UK scheme for MS drugs "a costly failure"

Version vom 4. Juni 2010, 19:58 Uhr

UK scheme for MS drugs "a costly failure" -experts Thu Jun 3, 2010 7:01pm EDT

By Kate Kelland

LONDON, June 4 (Reuters)

A scheme enabling multiple sclerosis patients to get expensive drugs paid for by Britain's state-funded National Health System has been a "costly failure", health experts and economists said on Friday.

Eine Regelung ermöglicht Patienten mit Multipler Sklerose, zu teuren Medikamenten zu kommen, die vom staatlich finanzierten National Health System Großbritanniens bezahlt werden. Ein "kostspieliger Fehler", sagten Gesundheits-Experten und Ökonomen am Freitag.

In a series of commentaries in The Lancet, health economists said the scheme had wasted an estimated 50 million pounds ($74 mln) a year since its 2002 launch and should now be abandoned.

In einer Reihe von Kommentaren im "The Lancet" sagten Gesundheits-Ökonomen, die Regelung hätte geschätzte £ 50.000.000 ($ 74 Mio.) pro Jahr seit seiner Einführung 2002 verschlungen und sollte jetzt aufgegeben werden.

The drugs included in the scheme were Biogen Inc's (BIIB.O), Avonex, Bayer's (BAYGn.DE) Betaseron, and Merck KGaA's (MRCG.DE) Rebif, as well as Copaxone from Israel's Teva Pharmaceuticals (TEVA.TA).

Die Medikamente, die von der Regelung erfaßt sind, sind Biogen Inc's (BIIB.O) Avonex, Bayer (BAYGn.DE) Betaseron und Merck KGaA (MRCG.DE) Rebif sowie Copaxone aus Israel's Teva Pharmaceuticals (TEVA.TA).

"The scheme was a success for the drug companies, who sold at close to full price to the NHS," said James Raftery, a professor of health technology assessment at Southampton University. "For the NHS, however, the scheme can be judged only a costly failure."

"Die Regelung war ein Erfolg für die Pharmakonzerne, die in der Nähe des vollen Preis an den NHS verkauften", sagte James Raftery, Professor für Health Technology Assessment an der Universität Southampton. "Für den NHS jedoch kann die Regelung nur als kostspieliger Fehler beurteilt werden."

Raftery said an assessment of the scheme in 2009 by its scientific advisory group, which included the drug firms, found that patients fared worse on the drugs than had been expected, suggesting the medicines were not cost effective. Yet the panel decided to continue with the project.

Raftery sagte, eine Bewertung der Regelung im Jahr 2009 durch eine wissenschaftliche Beratergruppe, die die Pharmafirmen einschloß, ergab, dass es Patienten mit den Medikamenten schlechter erging als erwartet. Damit andeutend, daß die Medikamente nicht kosteneffektiv seien. Doch das Gremium beschloss, das Projekt fortzusetzen.

The risk sharing scheme was set up by the government in 2002 to make disease-modifying multiple sclerosis drugs available on the NHS after the country's health costs watchdog, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), ruled that they were not cost effective.

Das Risk-Sharing-System wurde von der Regierung im Jahr 2002 eingerichtet, um krankheitsmodifizierenden Multiple Sklerose Medikamente verfügung über die NHS zu machen, nachdem des Landes Kostenkontrollstelle, das National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), entschied, dass sie nicht kosteneffektiv wären.

Under the terms of the scheme, the government agreed to pay for the drugs on the NHS while research was carried out to assess their long-term cost effectiveness. The agreement was that the NHS would then gradually stop paying for the drugs if patients did not appear to be benefiting.

In 2009, seven years after the scheme was set up, the first analysis of the data published in the British Medical Journal showed that patient outcomes were worse than predicted, but the scheme's scientific advisory group said it was too soon to reduce prices without further analysis.

Christopher McCabe, a professor of health economics at the University of Leeds, said in a separate analysis that the decision to delay a price review was not justified.

"It is difficult to see how they can justify such an expensive divergence from the scheme rules," he wrote.

Both experts, whose commentaries were also backed by several colleagues, questioned the independence of the advisory group, which included patients, doctors and drug firms.

McCabe added that if a proper assessment had been done after the first two years of the scheme, the NHS could have already saved around 250 million pounds ($369 million).

But Alastair Compston a professor of neurology at Cambridge University, who helped set up the scheme, argued that although it had not been run entirely properly or adequately governed, it had helped patients.

"Regardless of the scheme's outcome, it has advanced the situation for people with multiple sclerosis," he wrote. "Now that the principles of when and who to treat are better understood, more effective treatments can be developed." (Editing by David Cowell)