LONDON (Dow Jones)--Four kidney cancer drugs cannot be recommended as a cost
effective treatment under the U.K.'s National Health Service, the agency that
decides which treatments are made available in the publicly funded healthcare
system said Thursday. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence, or
NICE, said in a preliminary recommendation that Roche Holding AG's (RHHBY)
Avastin, Bayer AG's (BAY.XE) Nexavar, Pfizer Inc.'s (PFE) Sutent and Wyeth's
(WYE) Torisel shouldn't be used for patients with advanced renal cell
carcinoma, the most common type of kidney cancer in adults. NICE said that
although these treatments are clinically effective, their cost to the NHS is
such that they are not a cost-effective use of resources. NICE publishes
appraisals of whether particular medicines should be considered worthwhile by
the National Health System in England and Wales. These appraisals - which
are reached after consultations with experts, drug companies, doctors and
patients - are based primarily on cost-effectiveness and are closely watched
by other governments and health insurers.
These products, Sutant and Nexavar, are two which my wife has been on since diagnosed with advanced renal cell carcinoma. The first one, Sutant shrunk her kidney tumor to a size that made surgery possible. The second one, Nexavar, she is on now, hoping to make the nodules in her lungs stabilzed or smaller. Her prognosis on her last check up was good and we will know more by the end of August after our next trip to M.D. Anderson. My point is this. Under a British type health care system, she might well be dead by now due to the fact treatment is based on whether treatment is "cost effective" or not. In our system, many patients are given these medications through grants from the American Cancer Society, pharmaceutical companies and other charitable sources. Is a British or Canadian system of health care what you really want? Not me, thank you. We can make needed improvements to our present system that would be much better.
effective treatment under the U.K.'s National Health Service, the agency that
decides which treatments are made available in the publicly funded healthcare
system said Thursday. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence, or
NICE, said in a preliminary recommendation that Roche Holding AG's (RHHBY)
Avastin, Bayer AG's (BAY.XE) Nexavar, Pfizer Inc.'s (PFE) Sutent and Wyeth's
(WYE) Torisel shouldn't be used for patients with advanced renal cell
carcinoma, the most common type of kidney cancer in adults. NICE said that
although these treatments are clinically effective, their cost to the NHS is
such that they are not a cost-effective use of resources. NICE publishes
appraisals of whether particular medicines should be considered worthwhile by
the National Health System in England and Wales. These appraisals - which
are reached after consultations with experts, drug companies, doctors and
patients - are based primarily on cost-effectiveness and are closely watched
by other governments and health insurers.
These products, Sutant and Nexavar, are two which my wife has been on since diagnosed with advanced renal cell carcinoma. The first one, Sutant shrunk her kidney tumor to a size that made surgery possible. The second one, Nexavar, she is on now, hoping to make the nodules in her lungs stabilzed or smaller. Her prognosis on her last check up was good and we will know more by the end of August after our next trip to M.D. Anderson. My point is this. Under a British type health care system, she might well be dead by now due to the fact treatment is based on whether treatment is "cost effective" or not. In our system, many patients are given these medications through grants from the American Cancer Society, pharmaceutical companies and other charitable sources. Is a British or Canadian system of health care what you really want? Not me, thank you. We can make needed improvements to our present system that would be much better.