Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 22 January 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.a3182
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:a3182
A fair and consistent process is needed for dealing with absence of evidence
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
In England and Wales the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) issues guidance on the appropriate use of medicines that is based on an assessment of evidence submitted by the manufacturer. The scope of the assessment depends on whether the appraisal concerned is a single technology appraisal or a multiple technology appraisal. NICE recently terminated four single technology appraisals of cancer drugs because it did not receive submissions from drug companies that met the institutes specification of evidence.1 As a result, NICE was unable to recommend the use of the products for the clinical indications for which they were licensed, but it stated that, after considering the reasons for the lack of guidance, NHS organisations could still use the drugs. In contrast, the Scottish Medicines Consortium approves medicines only if drug companies submit evidence, so non-submission results in a recommendation not to use the drugs concerned in the
Michael Drummond, professor of health economics, Anne Mason, research fellow in health economics
1 Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York YO10 5DD
md18@york.ac.uk
Read all Rapid Responses