http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f37adede-6f2e ... abdc0.htmlSome 5,000 patients were recruited. But far from slowing the disease, progression was faster in the patients who had the drugs than in untreated patients – although the comparison was with a large, past group of untreated Canadian patients.
The results were so poor that “the manufacturers would need to pay the NHS to use the drugs to make them cost effective”, Christopher McCabe, professor of health economics at Leeds university, says in the British Medical Journal.
The first report on the scheme was published in late 2009, with details of patients’ outcomes for 2005-7.3 Disease progression was not only worse than predicted by the model used by NICE,1 it was worse than that in the untreated control group. The primary outcome—the difference between actual and expected benefit as a percentage of expected benefit—was 113%, well above the 20% tolerance for price changes (any value above 0 indicates that benefit is less than expected). The report stated "the outcomes so far obtained in the pre-specified primary analysis suggest a lack of delay in disease progression."3
Users browsing this forum: EJC