasing, and products with multiple indications are disproportionally impacted. Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.ispor.org/docs/default-source/euro2023/isporeurope23mitchellhta133poster132056-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=753ac94e_0]. 2023.
  3. 3.↵
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guidance, NICE advice and quality standards. Accessed July 2024. Available online at: [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/published?ps=2500&from=2022-01-01&to=2022-12-31&ndt=Guidance]. 2022.
  4. 4.↵
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guidance, NICE advice and quality standards. Accessed July 2024. Available online at: [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/published?ps=2500&from=2023-01-01&to=2023-12-31&ndt=Guidance]. 2023.
  5. 5.↵
    National Health Service England. NHS commercial framework for new medicines. Accessed July 2024. Available online at: [https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/B1688-nhs-commercial-framework-for-new-medicines-june-22.pdf]. 2022.
  6. 6.↵
    Cole, A., Towse, A., Zamora, B. Indication-Based Pricing (IBP) Discussion Paper: Should drug prices differ by indication? Office of Health Economics Briefing. Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.ohe.org/publications/indication-based-pricing-ibp-discussion-paper-should-drug-prices-differ-indication/]. 2019.
  7. 7.↵
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NHS commercial framework for new medicines: [https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/nhs-commercial-framework-for-new-medicines-consultation-phase-1/].
  8. 8.↵
    IQVIA Institute. Global Oncology Trends 2018: Innovation, Expansion and Disruption. Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/institute-reports/global-oncology-trends-2018.pdf]. 2018.
  9. 9.↵
    The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Improving access to medicines in the UK. Accessed June 2024. Available online at: [https://www.abpi.org.uk/value-and-access/uk-medicine-pricing/improving-access-to-medicines-in-the-uk/]. 2024.
  10. 10.↵
    Scottish Medicines Consortium. Tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah). Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/medicines-advice/tisagenlecleucel-kymriah-resubmission-smc2200/]. 2019.
  11. 11.↵
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Tisagenlecleucel for treating relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma after 2 or more systemic therapies (terminated appraisal). Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta933]. 2023.
  12. 12.↵
    Clarivate. Clarivate Insights Platform. Accessed July 2024. Available online at: [https://insights.decisionresourcesgroup.com/biopharma].
  13. 13.↵
    United Nations. World Population Prospects 2022. Accessed June 2024. Available online at: [https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/]. 2022.
  14. 14.↵
    Office for National Statistics. Expectation of life, principal projection, UK. Accessed June 2024. Available online at: [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/expectationoflifeprincipalprojectionunitedkingdom]. 2022.
  15. 15.↵
    Li R, Li W, Zhang F, Li S. Bevacizumab plus erlotinib versus erlotinib alone for advanced EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Eur J Med Res. 2023 Aug 27;28(1):302.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Li WQ, Li LY, Chai J, Cui JW. Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Med. 2021 Mar;10(6):1964–74.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.
    Hinde S, Epstein D, Cook A, Embleton A, Perren T, Sculpher M. The Cost-Effectiveness of Bevacizumab in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Using Evidence from the ICON7 Trial. Value in Health. 2016 2016/06/01/;19(4):431–9.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.
    Chappell NP, Miller CR, Fielden AD, Barnett JC. Is FDA-Approved Bevacizumab Cost-Effective When Included in the Treatment of Platinum-Resistant Recurrent Ovarian Cancer? J Oncol Pract. 2016 Jul;12(7):e775–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.
    Chen L, Tan B, Gao X, Zhou K, Zhao J, Xuan J. EE666 Cost-Effectiveness of Duvelisib Versus the Bendamustine Plus Rituximab Regimen for Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Lymphoma Patients in China. Value in Health. 2023;26(12):S181–S2.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.
    Patel K, Danilov AV, Pagel JM. Duvelisib for CLL/SLL and follicular non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2019;134(19):1573–7.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Mirzayeh Fashami F, Levine M, Xie F, Blackhouse G, Tarride J-E. Olaparib versus Placebo in Maintenance Treatment of Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Cost– Utility Analysis from the Canadian Public Payer’s Perspective. Current Oncology. 2023;30(5):4688–99.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    Zheng H, Qin Z, Qiu X, Zhan M, Wen F, Xu T. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ramucirumab treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib with α-fetoprotein concentrations of at least 400 ng/ml. Journal of Medical Economics. 2020 2020/04/02;23(4):347–52.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.
    Qi CZ, Bollu V, Yang H, Dalal A, Zhang S, Zhang J. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tisagenlecleucel for the Treatment of Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in the United States. Clinical Therapeutics. 2021 2021/08/01/;43(8):1300–19.e8.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.
    Salles G, Schuster SJ, Dreyling MH, Fischer L, Kuruvilla J, Patten PEM, et al. Efficacy Comparison of Tisagenlecleucel Versus Standard of Care in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma. Blood. 2021 2021/11/23/;138:3528.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.
    Yong M, Wu YQ, Howlett J, Ballreich J, Walgama E, Thamboo A. Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing dupilumab and aspirin desensitization therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease. International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology. 2021;11(12):1626–36.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.
    Kim J, Kim DH, Hwang SH. Effectiveness of Dupilumab Treatment to Treat Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyposis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. jr. 2023 07;30(2):62–8.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Tice JA, Touchette DR, Lien P-W, Agboola F, Nikitin D, Pearson SD. The effectiveness and value of eculizumab and efgartigimod for generalized myasthenia gravis. Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy. 2022;28(1):119–24.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.
    Xiao H, Wu K, Liang X, Li R, Lai KP. Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Eculizumab for Treating Myasthenia Gravis. Frontiers in Immunology. 2021 2021-August-11;12.
  29. 29.↵
    Muppidi S, Utsugisawa K, Benatar M, Murai H, Barohn RJ, Illa I, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of eculizumab in generalized myasthenia gravis. Muscle & Nerve. 2019;60(1):14–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.
    Pittock SJ, Berthele A, Fujihara K, Kim HJ, Levy M, Palace J, et al. Eculizumab in Aquaporin-4– Positive Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder. New England Journal of Medicine. 2019;381(7):614–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.
    van den Brand JA, Verhave JC, Adang EM, Wetzels JF. Cost-effectiveness of eculizumab treatment after kidney transplantation in patients with atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2017;32(suppl_1):i115–i22.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Eculizumab for treating atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome. Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/hst1/chapter/4-Evidence-submissions]. 2015.
  33. 33.↵
    Cappellini MD, Viprakasit V, Taher AT, Georgiev P, Kuo KHM, Coates T, et al. A Phase 3 Trial of Luspatercept in Patients with Transfusion-Dependent β-Thalassemia. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;382(13):1219–31.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Htut TW, Phyu EM, Zaw MH, Myat YM, Thein KZ. Efficacy and Tolerability of Luspatercept in Patients with Lower Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome and Anemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phase III Randomized Controlled Trials. Blood. 2023 2023/11/02/;142:7417.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.
    Oliva EN, Platzbecker U, Garcia-Manero G, Mufti GJ, Santini V, Sekeres MA, et al. Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes with Ring Sideroblasts Treated with Luspatercept in the MEDALIST Phase 3 Trial. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022;11(1):27.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.
    Wu AC, Fuhlbrigge AL, Robayo MA, Shaker M. Cost-Effectiveness of Biologics for Allergic Diseases. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. 2021 2021/03/01/;9(3):1107–17.e2.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.
    Oykhman P, Paramo FA, Bousquet J, Kennedy DW, Brignardello-Petersen R, Chu DK. Comparative efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies and aspirin desensitization for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2022 2022/04/01/;149(4):1286–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CADTH Reimbursement Recommendation: Mepolizumab (Nucala). Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://canjhealthtechnol.ca/index.php/cjht/article/view/SR0735/1070#:~1070:text=Nucala%20should%20only%20be%20reimbursed,Did%20CADTH%20Make%20This%20Recommendation%3F]. 2022.
  39. 39.
    von Maltzahn R, Nelsen L, Bentley JH, Kwon N, Steinfeld J. PSY2 Impact of Mepolizumab on Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Hypereosinophilic Syndrome. Value in Health. 2021;24:S229.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.
    Alves Júnior JM, Prota FE, Villagelin D, Bley F, Bernardo WM. Mepolizumab in Hypereosinophilic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2021;76:e3271.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.
    Ross EL, Hutton DW, Stein JD, Bressler NM, Jampol LM, Glassman AR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Aflibercept, Bevacizumab, and Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema Treatment: Analysis From the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2016;134(8):888–96.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.
    Vijayan M, Jose R, Jose S, Abraham S, Joy J. STUDY ON QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT IN DIABETIC RETINOPATHY AMONG PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research. 2017 07/01;10:116.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.
    Escamilla Gómez V, García-Gutiérrez V, López Corral L, García Cadenas I, Pérez Martínez A, Márquez Malaver FJ, et al. Ruxolitinib in refractory acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease: a multicenter survey study. Bone Marrow Transplantation. 2020 2020/03/01;55(3):641–8.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.
    Ong JCM, Than H, Tripathi S, Gkitzia C, Wang X. A cost-effectiveness analysis of ruxolitinib versus best alternative therapy for patients with steroid-refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease aged > 12 years in Singapore. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. 2023 2023/05/31;21(1):34.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.
    Petryszyn P, Ekk-Cierniakowski P, Zurakowski G. Infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab and tofacitinib in moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: comparative cost-effectiveness study in Poland. Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology. 2020;13:1756284820941179.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Single Technology Appraisal: Vedolizumab (Entyvio®) for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis. Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta342/resources/ulcerative-colitis-moderate-to-severely-active-vedolizumab-id691-evaluation-report-part-22]. 2014.
  47. 47.
    Vu T, Meisel A, Mantegazza R, Annane D, Katsuno M, Aguzzi R, et al. Terminal Complement Inhibitor Ravulizumab in Generalized Myasthenia Gravis. NEJM Evidence. 2022;1(5):EVIDoa2100066.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.
    Clardy SL, Pittock SJ, Aktas O, Nakahara J, Isobe N, Centonze D, et al. Network Meta-analysis of Ravulizumab and Alternative Interventions for the Treatment of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder. Neurology and Therapy. 2024 2024/05/09.
  49. 49.
    Aungsumart S, Apiwattanakul M. Cost effectiveness of rituximab and mycophenolate mofetil for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in Thailand: Economic evaluation and budget impact analysis. PLoS ONE 2020 15(2): e0229028.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dupilumab for treating eosinophilic oesophagitis in people 12 years and over (terminated appraisal). Accessed June 2024. Available online at: [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta938]. 2023.
  51. 51.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Esketamine for treating major depressive disorder in adults at imminent risk of suicide (terminated appraisal). Accessed June 2024. Available online at: [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta899]. 2023.
  52. 52.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Semaglutide for managing overweight and obesity in young people aged 12 to 17 years (terminated appraisal). Accessed June 2024. Available online at: [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA910]. 2023.
  53. 53.
    Jakes RW, Kwon N, Nordstrom B, Goulding R, Fahrbach K, Tarpey J, et al. Burden of illness associated with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Clin Rheumatol. 2021 Dec;40(12):4829–36.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.
    Requena G, Logie J, Gibbons DC, Steinfeld J, Van Dyke MK. The increasing incidence and prevalence of hypereosinophilic syndrome in the United Kingdom. Immun Inflamm Dis. 2021 Dec;9(4):1447–51.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.
    Kühn F, Klar E. Surgical Principles in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis. Viszeralmedizin. 2015 Aug;31(4):246–50.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.
    Outtier A, Ferrante M. Chronic Antibiotic-Refractory Pouchitis: Management Challenges. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2021;14:277–90.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.
    Hor JY, Asgari N, Nakashima I, Broadley SA, Leite MI, Kissani N, et al. Epidemiology of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder and Its Prevalence and Incidence Worldwide. Front Neurol. 2020;11:501.
  58. 58.
    Navarro P, Arias Á, Arias-González L, Laserna-Mendieta EJ, Ruiz-Ponce M, Lucendo AJ. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the growing incidence and prevalence of eosinophilic oesophagitis in children and adults in population-based studies. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019 May;49(9):1116–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.
    Denee T, Kerr C, Richards S, Dennis N, Foix Colonier A, Fischer C, Larkin, F. Impact of Moderate-to-High-Suicide-Intent in Major Depressive Disorder: Patient Characteristics and Healthcare Resource Utilisation in England. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4181707 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.4181707.
  60. 60.
    House of Commons. Obesity statistics. Accessed June 2024. Available online at: [https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03336/SN03336.pdf]. 2023.
  61. 61.
    Sanofi, Data on file. 2024.
  62. 62.↵
    Prismaccess. Prismaccess API platform. Accessed June 2024. Available online at: [https://www.prismaccess-api.com/].
  63. 63.↵
    European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. EFPIA Patients W.A.I.T. Indicator 2023 Survey. Accessed June 2024. Available online at: [https://efpia.eu/media/vtapbere/efpia-patient-wait-indicator-2024.pdf]. 2024.
  64. 64.↵
    Bachert C, Bhattacharyya N, Desrosiers M, Khan AH. Burden of Disease in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps. J Asthma Allergy. 2021;14:127–34.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    Hopkins C, Mullol J, Khan AH, Lee SE, Wagenmann M, Hellings P, et al. Impact of Dupilumab on Sinonasal Symptoms and Outcomes in Severe Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024 Apr;170(4):1173–82.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    European Medicines Agency. Xolair Summary of Product Characteristics. Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/xolair-epar-product-information_en.pdf]. 2015.
  67. 67.
    European Medicines Agency. Dupixent Summary of Product Characteristics. Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/dupixent-epar-product-information_en.pdf]. 2022.
  68. 68.↵
    European Medicines Agency. Nucala Summary of Product Characteristics. Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/nucala-epar-product-information_en.pdf]. 2020.
  69. 69.↵
    Bachert C, Han JK, Desrosiers M, Hellings PW, Amin N, Lee SE, et al. Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52): results from two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials. The Lancet. 2019;394(10209):1638–50.
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.
    Gevaert P, Omachi TA, Corren J, Mullol J, Han J, Lee SE, et al. Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in nasal polyposis: 2 randomized phase 3 trials. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2020;146(3):595–605.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    Han JK, Bachert C, Fokkens W, Desrosiers M, Wagenmann M, Lee SE, et al. Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (SYNAPSE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Oct;9(10):1141–53.
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.↵
    Hopkins C, McKenzie JL, Anari S, Carrie S, Ramakrishnan Y, Kara N, et al. British Rhinological Society Consensus Guidance on the use of biological therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Clin Otolaryngol. 2021 Sep;46(5):1037–43.
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.↵
    Fokkens WJ, Viskens AS, Backer V, Conti D, De Corso E, Gevaert P, et al. EPOS/EUFOREA update on indication and evaluation of Biologics in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps 2023. Rhinology. 2023 Jun 1;61(3):194–202.
    OpenUrl
  74. 74.↵
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dupilumab for treating chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (terminated appraisal). Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta648]. 2020.
  75. 75.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Mepolizumab for treating severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (terminated appraisal). Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta847]. 2022.
  76. 76.↵
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Omalizumab for treating chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (terminated appraisal). Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta678]. 2021.
  77. 77.↵
    Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce. UK survival ranks among the worst in the world for deadliest cancers. Accessed July 2024. Available online at: [https://lesssurvivablecancers.org.uk/uk-survival-ranks-among-the-worst-in-the-world-for-deadliest-cancers/]. 2024.
  78. 78.↵
    Fontrier AM, Visintin E, Kanavos P. Similarities and Differences in Health Technology Assessment Systems and Implications for Coverage Decisions: Evidence from 32 Countries. Pharmacoecon Open. 2022 May;6(3):315–28.
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    European Commission. Mapping of HTA methodologies in EU and Norway. Accessed June 2024. Available online at: [https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2018-01/2018_mapping_methodologies_en_0.pdf]. 2017.
  80. 80.↵
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual. Accessed June 2024. Available online at: [https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36]. 2023.
  81. 81.↵
    Cole, A., Towse, A., Zamora, B. Indication-Based Pricing (IBP) Consultation Report. Office of Health Economics Contract Research. Accessed May 2024. Available online at: [https://www.ohe.org/publications/indication-based-pricing-ibp-discussion-paper-should-drug-prices-differ-indication/]. 2020.
  82. 82.↵
    Preckler V, Espín J. The Role of Indication-Based Pricing in Future Pricing and Reimbursement Policies: A Systematic Review. Value in Health. 2022 2022/04/01/;25(4):666–75.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    Maes I, Kok E, De Torck PJ, Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Simoens S. Not one, but many: developing a multi-indication pricing model for medicines in Belgium. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1199253.
    OpenUrl
  84. 84.↵
    Mitchell H, Rashid H, Hastie J, Hudson R. HTA133 The Number of NICE Appraisal Terminations Is Increasing, and Products With Multiple Indications Are Disproportionally Impacted. Value in Health. 2023;26(12):S344.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted August 07, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Is the United Kingdom (UK) medicines pricing policy failing patients? The impact of terminated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) appraisals for multi-indication products on patients
Helen Mitchell, Qian Xin, Jack Hide, Clement Halin, Swarali Sunil Tadwalkar, Sabera Hashim, Richard Hudson
medRxiv 2024.08.06.24311489; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.06.24311489
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area