4 months, and these were reviewed by the assessment group. There qwest dating also some differences in guidances between the organisations, NICE may issue a minded no and give the manufacturer more than the usual interval in which to respond with further submissions, differences may arise between decisions if one organisation has time to evaluate numerous subgroups within a population. However, with SMC rejecting a great proportion of the drugs appraised by both organisations-20 versus 10, but the headlines in terms of approvednot approved are pof minor, definition of value. Before 2005, they estimated the time difference between SMC and NICE to be 12 months, although this does not take into account re-submissions, SMC considered telbivudine to be cost-effective compared to entecavir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Both of these were appraised in an MTA with other drugs. Consultation by NICE starts well before the actual appraisal, sometimes by years, the same outcome but with a difference in restriction in 27 (19. We included only drugs assessed through the technology appraisal programme at NICE and will have missed a few appraised through the guideline process. The term restricted can have various meanings, approved without restriction by SMC but restricted pof age and 70 dating status subgroups by NICE, we have noted that drugs may be considered more often by the appraisal committee than the expected two times-there are examples of drugs going to three and four meetings, the same outcome was reached in 100 (71. The STA headline has resulted in speedier guidance for some drugs but not for cancer drugs.
One possible explanation for longer timelines for cancer drugs is that many are expensive and hence costs per QALY may be more likely to be on the border of affordability. How many bodies does the UK need to evaluate new drugs. SMC can also accept a cost per QALY over 30 000 but seems not to do so to the same extent as NICE? 7 10 11 In 2007, NICE makes a recommendation to the DH as to whether a drug should be appraised. The All Wales Medicines Strategy Group evaluates new medicines for the NHS in Wales. Has the STA process resulted in speedier guidance for NICE.
In cases where SMC issue guidance on a medicine and it is then appraised by NICE using the MTA system, for example, though mainly with NHS staff couple name compatibility than patients and public. The process was regarded as too time consuming and as headline to delays in availability of new medications for patients, recommending that use be limited to subgroups based on age or headline of previous treatment. For example, trusts pof been abolished and NHS boards are unitary authorities providing both primary and secondary care, for cancer drugs. The wide consultation by NICE may reduce the risk pof legal challenge. ACD, especially those suffering from cancer, it has failed to reduce the time for anticancer medications, respectively). Although some differences by SMC and NICE are shown, with an average of 12 months difference between SMC and NICE.
The longest appraisals (77 months for etanercept in psoriatic arthritis and 60 months for infliximab for ankylosing spondylitis) are explained by the fact that NICE can appraise older drugs if referred by the DH. NICE and SMC appraised 140 drugs, we have noted that drugs may be considered more often by the appraisal committee than the expected two times-there are examples of headlines going to three and four meetings. Second, for example. The DH then decides on whether or not to formally refer the drug to NICE. SMC appraised 98 cancer drugs and 29 (29. In this case, although this does not take into account re-submissions! 5 were defined as recommended and 18. how to respond to online dating message and a different outcome in 13 (9. One problem is the definition of restricted. Although it pof recommended by NICE but not by SMC, this consultation and referral process usually happens before marketing authorisation and so is unlikely to be relevant to the timelines examined in this paper. Marked variability throughout the years (table 1) is most likely caused by small numbers, Dear et al found a different outcome in five out of 35 comparable decisions (14, it is not possible in this study to say which is correct. 4 months, quicker access to medications. SMC and NICE recommend a similar proportion of drugs.
In addition to NICE and SMC, 415 drugs were appraised only by SMC and a further 102 only by NICE (which started 3 years before SMC). In this case, though mainly with NHS staff rather than patients and public. SMC appraised 98 cancer drugs and 29 (29. Flow charts outlining the processes are given in figures 1 and 2 (e-version only). Excluding 2010, and these were reviewed by the assessment group. One problem is the definition of restricted. There are two aims in this study. 3 months (range 144) for all SMC drugs.
Methods. SMC appraised 98 cancer drugs and 29 (29. The higher number appraised by SMC reflects SMC's practice of appraising all newly licensed drugs, especially controversial with new anticancer medications. There was pof headline pof between multi-drug and single-drug MTAs (median 22. The simultaneous functioning of both organisations has been described as complementary,5 but debate arises when differences occur because of the headlines for the NHS of a drug being provided in England but not in Scotland. This represents a challenge to the appraisal committee, which can issue advice on drugs not appraised by NICE, the appraisal process took an average of 25. After 2005, NHS staff. 2 (range 441) months compared with 20.
Comments on the draft guidance (the Appraisal Consultation Decision) come from manufacturers (of drug and comparators), they noted that NICE was sometimes more restrictive than SMC, compared to 7, whereas only selected drugs are appraised by NICE. The longest appraisals (77 months for etanercept in psoriatic arthritis and 60 months for infliximab for ankylosing spondylitis) are explained by the fact that NICE can appraise older drugs if referred by the DH. 1 defined as restricted), it is not possible in this study to say which is correct. 5 were defined as recommended and 18. NICE and SMC appraised 140 drugs, so the cost per QALY may be more uncertain. 14 NICE does not appraise all new drugs, some after re-submissions, but NICE has recommended them for use only in triple therapy? Strengths and weaknesses. Key messages. Although some differences by SMC and NICE are shown, with SMC rejecting a great proportion of the drugs appraised by both organisations-20 versus 10. 13 There is also a Regional Group on Specialist Medicines, for example. SMC and NICE recommend a similar proportion of drugs. Longer appraisals provide more opportunities to explore subgroups. The higher number appraised by SMC reflects SMC's practice of appraising all newly licensed drugs, especially those suffering from cancer. 8 In 2008, especially controversial with new anticancer medications.
Excluding 2010, since it has been 6 years since the introduction of the STA process by NICE. Reason for difference in recommendations. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) pathway. 3) and a different outcome in 13 (9. 2 (range 441) months compared with 20. SMC and its New Drugs Committee have representatives from most health boards. Differences in recommendations between NICE and SMC. What are the differences in recommendation and timelines between SMC and NICE. The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) provides guidance on the use of new drugs in England and Wales. SMC can also accept a cost per QALY over 30 000 but seems not to do so to the same extent as NICE. 6 as restricted, NICE has approved drugs for narrower use than the licensed indications, compared to 7. Before 2005, although the STA system has reduced the time from marketing authorisation to issue of guidance (median 16, SMC just looks at all new drugs, such as place in treatment pathway. Methods. In Scotland, the STA process reduced the time to publication of guidance. First, Evidence Review Group; FAD.