Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T03:19:02.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence only appraise new pharmaceuticals?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2007

Luan Linden ,
Hindrik Vondeling ,
Claire Packer  and
Alison Cook
Luan Linden
Affiliation:
The University of Birmingham
Hindrik Vondeling
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Claire Packer
Affiliation:
The University of Birmingham
Alison Cook
Affiliation:
The University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the relative extent to which the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) appraises new versus existing technologies, and pharmaceutical versus nonpharmaceutical health technologies.

Methods: We categorized technologies within NICE appraisals published between March 2000 and June 2006 by type and classified them as new or existing using the timeline between launch in the United Kingdom and referral to NICE. We used a 3-year postlaunch cutoff to determine whether a technology was new, with a sensitivity analysis of 1 and 5 years.

Results: We reviewed 159 technologies from 88 appraisals. Of these, 84 (53 percent) were new (sensitivity analysis 36 to 67 percent) and 75 (47 percent) were existing technologies. A total of 119 (75 percent) were pharmaceuticals, 22 (14 percent) were devices, 14 (9 percent) were procedures, and 4 (3 percent) were categorized as miscellaneous. Classification according to newness and technology type showed that 62 percent (42 to 75 percent) of the pharmaceuticals appraised were new.

Conclusions: By developing and applying a definition of new, we have found that the criticism of the bias toward new technologies is unfounded when applied to the appraisal program overall. At the same time, new pharmaceuticals are over-represented in the program compared with devices and procedures. This domination may cause inflationary pressures on the health service, but any wholesale move away from the technological frontier may be more costly.

Keywords

National Institute for Health and Clinical ExcellenceHealth technologyHealth technology assessmentTopic selectionNICE
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , July 2007 , pp. 349 - 353
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ABACUS International. 2006. Measuring the impact of NICE guidance across 28 disease areas. ABACUS International. 2005. Available at: http://www.abacusint.com/downloads/NICE_Guidance_Abacus_International.pdf. Accessed September 8
Booth-Clibborn N, Packer C, Stevens A. 2000 Health technology diffusion rates: Statins, coronary stents and MRI in England. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 781– 786.Google Scholar
Bosanquet N. 2003 NICE to see you.. Health Serv J. (June): 30– 31.Google Scholar
Cook A, Packer C, Stevens A, et al. 2005 Influences upon the diffusion of thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction in England: Case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 537– 544.Google Scholar
Department of Health. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2006. Selection of topics. A consultation paper. London: Department of Health. 2006. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/10/56/04131056.pdf. Accessed June 30
Department of Health. 2001. New statutory obligations for the NHS to fund treatments recommended by NICE. Press release: 2001/0599. London: Department of Health;
FDA. 2006. Approval times for priority and standard NME's: Calendar years 1993-2003. FDA. 2004. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/rdmt/NMEapps93-03.htm. Accessed June 30
Maynard A, Bloor K, Freemantle N. 2004 Challenges for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. BMJ. 329: 227– 229.Google Scholar
NHS Executive. 1998. A first class service–Quality in the new NHS. London: Department of Health;
NHS Executive. 1999. “Faster access to modern treatment”: How NICE appraisal will work. London: Department of Health;
Packer C, Stevens A, Cook A, et al. 2004 Diffusion of thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction from 1981 to 2000 in England: Trend analysis and comparison with need. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 531– 536.Google Scholar
Pirovano D. 2005. Threats, challenges and opportunities for the device industry in Europe. Clinica [1179], 5-6. London: T&F Informa UK Ltd;
Ryan J, Piercy J, James P. 2004 Assessment of NICE guidance on two surgical procedures. Lancet. 363: 1525– 1526.Google Scholar
Towse A, Pritchard C. 2002 National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): Is economic appraisal working? Pharmacoeconomics. 20 (Suppl 3): 95– 105.Google Scholar