Cancer Drug Fund roundly criticised as ‘wastage of resources’
pharmafile | April 28, 2017 | News story | Medical Communications | Cancer Drug Fund, Conservative, NHS, NICE, UK
The Cancer Drug Fund (CDF), which has now been absorbed into NICE, previous methods of funding have been fiercely criticised in a new study by UK researchers. The fund, which ran independently between 2010 and 2016, spent £1.27 billion to give patients access to experimental drugs.
Close to 100,000 patients received drugs through the CDF but the efficacy of the treatments were called into question after the CDF withdrew support for 24 out of the 47 treatments offered by the fund. This review was completed in 2016, after the fund had already been running for six years.
Lead author of the report Dr Ajay Aggarwal was quoted by The Guardian as commenting: “Eighteen of these reversals were based on evidence that existed prior to the introduction of the fund, suggesting wastage of resources, but equally that drugs were given that were ineffective and probably resulted in unnecessary toxicities for patients”.
The fund was set up as part of an election pledge by the Conservative party to increase funding into cancer drugs, to improve patient access. The fact that the fund bypassed NICE’s process meant that many of the drugs were allowed to be funded despite their cost-effectiveness being in question.
The study by Kings College London found that the drugs provided an extra 3.2 months of survival, on average. Some drugs boosted survival by as much as 15.7 months, while others only managed a benefit of 1.4 months. Though the upper-end may look impressive, for those on the lower end of the scale the side-effects of treatment with the drugs may have seriously damaged the quality of life for patients.
Cancer charities that backed the fund have since come in for criticism for their lack of criticism of the way the scheme had been set up. In response, The Institute of Cancer Research’s Chief Executive, Paul Workman, released a statement: “The old Cancer Drugs Fund was always just a sticking plaster and we welcomed its overhaul because it was too expensive, unsustainable and provided little certainty to patients and their doctors. The new, more evidence-based system, where NICE appraises all cancer drugs, should address some of the issues highlighted in this study.”
In contract, Dr Paul Catchpole, of the ABPI, which represents the pharmaceutical industry, was defiant on the benefits of the CDF: “Sensationalist and misleading headlines do nothing to help ease the misery faced by cancer patients. The authors acknowledge that no real world comprehensive outcomes data has been collected or published by the NHS on cancer drugs fund medicines to substantiate the claims. It is interesting to note that a majority of the medicines which were funded by the cancer drugs fund are now going on to be approved by NICE for routine use on the NHS.”
Ben Hargreaves
Related Content
A community-first future: which pathways will get us there?
In the final Gateway to Local Adoption article of 2025, Visions4Health caught up with Julian …
The Pharma Files: with Dr Ewen Cameron, Chief Executive of West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Pharmafile chats with Dr Ewen Cameron, Chief Executive of West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, about …
Is this an Oppenheimer moment for the life sciences industry?
By Sabina Syed, Managing Director at Visions4Health In the history of science, few initiatives demonstrate …
