IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/conrep/001802.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Exploring the Assessment and Appraisal of Regenerative Medicines and Cell Therapy Products: Is the NICE Approach Fit for Purpose?

Author

Listed:
  • Marsden, G.
  • Towse, A.

Abstract

In 2016 the University of York undertook a review exercise to determine whether NICE's existing methods and processes are appropriate for assessment of regenerative medicines. The purpose of this OHE report is to explore this review exercise and to assess whether or not the resulting conclusions are appropriate. The Report concludes that the York and NICE exercise provided a thorough mock appraisal of CAR T cell therapy. However, it did not seek to identify the most suitable approach for assessing regenerative medicines, but rather to test whether regenerative medicines could fit into the existing pathway developed for conventional medicines. The authors suggest a more interesting question would have been to look at whether or not use of the existing pathway is the most suitable approach, rather than whether or not it is possible. The report also questions the relevance of some additional parameters that were presented to the expert panel as part of the mock appraisal, arguing that the presentation of uncertainty is potentially misleading. It also suggests that NICE's end of life criteria and criteria for allowing use of a 1.5% discount rate should be amended in the context of regenerative medicines.

Suggested Citation

  • Marsden, G. & Towse, A., 2017. "Exploring the Assessment and Appraisal of Regenerative Medicines and Cell Therapy Products: Is the NICE Approach Fit for Purpose?," Consulting Reports 001802, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:conrep:001802
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/system/files/private/publications/Final%20report%20NICE%20CAR%20T%20February%202017.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. He, Xue-Zhong & Zheng, Huanhuan, 2016. "Trading heterogeneity under information uncertainty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 64-80.
    2. repec:taf:applec:v:50:y:2018:i:20:p:2297-2312 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Barnsley, P. & Cubi-Molla, P. & Fischer, A. & Towse, A., 2016. "Uncertainty and Risk in HTA Decision Making," Research Papers 001764, Office of Health Economics.
    4. Kenneth Clements & Yihui Lan & Jiawei Si, 2018. "Uncertainty in currency mispricing," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(20), pages 2297-2312, April.
    5. Sebastian Hinde & Eldon Spackman, 2015. "Bidirectional Citation Searching to Completion: An Exploration of Literature Searching Methods," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 5-11, January.
    6. Huseyin Gulen & Mihai Ion, 2016. "Editor's Choice Policy Uncertainty and Corporate Investment," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 29(3), pages 523-564.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hampson, G. & Mott, D. Devlin, N. & Shah, K., 2019. "Public Preferences for Health Gains and Cures: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Consulting Reports 002108, Office of Health Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Judging value for money and improving decision making;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ohe:conrep:001802. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Publications Manager). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.html .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.