- 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
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
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The word parameter is almost always wrong.
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Television shows and education about sexually transmitted infections: no laughing matter
Published 25 May 2012
Re: David Morrell
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Time to end the distinction between mental and neurological illnesses
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Are we nearly there with tranexamic acid?
Published 25 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27