Patients suffering from an aggressive form of breast cancer (BC) are being failed by the NHS and deprived of more treatment options as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) rejects GlaxoSmithKline's oral Tyverb (lapatinib) in combination with capecitabine for the treatment of ErbB2-positive BC.
BC is now the most common cancer in the UK. In 2006, >45,500 women were diagnosed with the disease; that is approximately 125 women a day, and in the last ten years, incidence rates in the UK have increased by 6 per cent. As an oral treatment, lapatinib gives patients suffering from ErbB2-positive BC the freedom to spend precious additional months with friends and family without the restrictive ties of regular hospital visits.
The decision to deny NHS patients access to treatment with lapatinib follows the request in July by NICE's Appeal Panel that the Appraisal Committee should reconsider lapatinib under the Institute's end of life (EOL) supplementary guidance. The EOL guidance was specifically developed to help small numbers of patients who have only a few months to live, gain access to important new medicines. GSK submitted additional data demonstrating that lapatinib met all three of the EOL criteria.
NICE recognised that lapatinib met the EOL criteria, acknowledging that additional data submitted by GSK demonstrated that the drug could offer a significant extension to life, but it felt lapatinib was still not a cost-effective use of NHS resources. This decision has been made despite GSK offering the Tyverb patient access programme, which allows NHS patients in the UK free access to lapatinib for the first three months of treatment.
GSK proposed the patient access programme in the UK when NICE indicated early on in its review that it did not consider lapatinib to be cost effective in treating this patient population. The company will continue to honour the access programme for NHS trusts in the UK. A total of 26 trusts have already enrolled in this programme, reflecting the clinical demand for lapatinib and recognising the potential cost effectiveness for the NHS. Simon Jose, General Manager of GSK UK commented: "it is disappointing that, despite acknowledging Tyverb meets these criteria and GSK offering to bear the cost of lapatinib for up to 12 weeks, NICE is still proposing to reject lapatinib. We will continue to offer our patient access programme to individual NHS Trusts to ensure patients have access to Tyverb."
This decision will result in 2,000 UK women a year being denied access to lapatinib on the NHS. These are women for whom there are very few other treatment options available to them at this stage of their disease. By comparison, lapatinib is funded in 18 other European countries for the treatment of women whose advanced BC has returned despite treatment with standard chemotherapy regimes, including intravenous Herceptin (trastuzumab).
Alice Rossiter - Cancer Drug News Editor
Showing posts with label National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
MDS patients failed by NHS
Adding weight to a previous editorial published in Cancer Drug News (see Issue No. 377 - "Is NICE depriving UK patients' options?"), the results of a new survey, launched by the UK MDS Patient Support Group, have shown that almost one-fifth (18 per cent) of patients suffering from myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) could have lived for longer if they had been able to access treatments that are currently not approved by the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for treatment on the NHS. According to current estimates, just fewer than 2,000 new cases of MDS are diagnosed in the UK each year.
The survey of 100 haematologists from England, Wales and Scotland revealed that 56 per cent of blood cancer (BC) experts believe that less priority is given to rarer cancers versus other common cancers. The majority of BC experts (89 per cent) surveyed have faced situations where they have been unable to provide treatments for their BC patients that could have potentially extended their patients' survival as these treatments were not readily available on the NHS or not yet approved by NICE.
David Hall, Chairman of MDS UK Patient Support Group, commented: "these results are alarming and distressing. Denying any patient access to life-extending, blood cancer drugs is immoral and contradicts the very principles upon which the NHS was founded. These new treatments have been thoroughly tested and their efficacy demonstrated. It is ironic that the perceived constraints to availability in the UK seem to be based exclusively on inadequate finance."
The MDS UK Patient Support Group has called upon the Department of Health to re-address this inequality by making proven treatments available to all patients whose life span may otherwise be unnecessarily curtailed. These results have highlighted the gaps in access to treatments that can prolong and improve the lives of patients living with MDS and other BCs. Despite significant advances in the treatment of MDS, the majority of patients cannot get access to and, in some cases, are not even informed about new life-extending drugs until they have been appraised and approved by NICE. The impact of waiting even a month for treatment for MDS can result in a life or death situation.
Hilary Jackson, Cancer Research UK's policy manager, noted that: "where NICE has not provided advice on a particular drug, it is up to Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) to decide which they will fund...without NICE approval, we need a fair approach to ensure that doctors, patients and the PCTs themselves are clear about how funding decisions will be made."
It seems concerning that patients are not getting access to drugs that could extend their lives, which have been thoroughly investigated and their efficacy shown, and, in some cases, are available in comparable countries.
Alice Rossiter
Cancer Drug News Editor
The survey of 100 haematologists from England, Wales and Scotland revealed that 56 per cent of blood cancer (BC) experts believe that less priority is given to rarer cancers versus other common cancers. The majority of BC experts (89 per cent) surveyed have faced situations where they have been unable to provide treatments for their BC patients that could have potentially extended their patients' survival as these treatments were not readily available on the NHS or not yet approved by NICE.
David Hall, Chairman of MDS UK Patient Support Group, commented: "these results are alarming and distressing. Denying any patient access to life-extending, blood cancer drugs is immoral and contradicts the very principles upon which the NHS was founded. These new treatments have been thoroughly tested and their efficacy demonstrated. It is ironic that the perceived constraints to availability in the UK seem to be based exclusively on inadequate finance."
The MDS UK Patient Support Group has called upon the Department of Health to re-address this inequality by making proven treatments available to all patients whose life span may otherwise be unnecessarily curtailed. These results have highlighted the gaps in access to treatments that can prolong and improve the lives of patients living with MDS and other BCs. Despite significant advances in the treatment of MDS, the majority of patients cannot get access to and, in some cases, are not even informed about new life-extending drugs until they have been appraised and approved by NICE. The impact of waiting even a month for treatment for MDS can result in a life or death situation.
Hilary Jackson, Cancer Research UK's policy manager, noted that: "where NICE has not provided advice on a particular drug, it is up to Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) to decide which they will fund...without NICE approval, we need a fair approach to ensure that doctors, patients and the PCTs themselves are clear about how funding decisions will be made."
It seems concerning that patients are not getting access to drugs that could extend their lives, which have been thoroughly investigated and their efficacy shown, and, in some cases, are available in comparable countries.
Alice Rossiter
Cancer Drug News Editor
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Is NICE depriving UK patients' options?
During the past week, the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has issued mixed recommendations on the use of drugs for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC).
NICE has not recommended Genentech's (Roche) Avastin (bevacizumab), Bayer HealthCare/Onyx Pharmaceuticals' Nexavar (sorafenib) and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals' Torisel (temsirolimus) as first-line treatment options for advanced and/or metastatic RCC. In addition, Nexavar and Pfizer's Sutent (sunitinib) are not recommended for second-line treatment, although both are licensed in the EU for this therapy. According to NICE, the evidence to support the use of the first- and second-line treatments is not strong enough to justify using NHS funds, which could be used for other cancer treatment programmes or in other treatment areas.
In response to this NICE decision, Roche is considering all options. The Appraisal Committee accepted that Avastin in combination with interferon has a similar clinical and cost-effectiveness profile to the already-approved Sutent, but turned it down because it has a licence in other indications, despite the fact that these indications are not currently routinely reimbursed on the NHS.
John Melville, General Manager of Roche UK, commented: "this decision is entirely illogical and neither addresses the needs of patients with renal cancer, nor advances the innovation agenda. Avastin demonstrates the same value to the NHS as sunitinib and this guidance goes against the spirit of end-of-life criteria, which were devised for this very setting."
On a positive note, NICE has recommended the use of Merck Serono's (Merck KGaA) Erbitux (cetuximab) in combination with FOLFOX for the first-line treatment of MCRC, but only when all of the following criteria are met: (a) the primary colorectal tumour has been resected or is potentially operable; (b) the metastatic disease is confined to the liver and is unresectable; (c) the patient is fit enough to undergo surgery to resect the primary colorectal tumour and to undergo liver surgery if the metastases become resectable after treatment with Erbitux; and (d) the manufacturer rebates 16 per cent of the amount of Erbitux used on a per patient basis.
Further, NICE recommended that patients who meet the above criteria should receive treatment with Erbitux for no more than 16 weeks. After this period, treatment with Erbitux should stop and the patient should be assessed for resection of liver metastases. It was also recommended that people with MCRC with metastatic disease confined to the liver who receive Erbitux should have their treatment managed only by multidisciplinary teams that involve highly-specialised liver surgical services. The Appraisal Committee concluded that under the specific circumstances outlined in the guidance, the cost of Erbitux in relation to how well it works is an effective use of NHS resources.
Although the NICE guidance on the use of Erbitux means many MCRC patients will have a new treatment opinion, the decision not to recommend Avastin, Nexavar or Torisel as a first-line therapy for RCC will reduce treatment options for UK patients who are fighting this disease, yet is available for the same indication in comparable countries.
Alice Rossiter - Cancer Drug News Editor
NICE has not recommended Genentech's (Roche) Avastin (bevacizumab), Bayer HealthCare/Onyx Pharmaceuticals' Nexavar (sorafenib) and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals' Torisel (temsirolimus) as first-line treatment options for advanced and/or metastatic RCC. In addition, Nexavar and Pfizer's Sutent (sunitinib) are not recommended for second-line treatment, although both are licensed in the EU for this therapy. According to NICE, the evidence to support the use of the first- and second-line treatments is not strong enough to justify using NHS funds, which could be used for other cancer treatment programmes or in other treatment areas.
In response to this NICE decision, Roche is considering all options. The Appraisal Committee accepted that Avastin in combination with interferon has a similar clinical and cost-effectiveness profile to the already-approved Sutent, but turned it down because it has a licence in other indications, despite the fact that these indications are not currently routinely reimbursed on the NHS.
John Melville, General Manager of Roche UK, commented: "this decision is entirely illogical and neither addresses the needs of patients with renal cancer, nor advances the innovation agenda. Avastin demonstrates the same value to the NHS as sunitinib and this guidance goes against the spirit of end-of-life criteria, which were devised for this very setting."
On a positive note, NICE has recommended the use of Merck Serono's (Merck KGaA) Erbitux (cetuximab) in combination with FOLFOX for the first-line treatment of MCRC, but only when all of the following criteria are met: (a) the primary colorectal tumour has been resected or is potentially operable; (b) the metastatic disease is confined to the liver and is unresectable; (c) the patient is fit enough to undergo surgery to resect the primary colorectal tumour and to undergo liver surgery if the metastases become resectable after treatment with Erbitux; and (d) the manufacturer rebates 16 per cent of the amount of Erbitux used on a per patient basis.
Further, NICE recommended that patients who meet the above criteria should receive treatment with Erbitux for no more than 16 weeks. After this period, treatment with Erbitux should stop and the patient should be assessed for resection of liver metastases. It was also recommended that people with MCRC with metastatic disease confined to the liver who receive Erbitux should have their treatment managed only by multidisciplinary teams that involve highly-specialised liver surgical services. The Appraisal Committee concluded that under the specific circumstances outlined in the guidance, the cost of Erbitux in relation to how well it works is an effective use of NHS resources.
Although the NICE guidance on the use of Erbitux means many MCRC patients will have a new treatment opinion, the decision not to recommend Avastin, Nexavar or Torisel as a first-line therapy for RCC will reduce treatment options for UK patients who are fighting this disease, yet is available for the same indication in comparable countries.
Alice Rossiter - Cancer Drug News Editor
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
GSK looks to expand use of lapatinib; to appeal NICE decision
GlaxoSmithKline has simultaneously submitted regulatory applications in the EU and US to expand the use of Tyverb/Tykerb (lapatinib) to include the first-line treatment of breast cancer (BC). The variation to the EU marketing authorisation and the sNDA were submitted, respectively, to the EMEA and to the FDA for the combination of lapatinib plus an aromatase inhibitor for use in patients with hormone-sensitive, metastatic BC.
The submissions are based on results from the recent EGF30008 study, which evaluated lapatinib plus Novartis' aromatase inhibitor, Femara (letrozole), in women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic BC that may or may not overexpress the HER2-positive receptor. Results from the study showed that women experienced a 5.2 month increase in median progression-free survival when treated with lapatinib+letrozole, compared to those treated with letrozole alone. Results from the intent-to-treat group showed that lapatinib+letrozole provided an additional 1.1 month before disease progression, compared to letrozole treatment alone.
Lapatinib, in combination with capecitabine, is currently authorised in 74 countries. In March 2007, the FDA approved lapatinib in combination with capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic BC whose tumours overexpress HER2/ErbB2 and who have received prior therapy, including an anthracycline, a taxane and Herceptin (trastuzumab). In June 2008, the EC granted a conditional marketing authorisation for lapatinib in all 27 EU member states.
According to Espicom Business Intelligence, sales of lapatinib in BC could reach US$1,732 million by 2014; however, longer-term sales will be partially impacted by the launch of other targeted therapies, such as Roche’s pertuzumab, which is anticipated to be launched in 2012. Even if the drug is approved for first-line treatment, it may still not reach patients in some countries. GSK has recently stated that it is to appeal the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) decision in March to recommend against funding lapatinib, in combination with capecitabine, for women with advanced BC. If successful, the appeal will enable the NHS to offer a similar level of access to lapatinib as other EU countries where it has been granted funding, which incclude Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Spain, Germany, Italy and Ireland.
Although NICE acknowledged that lapatinib is an effective treatment for eligible women, it was rejected on the grounds that it was not a cost-effective use of NHS resources. This decision was reached despite GSK offering a patient access programme whereby the cost of up to 12 weeks' treatment would be paid by the company. GSK's analysis suggests that the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib in the context of the patient access programme (sensitive to the proportion of trastuzumab used in clinical practice) demonstrated a cost per QALY gain for lapatinib of just over £16,000 versus the usual care given to these patients, which includes standard chemotherapy and trastuzumab regimens.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
The submissions are based on results from the recent EGF30008 study, which evaluated lapatinib plus Novartis' aromatase inhibitor, Femara (letrozole), in women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic BC that may or may not overexpress the HER2-positive receptor. Results from the study showed that women experienced a 5.2 month increase in median progression-free survival when treated with lapatinib+letrozole, compared to those treated with letrozole alone. Results from the intent-to-treat group showed that lapatinib+letrozole provided an additional 1.1 month before disease progression, compared to letrozole treatment alone.
Lapatinib, in combination with capecitabine, is currently authorised in 74 countries. In March 2007, the FDA approved lapatinib in combination with capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic BC whose tumours overexpress HER2/ErbB2 and who have received prior therapy, including an anthracycline, a taxane and Herceptin (trastuzumab). In June 2008, the EC granted a conditional marketing authorisation for lapatinib in all 27 EU member states.
According to Espicom Business Intelligence, sales of lapatinib in BC could reach US$1,732 million by 2014; however, longer-term sales will be partially impacted by the launch of other targeted therapies, such as Roche’s pertuzumab, which is anticipated to be launched in 2012. Even if the drug is approved for first-line treatment, it may still not reach patients in some countries. GSK has recently stated that it is to appeal the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) decision in March to recommend against funding lapatinib, in combination with capecitabine, for women with advanced BC. If successful, the appeal will enable the NHS to offer a similar level of access to lapatinib as other EU countries where it has been granted funding, which incclude Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Spain, Germany, Italy and Ireland.
Although NICE acknowledged that lapatinib is an effective treatment for eligible women, it was rejected on the grounds that it was not a cost-effective use of NHS resources. This decision was reached despite GSK offering a patient access programme whereby the cost of up to 12 weeks' treatment would be paid by the company. GSK's analysis suggests that the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib in the context of the patient access programme (sensitive to the proportion of trastuzumab used in clinical practice) demonstrated a cost per QALY gain for lapatinib of just over £16,000 versus the usual care given to these patients, which includes standard chemotherapy and trastuzumab regimens.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
Thursday, February 19, 2009
NICE and SMC tighten purse strings
The UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has issued its final appraisal document recommending the use of Pfizer's Sutent (sunitinib) as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, sunitinib is the only one of four drugs being appraised that has been preliminarily cleared for use on the NHS, once again raising the question of drug access in the UK compared to the rest of Europe.
NICE is also currently appraising the use of Roche/Genentech's Avastin (bevacizumab), Bayer/Onyx Pharmaceuticals' Nexavar (sorafenib) and Wyeth's Torisel (temsirolimus) for the treatment of advanced and/or metastatic RCC. Following the independent advisory Committee meeting on 14th January, NICE has decided to split this appraisal in two in order to get guidance out to the NHS as quickly as possible. In the first appraisal, sunitinib is recommended as a first-line treatment option in advanced and/or metastatic RCC for patients who are suitable for immunotherapy with an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Sunitinib demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival versus interferon alpha. The median survival of patients treated with sunitinib exceeded two years. In September 2008, NICE had issued an appraisal consultation document that advised against the use of all four medicines for the treatment of advanced and/or metastatic RCC. The latest announcement reverses NICE's previous recommendation regarding the coverage of sunitinib, making it the only one of the four medicines under review, that is so far recommended for coverage.
Sunitinib, an oral multi-kinase inhibitor, was first approved in January 2006 for advanced RCC. The drug works by blocking multiple molecular targets implicated in the growth, proliferation and spread of cancer. Pfizer has agreed a patient access scheme with the Department of Health, in which the first treatment cycle of sunitinib is free to the NHS.
In the second appraisal, bevacizumab, sorafenib and temsirolimus are not recommended as first-line treatment options for advanced and/or metastatic RCC. In addition, the two drugs also licensed for second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic RCC, sorafenib and sunitinib, are not recommended for this indication. Guidance on bevacizumab, sorafenib and temsirolimus for first-line treatment and sorafenib and sunitinib for the second-line treatment of RCC is available for public consultation via NICE until 4th March.
In a statement from Wyeth, the company commented that it believes that denying patients access to the benefits of temsirolimus in extending life-expectancy compared to standard existing therapy is a devastating and cruel blow to patients and their families. Temsirolimus, despite being found to be clinically effective, has been deemed not to be cost-effective in the current assessment.
Similarly disappointing news was announced in Scotland, as the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) published its guidance on the use of GSK's Tyverb (lapatinib) and Eli Lilly's Alimta (pemetrexed), ruling that in both cases the manufacturer did not present a sufficiently robust economic case to gain acceptance. Lapatinib is approved in Europe, in combination with capecitabine, for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer, while pemetrexed is indicated, in combination with cisplatin, for the first-line treatment of patients with locally-advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer other than predominantly squamous cell histology. Despite clinical evidence that the two drugs can extend patients' lives by around two months and six weeks, respectively, the price that this comes at is still not seen as cost-effective.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
NICE is also currently appraising the use of Roche/Genentech's Avastin (bevacizumab), Bayer/Onyx Pharmaceuticals' Nexavar (sorafenib) and Wyeth's Torisel (temsirolimus) for the treatment of advanced and/or metastatic RCC. Following the independent advisory Committee meeting on 14th January, NICE has decided to split this appraisal in two in order to get guidance out to the NHS as quickly as possible. In the first appraisal, sunitinib is recommended as a first-line treatment option in advanced and/or metastatic RCC for patients who are suitable for immunotherapy with an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Sunitinib demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival versus interferon alpha. The median survival of patients treated with sunitinib exceeded two years. In September 2008, NICE had issued an appraisal consultation document that advised against the use of all four medicines for the treatment of advanced and/or metastatic RCC. The latest announcement reverses NICE's previous recommendation regarding the coverage of sunitinib, making it the only one of the four medicines under review, that is so far recommended for coverage.
Sunitinib, an oral multi-kinase inhibitor, was first approved in January 2006 for advanced RCC. The drug works by blocking multiple molecular targets implicated in the growth, proliferation and spread of cancer. Pfizer has agreed a patient access scheme with the Department of Health, in which the first treatment cycle of sunitinib is free to the NHS.
In the second appraisal, bevacizumab, sorafenib and temsirolimus are not recommended as first-line treatment options for advanced and/or metastatic RCC. In addition, the two drugs also licensed for second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic RCC, sorafenib and sunitinib, are not recommended for this indication. Guidance on bevacizumab, sorafenib and temsirolimus for first-line treatment and sorafenib and sunitinib for the second-line treatment of RCC is available for public consultation via NICE until 4th March.
In a statement from Wyeth, the company commented that it believes that denying patients access to the benefits of temsirolimus in extending life-expectancy compared to standard existing therapy is a devastating and cruel blow to patients and their families. Temsirolimus, despite being found to be clinically effective, has been deemed not to be cost-effective in the current assessment.
Similarly disappointing news was announced in Scotland, as the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) published its guidance on the use of GSK's Tyverb (lapatinib) and Eli Lilly's Alimta (pemetrexed), ruling that in both cases the manufacturer did not present a sufficiently robust economic case to gain acceptance. Lapatinib is approved in Europe, in combination with capecitabine, for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer, while pemetrexed is indicated, in combination with cisplatin, for the first-line treatment of patients with locally-advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer other than predominantly squamous cell histology. Despite clinical evidence that the two drugs can extend patients' lives by around two months and six weeks, respectively, the price that this comes at is still not seen as cost-effective.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
2009: the year ahead
One of the major events scheduled for 2009 is the finalisation of Roche's acquisition of Genentech. Having been initially outlined in July 2008, when Roche proposed to acquire the outstanding publicly-held interest in Genentech for US$89.00 per share in cash, or a total payment of approximately US$43.7 billion, the deal has since stalled. After considering the offer, Genentech concluded that Roche's proposal significantly undervalued the company.
At the time, the offer represented a one-day premium of 8.8 per cent to Genentech's closing price of US$81.82 on 18th July and a one-month premium of 19.0 per cent to Genentech's closing price of US$74.76 on 20th June. However, many analysts predicted that the move undervalued the company and saw Genentech's refusal coming, pricing the company higher at between US$100.00 and US$120.00 per share. Genentech shares have recently been trading between US$81.00 and US$84.00.
With both companies refusing to move, the current situation could ultimately work in either's favour. With Roche drawing out the process, it may be possible to extract a lower price for Genentech's remaining shares. However, it looks more likely that a delay will benefit Genentech shareholders as final results from the NSABP C-08 study of Avastin (bevacizumab) plus chemotherapy in adjuvant early-stage colorectal cancer are expected in the first half of 2009. Following an interim analysis in October 2008, the independent Data Monitoring Committee overseeing the trial recommended that the study continued as planned. Investors are watching the study closely since it may open up a major new market for Avastin and the news may strengthen Genentech's position when negotiating a higher bid from Roche. Additional results are expected from studies investigating Avastin in breast cancer and Rituxan (rituximab) as a potential lupus treatment, possibly further strengthening Genentech's case.
With the current financial climate set to continue into 2009, there are sure to be more companies adopting cost saving programmes and re-aligning their activities to focus on drugs that offer near-term value. It is expected that the development of many early-stage drug candidates will be put on hold or discontinued as companies look to streamline and reduce cash expenditure. As was seen in 2008, funding will still be a big hurdle for biotech companies, with many expected to merge and consolidate or disappear altogether.
Access to new drugs looks set to remain an issue. However, in the UK, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has just issued new guidelines, which should improve access to life-extending drugs for people dying from cancer. NICE appraisal committees will now follow the new guidelines, which were drawn up following a public consultation, when reviewing treatments that may extend the lives of patients who are terminally ill.
The guidelines cover drugs that would normally be deemed too expensive for standard NHS use and which are licensed for a terminal illness affecting a small number of patients with less than two years to live. The drugs will have to meet set criteria in order to be approved for NHS use, including being shown to extend life by at least three months compared with standard NHS treatment. Experts estimate that some 10,000 cancer patients a year in the UK could benefit from the move. However, how these guidelines are put into practice over the next 12 months will give more of an indication of real impact.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
At the time, the offer represented a one-day premium of 8.8 per cent to Genentech's closing price of US$81.82 on 18th July and a one-month premium of 19.0 per cent to Genentech's closing price of US$74.76 on 20th June. However, many analysts predicted that the move undervalued the company and saw Genentech's refusal coming, pricing the company higher at between US$100.00 and US$120.00 per share. Genentech shares have recently been trading between US$81.00 and US$84.00.
With both companies refusing to move, the current situation could ultimately work in either's favour. With Roche drawing out the process, it may be possible to extract a lower price for Genentech's remaining shares. However, it looks more likely that a delay will benefit Genentech shareholders as final results from the NSABP C-08 study of Avastin (bevacizumab) plus chemotherapy in adjuvant early-stage colorectal cancer are expected in the first half of 2009. Following an interim analysis in October 2008, the independent Data Monitoring Committee overseeing the trial recommended that the study continued as planned. Investors are watching the study closely since it may open up a major new market for Avastin and the news may strengthen Genentech's position when negotiating a higher bid from Roche. Additional results are expected from studies investigating Avastin in breast cancer and Rituxan (rituximab) as a potential lupus treatment, possibly further strengthening Genentech's case.
With the current financial climate set to continue into 2009, there are sure to be more companies adopting cost saving programmes and re-aligning their activities to focus on drugs that offer near-term value. It is expected that the development of many early-stage drug candidates will be put on hold or discontinued as companies look to streamline and reduce cash expenditure. As was seen in 2008, funding will still be a big hurdle for biotech companies, with many expected to merge and consolidate or disappear altogether.
Access to new drugs looks set to remain an issue. However, in the UK, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has just issued new guidelines, which should improve access to life-extending drugs for people dying from cancer. NICE appraisal committees will now follow the new guidelines, which were drawn up following a public consultation, when reviewing treatments that may extend the lives of patients who are terminally ill.
The guidelines cover drugs that would normally be deemed too expensive for standard NHS use and which are licensed for a terminal illness affecting a small number of patients with less than two years to live. The drugs will have to meet set criteria in order to be approved for NHS use, including being shown to extend life by at least three months compared with standard NHS treatment. Experts estimate that some 10,000 cancer patients a year in the UK could benefit from the move. However, how these guidelines are put into practice over the next 12 months will give more of an indication of real impact.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
NICE set to block Tyverb's use on NHS
A draft recommendation by the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in a second technology appraisal consultation document (ACD) has indicated that GlaxoSmithKline's Tyverb (lapatinib; known as Tykerb in the US and certain other markets) should not be used in the NHS, except in clinical trials. The oral drug is currently approved in the EU in combination with Xeloda (capecitabine) for the treatment of women with ErbB2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer (BC), whose disease has stopped responding to Herceptin (trastuzumab). The draft guidance comes despite GSK proposing a patient access programme (PAP), where it would bear the cost of the drug for the first 12 weeks of treatment.
Lapatinib, in combination with capecitabine, is the only treatment option that is licensed for use in patients with this aggressive form of advanced BC, who have limited treatment options remaining if their cancer has continued to grow despite treatment with standard chemotherapies and trastuzumab for advanced disease. In a pivotal trial that led to its EU licence, lapatinib+capecitabine significantly increased the time-to-progression (TTP) for patients with ErbB2-positive BC compared with capecitabine alone. In its draft guidance, NICE acknowledged that lapatinib is a clinically-effective option and noted that lapatinib+capecitabine was associated with improved TTP and progression-free survival.
In recognition that the first ACD from NICE did not consider lapatinib to be cost effective in treating this patient population, GSK proposed a PAP, where the company would bear the cost of lapatinib for all eligible patients, for up to the first 12 weeks of treatment. The NHS would commence payment only for those patients who continue to receive clinical benefit beyond 12 weeks. Criteria for continuation of therapy beyond 12 weeks would be determined by the individual person's clinician, based on reduction in lesion size, presence of stable disease or improvement in other response criteria such as symptoms. This programme was designed to provide access to all eligible patients and deliver cost-effectiveness at a threshold that should have been acceptable to NICE.
The cost effectiveness of lapatinib+capecitabine was supported by a comparison to trastuzumab-containing regimens and capecitabine alone, representing the established treatment regimens in NHS clinical practice. Whilst NICE accepted that trastuzumab is widely used following progression of the disease, the Committee suggested that it was unlikely to be cost effective, and therefore did not accept trastuzumab as a valid comparator. According to GSK, the way in which the decision was made makes it very difficult to ever demonstrate the cost effectiveness of lapatinib in this patient population, even in light of the proposed PAP.
Following the ACD, GSK will continue to work with NICE to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of lapatinib in all eligible patients by seeking to validate trastuzumab as a legitimate comparator. The next meeting will be held on 19th November, however, it looks as though NICE will stick with its current draft guidance and recommend against funding lapatinib on the NHS.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
Lapatinib, in combination with capecitabine, is the only treatment option that is licensed for use in patients with this aggressive form of advanced BC, who have limited treatment options remaining if their cancer has continued to grow despite treatment with standard chemotherapies and trastuzumab for advanced disease. In a pivotal trial that led to its EU licence, lapatinib+capecitabine significantly increased the time-to-progression (TTP) for patients with ErbB2-positive BC compared with capecitabine alone. In its draft guidance, NICE acknowledged that lapatinib is a clinically-effective option and noted that lapatinib+capecitabine was associated with improved TTP and progression-free survival.
In recognition that the first ACD from NICE did not consider lapatinib to be cost effective in treating this patient population, GSK proposed a PAP, where the company would bear the cost of lapatinib for all eligible patients, for up to the first 12 weeks of treatment. The NHS would commence payment only for those patients who continue to receive clinical benefit beyond 12 weeks. Criteria for continuation of therapy beyond 12 weeks would be determined by the individual person's clinician, based on reduction in lesion size, presence of stable disease or improvement in other response criteria such as symptoms. This programme was designed to provide access to all eligible patients and deliver cost-effectiveness at a threshold that should have been acceptable to NICE.
The cost effectiveness of lapatinib+capecitabine was supported by a comparison to trastuzumab-containing regimens and capecitabine alone, representing the established treatment regimens in NHS clinical practice. Whilst NICE accepted that trastuzumab is widely used following progression of the disease, the Committee suggested that it was unlikely to be cost effective, and therefore did not accept trastuzumab as a valid comparator. According to GSK, the way in which the decision was made makes it very difficult to ever demonstrate the cost effectiveness of lapatinib in this patient population, even in light of the proposed PAP.
Following the ACD, GSK will continue to work with NICE to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of lapatinib in all eligible patients by seeking to validate trastuzumab as a legitimate comparator. The next meeting will be held on 19th November, however, it looks as though NICE will stick with its current draft guidance and recommend against funding lapatinib on the NHS.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Draft NICE guidance denies RCC drugs
The UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has issued preliminary recommendations for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), concluding that Roche/Genentech's Avastin (bevacizumab), Bayer/Onyx Pharmaceuticals' Nexavar (sorafenib), Pfizer's Sutent (sunitinib) and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals' Torisel (temsirolimus) are not recommended as treatment options for advanced and/or metastatic disease. Although the drugs were shown to be clinically effective and extend life for RCC patients, they were deemed to not be a cost-effective use of NHS resources. NICE is expected to issue final guidance in January 2009.
Following the decision, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) has called for NICE to alter the way that it appraises the value of drugs for rare diseases, such as metastatic RCC, where clinical benefit is proven but evidence is limited due to the small number of available patients. Professor Peter Johnson, CRUK's chief clinician, stated: "We are disappointed at NICE's view that although these drugs are clinically effective, their high price means that they are not considered to be value for money for the NHS. These drugs have shown a small but definite improvement in an illness where there are few alternative treatments. If this decision stands it will be very frustrating for cancer patients and their clinicians."
The charity put forward that possible solutions include looking at the way that pharmaceutical companies are charging the NHS for drugs, and whether appropriate allowances are being made by NICE to compensate for the lack of large-scale trials in these areas. However, it turns out that proposals were submitted by two of the manufacturers relating to drug acquisition costs. But these were not considered by the Department of Health as they had not been agreed before the appraisal.
The preliminary guidance raises questions as to how NICE evaluates cancer drugs, particularly for cancers that only affect a relatively small number of people. The gold-standard method of testing whether a treatment works and is safe is through the use of clinical trials. The larger the number of patients enrolled in a study, and the longer it lasts, the more sure researchers can be about its results. This works for diseases that affect large numbers of people, such as breast and lung cancer, but only around 2,000 people every year are diagnosed with metastatic RCC. Further, only one in ten people diagnosed with this stage of the disease is alive five years later. This means that for relatively rare diseases like this, it can take a long time to conduct large enough studies to gather the evidence needed to gain approval from regulatory agencies.
Even if these studies do demonstrate benefit, as those for the four drugs did, there is still the cost-effectiveness hurdle to overcome. When NICE analysed the data from the trials with its models, it found that the drugs were expensive (around £20,000 to £35,000 per patient per year) compared to the benefit they brought patients. However, concerns have also been raised about these models, which are designed to examine giving drugs to large numbers of people. Are they equally valid for looking at relatively uncommon diseases, such as metastatic RCC? Hopefully NICE will be able to answer these questions when its final guidance is published.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
Following the decision, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) has called for NICE to alter the way that it appraises the value of drugs for rare diseases, such as metastatic RCC, where clinical benefit is proven but evidence is limited due to the small number of available patients. Professor Peter Johnson, CRUK's chief clinician, stated: "We are disappointed at NICE's view that although these drugs are clinically effective, their high price means that they are not considered to be value for money for the NHS. These drugs have shown a small but definite improvement in an illness where there are few alternative treatments. If this decision stands it will be very frustrating for cancer patients and their clinicians."
The charity put forward that possible solutions include looking at the way that pharmaceutical companies are charging the NHS for drugs, and whether appropriate allowances are being made by NICE to compensate for the lack of large-scale trials in these areas. However, it turns out that proposals were submitted by two of the manufacturers relating to drug acquisition costs. But these were not considered by the Department of Health as they had not been agreed before the appraisal.
The preliminary guidance raises questions as to how NICE evaluates cancer drugs, particularly for cancers that only affect a relatively small number of people. The gold-standard method of testing whether a treatment works and is safe is through the use of clinical trials. The larger the number of patients enrolled in a study, and the longer it lasts, the more sure researchers can be about its results. This works for diseases that affect large numbers of people, such as breast and lung cancer, but only around 2,000 people every year are diagnosed with metastatic RCC. Further, only one in ten people diagnosed with this stage of the disease is alive five years later. This means that for relatively rare diseases like this, it can take a long time to conduct large enough studies to gather the evidence needed to gain approval from regulatory agencies.
Even if these studies do demonstrate benefit, as those for the four drugs did, there is still the cost-effectiveness hurdle to overcome. When NICE analysed the data from the trials with its models, it found that the drugs were expensive (around £20,000 to £35,000 per patient per year) compared to the benefit they brought patients. However, concerns have also been raised about these models, which are designed to examine giving drugs to large numbers of people. Are they equally valid for looking at relatively uncommon diseases, such as metastatic RCC? Hopefully NICE will be able to answer these questions when its final guidance is published.
Matthew Dennis - Editor, Cancer Drug News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)