[A2k] Diagnostic Testing and NICE

Jamie Love james.love at keionline.org
Wed Feb 8 15:34:54 PST 2012


NICE tries to make rational use of a limited budget, and that includes
looking at cost effectiveness.  If governments would learn to de-link R&D
incentives from high product prices, you would not have to ration access to
these new technologies.   But when budgets are limited, and companies have
legal monopolies on products, access is going to be limited too.    Jamie


On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Peter Pitts <ppitts at cmpi.org> wrote:

> NICE has issued draft guidance recommending against the use of three
> breast cancer diagnostics to guide decisions about chemotherapy use in
> women with estrogen receptor-positive, lymph node-negative, HER2-negative
> breast cancer.
>
> According to NICE, the tests aren’t cost effective because evidence for
> their clinical efficacy is "limited."
>
> But isn’t that the whole idea of personalized medicine?  And “limited” for
> whom?
>
> Molecular diagnostics are what make medicines personal. Diagnostics are
> how drugs can be made safer through safe use. They make the “four rights”
> (right medicine for the right patient in the right dose at the right time)
> possible. And the four rights lead to lower costs through better outcomes.
>
> Studies show that testing for HER2 breast cancer delivers savings that are
> 65 times its cost. That reimbursement should be based on value rather than
> activity is an essential paradigm shift.
>
> This message is finally reaching a mass audience. Consider the recent USA
> Today story, “Genetic testing boosts efficacy in cancer care,” which
> reports that “tailoring cancer therapies to fit a person’s genetic makeup
> could spare thousands of patients from harmful side effects and save
> millions of dollars a year.”
>
> Even NICE said the test's incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) --
> aka cost effectiveness ratio -- per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was
> "dominant" compared to current practice -- but the lack of data on
> analytical reliability and clinical utility made a recommendation for
> widespread use unwarranted “at this time.”
>
> In other words, no reimbursement until more data is available. Whether or
> not that’s a convenient excuse or a scientifically based belief –it’s the
> wrong decision to dissuade the use of a validated diagnostic tool that
> saves lives though (1) more personalized care and (2) saves money by not
> spending it where it isn’t going to work.
>
> NICE noted that most studies were retrospective, which it said is
> associated with increased bias compared to prospective trials. Maybe so.
>  But tell that to the 20 percent of women whose lives are at risk.
>
> Research shows, not surprisingly, that many breast cancer patients who
> might benefit from Herceptin are not receiving it, while some women on the
> drug had never been properly tested.
>
> "Our review of the literature suggests that there are important knowledge
> gaps regarding the real world use of HER2 testing and trastuzumab," said
> Elena Elkin, a researcher at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New
> York. "Filling these gaps may help optimize limited healthcare resources
> and improve care for women with breast cancer."
>
> But how will data be collected if these tests aren’t being used in regular
> clinical practice? (And they won’t be without reimbursement.) Are these
> approved and validated tests to be relegated to the narrow confines of
> lengthy clinical trials? What message does this send to the developers of
> advanced diagnostics – and for those who invest it such enterprises? What
> message does it send to pharmaceutical companies about the future of
> high-risk adaptive clinical trials? What message does it send about the
> future of targeted therapeutics?
>
> To borrow an over-used adjective from the world of global climate change –
> what does this say about our ability to protect "sustainable" innovation?
>
> Most disturbingly, what message does NICE’s decision send about medical
> ethics in the age of personalized medicine? Is this but the latest
> malignant manifestation of choosing short-term savings over long-term
> results, of cost-based choices over patient-centric care? Skimping on a
> diagnostic test today but paying for an avoidable hospital stay later is a
> fool’s errand, pernicious to both the public purse and the public health.
> The implications for the healthcare debate in the United States are
> uncomfortably obvious.
>
> And considering the white-hot debate over the Komen Foundation/Planned
> Parenthood imbroglio – where’s the anger and indignation?
>
> More research?  By all means.  Better-designed research? Absolutely. But
> by denying reimbursement for HER-2 tests until this research is designed,
> fielded, studied, reported and debated many lives will be lost and many
> millions of dollars wasted.
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org
>



-- 
James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org, +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040,
Geneva Mobile: +41.76.413.6584, efax: +1.888.245.3140.  Sometimes I am
using my MaxRoam number: +447937390810
twitter.com/jamie_love



More information about the A2k mailing list