IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v8y2024i2d10.1007_s41669-023-00460-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analysis of Uncertainties and Data Collection Agreements in the Cancer Drugs Fund

Author

Listed:
  • Laura A. Trigg

    (Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG))

  • Maxwell S. Barnish

    (Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG))

  • Samuel Hayward

    (Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG))

  • Naomi Shaw

    (Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG))

  • Louise Crathorne

    (Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG))

  • Brad Groves

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • John Spoors

    (NHS England)

  • Thomas Strong

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • G. J. Melendez-Torres

    (Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG))

  • Caroline Farmer

    (Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG))

Abstract

Background Managed Access Agreements (MAAs) are a commercial arrangement that provide patients earlier access to innovative health technologies while uncertainties in the evidence base are resolved through data collection. In the UK, data collection agreements (DCAs) outline the evidence that will be collected during the MAA period and are intended to resolve uncertainties in the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a technology sufficient for the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) committee to make a final decision on reimbursement. Objective The aim of this study was to identify the primary uncertainties leading to a recommendation for entry to the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) and evaluate how the corresponding DCAs attempt to address these. Methods A database of MAAs agreed within the CDF was compiled with coverage between July 2016 and December 2020 (the time during which evidence generation was routinely collected within the CDF up until the time of analysis). Uncertainties in the evidence base for technologies entering the CDF were analysed alongside the outcomes planned for data collection during the MAA. These data provide an overview of the key uncertainties surrounding health technologies in the CDF on entry and the types of evidence targeted by DCAs. Results In the assessment of 39 Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) cases, NICE committees identified a total of 108 key uncertainties in cost-effectiveness estimates. Overall survival was the most commonly identified uncertainty, followed by generalisability of the evidence to the target population. DCAs specified a range of outcomes relevant to understanding the clinical effectiveness of the technology, though fewer than half (43.6%) of the DCAs addressed all the key uncertainties identified by the NICE committee. Conclusion The analysis indicated that data collection within the CDF is not sufficient to resolve all the uncertainties identified by the NICE committee, meaning that other approaches will be needed at re-appraisal to ensure that the NICE committee can reach a final decision on reimbursement.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura A. Trigg & Maxwell S. Barnish & Samuel Hayward & Naomi Shaw & Louise Crathorne & Brad Groves & John Spoors & Thomas Strong & G. J. Melendez-Torres & Caroline Farmer, 2024. "An Analysis of Uncertainties and Data Collection Agreements in the Cancer Drugs Fund," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 303-311, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00460-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00460-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-023-00460-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-023-00460-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00460-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.