- Cathie L M Sudlow (csudlow@skull.dcn.ed.ac.uk), Wellcome clinician scientista,
- Carl E Counsell, senior lecturerb
- a Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU,
- b Department of Neurology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen AB25 2ZN
- Correspondence to: C L M Sudlow
- Accepted 21 October 2002
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recently announced that interferon beta and glatiramer acetate were not cost effective treatments for multiple sclerosis and could not be recommended for NHS funding.1 As a result, the Department of Health and the manufacturers developed a “risk sharing scheme” aimed at providing these drugs more cost effectively. 2 3 Treatment will be provided to ambulating patients with two or more disabling relapses in the past two years (about 15% of all patients with multiple sclerosis)4 and their progress monitored over 10 years. However, the scheme has several scientific and practical problems that we believe limit its ability to improve the care of patients in the long term. In this paper, we review the quality of the evidence on which NICE and the Department of Health reached their decisions, consider some of the problems of the risk sharing scheme, and suggest an alternative approach.
Summary points
NICE has announced that neither interferon beta nor glatiramer can be recommended for multiple sclerosis in the NHS
The Department of Health plans to make these drugs available through a risk sharing scheme that is scientifically unsound and impractical
Randomised trials suggest that azathioprine (which is 20 times cheaper) may be just as effective
The long term effectiveness of these drugs is unknown
Government money would be better spent on a long term randomised trial comparing interferon beta or glatiramer with azathioprine and no treatment
Methods
We identified randomised trials of disease modifying drugs in patients with multiple sclerosis from systematic reviews, 5–7 the Cochrane controlled …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: How much of a social media profile can doctors have?
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Diagnosis and management of Raynaud’s phenomenon
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Is it unethical for doctors to encourage healthy adults to donate a kidney to a stranger? No
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Report predicts 20 million AIDS orphans in Africa by 2010
Published 13 February 2012
Re: On the impossibility of being expert
Published 13 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (8 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
How much of a social media profile can doctors have? (7 responses)
Published 23 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012