Prostate Cancer Drug: NHS Decide Zytiga Medicine Is Too Expensive

Prostate Cancer

First Posted: 2/02/2012 06:54 Updated: 2/02/2012 06:54   PA

A prostate drug hailed as a breakthrough in extending the lives of men with late-stage prostate cancer is too expensive for use on the NHS, a watchdog said today.

Leading cancer experts said the decision regarding abiraterone (also called Zytiga) was "disappointing" and a "huge blow" to patients with very few treatment options left.

Cancer Research UK said the draft decision by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) - which is still open to consultation - made "no sense" and Nice had used the wrong assessment criteria.

Abiraterone was developed by scientists at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) and the Royal Marsden in London after the discovery that some prostate cancers can produce their own testosterone.

It works in a new way, by blocking the production of male hormones in all tissues, not just the testes, including the adrenal glands and the tumours themselves.

A phase III trial, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 1,195 patients from 13 countries.

All had stopped responding to standard hormone therapies as well as second-line treatments such as chemotherapy drug docetaxil.
It showed that men survived an average of four months longer and suffered far less pain with abiraterone compared to those taking a placebo.

Although the average extended survival time was four months, some men did much better.

Abiraterone has been regarded as a "success story" for the ICR following more than two decades of work.

Nice has ruled that although abiraterone is clinically effective, it is not good value for money for the NHS at the price set by manufacturer, Janssen.

A spokeswoman for the ICR said: "We are obviously disappointed with this preliminary decision.

"We hope Nice will now work with the drug manufacturer to reach a solution that will make the drug more widely available to patients with advanced prostate cancer."

She said an estimated 10,500 men in the UK have advanced prostate cancer which is resistant to standard hormone treatments, adding: "Five new drugs have been shown in phase III testing to significantly extend life for men with advanced prostate cancer, and the ICR helped developed four of these, including abiraterone which was discovered at the ICR.

"None of these drugs are yet routinely available on the NHS."

Professor Peter Johnson, Cancer Research UK's chief clinician, said patients had been accessing abiraterone through the Cancer Drugs Fund, set up by the Government to pay for treatments not approved by Nice.

"This decision makes no sense," he said.

"Since it became available in the UK, abiraterone has been one of the most requested treatments from the Cancer Drugs Fund.

"This is because patients and doctors value the extra months of life it can give if prostate cancer has come back after chemotherapy.
"We need to find a way for it to be routinely available through the NHS.

"At the moment it is too expensive and Nice must find a better way to ensure drugs that are already working for patients get approved."

He said the Cancer Drugs Fund is only available until 2014 and applies in England, preventing patients in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland accessing it.

Prof Johnson also questioned Nice's methodology, saying it used its usual criteria - the total number of men who would benefit and the cost posed by the manufacturer.

But this decision should have only considered men who have the drug after chemotherapy, he said.

Because fewer than 7,000 men would be given abiraterone after chemotherapy, the drug should have been judged according to Nice's end-of-life drugs criteria.

Prof Johnson said: "Not only have Nice rejected an effective drug, they've also used the wrong criteria to judge its cost effectiveness.
"If they looked carefully at how many men would benefit, the overall cost could be more manageable than Nice's initial calculations indicated."

Nice insisted it had only considered men who would take the drug after chemotherapy which, based on information from the manufacturer, would leave 3,300 eligible for abiraterone.

The drug was not appraised under end-of-life criteria because it was not licensed for "a small population".

Chief executive Sir Andrew Dillon said one of the key benefits of abiraterone is that it can be taken orally at home.

He said Nice was "disappointed" not to be able to recommend it but added that the independent advisory committee "did not feel the drug provided enough benefit to patients to justify the price the NHS is being asked to pay, even with the discount that the manufacturer has offered".

Dr Harpal Kumar, chief executive at Cancer Research UK, said the draft decision had left the charity "hugely frustrated".

"Generous public donations to Cancer Research UK and other organisations paid for the initial development of the drug and we feel extremely let down that the drug's manufacturer couldn't offer Nice a price they could agree on."

Owen Sharp, chief executive of the Prostate Cancer Charity, said the draft decision was "a bitter blow to thousands of men and their families".

"The drug is one of the biggest breakthroughs in the treatment of the disease for many years, and it will be devastating if this drug remains out of their reach when they need it the most."

Data on another drug for late-stage prostate cancer, MDV3100, is being presented today at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium in San Francisco.

It has been shown to extend lives by almost five months and was also developed with the help of experts at the ICR and Royal Marsden.

A further drug, cabazitaxel (Jevtana) was rejected by Nice in January following concerns about side-effects.

Each year around 37,000 men in the UK are diagnosed with prostate cancer and 10,000 die from the disease.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK LIFESTYLE

A prostate drug hailed as a breakthrough in extending the lives of men with late-stage prostate cancer is too expensive for use on the NHS, a watchdog said today. Leading cancer experts said the de...
A prostate drug hailed as a breakthrough in extending the lives of men with late-stage prostate cancer is too expensive for use on the NHS, a watchdog said today. Leading cancer experts said the de...
Filed by Paul Vale  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 41
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
majdf18148
I have nothing to declare but my curiosity
05:01 PM on 02/02/2012
Abiraterone is the drug that was used to keep Al Megrahi(?) the Lockerbie bomber alive. It is one of the most widely requested cancer drugs for men with advanced prostate cancer and is one of only very few treatment options available at that stage of the illness.The drug costs £2930 for a month's supply and is thought to potentially extend life expectancy by upto 3 months. In a clinical trial of some 1200 patients those given the pill had, on average, an extra 3.9 months of life.The NICE decision is at the draft stage and can and will be challenged. They have reversed their decisions in the past.Hope this "fleshes" out the report a bit.
08:35 PM on 02/02/2012
Reference your other posting and my reply here is an article which basically exposes the testosterone/prostate cancer link as an old-wives tale. It had to be, no logical reason whatsoever to correlate the two, other than age of course!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110419121353.htm
02:30 PM on 02/02/2012
AnyBody at NICE got prostrate cancer? Bet they get the drug if they need it! Cynical? You bet.
03:10 PM on 02/02/2012
Perhaps if anybody from NICE is following this thread they may care to note post-diagnosis life expectancy of prostate cancer patients is doubled (at least) if radiotherapy or surgery is used in preference to chemotherapy. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/03/11/22510.aspx
majdf18148
I have nothing to declare but my curiosity
08:02 PM on 02/02/2012
Well, elephant bill, that study is from 2007 and is but one of many such studies published over the years. A friend of mine had radical treatment, hormonal and radiotherapy, which is considered by many experts to be the optimum treatment for aggressive Ca prostate and he lasted 18 months post diagnosis. Another, Zimbabwean mate had a Gleason score of 8, opted for a radical orchiectomy and lived for another 16 years until he died, very recently, of renal failure.It's mostly about stopping the production of teststerone ihn every avenue in which the body produces it. Eunuchs almost never get Ca prostate.
02:16 PM on 02/02/2012
No price has been publicised so how much is it ? These NICE numpties did something similar with "stop smoking tablets" by choosing to promote a tablet which is far less effective and far more expensive than a proven tablet from Bulgaria (40 plus years of use). This stupidity is then backed by a massive ad. campaign, one can't begin to imagine how many public sector non jobs this creates, If NICE were to be disbanded and doctors left to use their discretion, perhaps the system would work more effectively. Incidentally should anyone be interested the stop smoking tablet from Bulgaria is called TABEX or
02:06 PM on 02/02/2012
I say cut overseas aid, then look after our own first.
Now I expect comments saying I am racialist
02:19 PM on 02/02/2012
Sorry no body listens to comman sence.
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
12:46 PM on 02/02/2012
David Cameron said cancer patients would get the drugs they need?! hhmmm! Obviously not the case! Charities such as Cancer Research UK readily take our donations, about every other month there's someone collection on behalf of cancer research. I am not against charitable donations, but for the fact, you have to ask the question, who are the benefactors?????
The benefactors are those who go through the initial rounds of drug trials, those with private medical insurance. After the initial trials they analyse the date, they then echo to the ends of the earth, behold we bring you the new wonder drug, because these trials prove it works somewhat! But there's a catch, that wonder drug will never become available to us ordinary mortals because the NHS refuse the funding. But there is another question I ask, if the NHS refuse funding, is it because it is not as good as first thought, ie in terminal cases simply gives another couple of weeks of life on average, and the regulatory body on NHS drugs finds it is not such a wonder drug after all, I won't say they are skewing their research, because it has to be ethical research, but questions have to be asked. Sounds cynical, but I have to ask what is the case here, are they really wonder drugs. I am not against scientists, where would we be without them, just a spot of good old fashioned constructive criticism.
majdf18148
I have nothing to declare but my curiosity
03:06 PM on 02/02/2012
Your point is well made.Many of these so called breakthrough drugs provide limited benefit for a small number of people for a short period of time, offering a few people a potential couple of extra months before the inevitable end from the disease. I remember a celebrated, much publicised case a few years ago that ended up in the high courts regarding a young girl refused a drug that alledgedly might have prolonged her life somewhat. The case was lost in court but a well wisher had stepped in and funded the drug before the case got to court. The child very sadly died very shortly after with no benefits from the treatment. Although the initial development of this prostate drug was funded through public donations its production will have still cost million and the drug company will want that investment back.The NHS, as you imply, has to judge, via NICE advice, whether the high cost is outweighed by the benefit to the patient. If the answer is no or unclear they will spend the money elsewhere.Would I want to be in that position? Absolutely not but I am just telling it how it is , that doesn't mean I agree with the decision it just means I UNDERSTAND how the process evolves. You are therefore right to pose the questions you do.
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
03:39 PM on 02/02/2012
Firstly, I apologise for typos and other typing errors. Trouble with me I think faster than type! But to the point. I found your comments interesting, and like you say not necessarily ones own opinion, but the facts speak for themselves. Others have contributed some interesting points in this forum today. Indlovubill makes a very interesting point about those in 'high places', and the fact they always seem to recover, rarely die of cancer. I have just recalled one person of previous high office who recently died of cancer, the Czech President, Vaclav Havel (no accents available), also President Kim of North Korea, although rumours say heart attack, but he had, had cancer.
11:31 AM on 02/02/2012
I firmly believe that there is somewhere out there to cure for most cancers. How have I drawn to this conclusion? You don't seem to hear of many heads of state or extremely successful people have or die from cancer. Heads of state and top ranking politcians always seem to live to a great age and die of old age (organs worn out, heart gets up). With all the money that has gone to cancer over the years it makes me think that there is a vaccine for cancer only prescribed to the elite.
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
12:49 PM on 02/02/2012
You have a very good point here! Thinking about it, Fidel Castro for one, then there's the President of Venzuela, but you have to ask the question, who else?
02:50 PM on 02/02/2012
Prince Philip is one very notable example, he had cancer many years ago, Robert Mugabe, Nelson Mandela. Cancer is big business, lots of people make lots of money out of it and more people die of the treatment than the disease itself. The primary function of the immune system is to deal with abnormal cells but chemotherapy kills immune cells as well as cancer cells.
03:06 PM on 02/02/2012
Mandela has had prostate cancer for at least 12 years. Life expectancy is doubled (at least) for prostate patients who have radiotherapy or surgery as opposed to chemotherapy. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/03/11/22510.aspx
11:30 AM on 02/02/2012
Can NEVER understand this, cancer research and other researchers for that matter, discover a drug, which has cost millions to fund in the finding, and is a brilliant discovery, then it is decided it is too expensive to be able to give anyone, what is the point of the research then, which gets US to give to them....rediculous !!
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
12:51 PM on 02/02/2012
See my comments above. You are right to say what you say.
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
12:52 PM on 02/02/2012
I would like to be your first fan!
11:22 AM on 02/02/2012
Sheer greed by the drug company, absolutely shameful. They want to charge rip-off prices for a drug that was developed using a combination of taxpayers' money and publicly donated money.
majdf18148
I have nothing to declare but my curiosity
11:22 AM on 02/02/2012
It is, sadly, too easy to allow emotion to cloud the issue at debate. One the one hand if I was dying of prostate cancer I would want every drug going that alleviated the pain and allowed me to live longer with a reasonable quality of life. But let's look dispassionately at the other side of the coin. Drug companies spend £hundreds of millions on research and, when they come up with a new drug, they patent it to protect their investment. For 7 years they have sole rights to the manufacture of the drug and can sell it at whatever cost they wish. After 7 years the patent expires and the other drug companies can produce the cheaper, generic versions of the drug. Many of these new drugs cost a fortune for each patient and, if we accept there is a finite NHS budget, something has to give somewhere.The NHS budget cannot keep pace with the phenomena of advancement in medical science without taxes rising to pay for it all. No political party will risk that! So, compromises are drawn up. These compromises weigh up the benefits to the patient against the cost of the drugs. In more and more cases there will be a decision against the prescribing of the drug due to its high cost and limited benefit. In summary, for example, are £15k drug costs worth 4 months extra pain free life? Or should the money be spent on helping others with a better prognosis?
11:29 AM on 02/02/2012
Read the article, this drug was developed using a combination of taxpayers' money and publicly donated money. It's absolutely outragious that the drug company should be charging rip-off prices.
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
01:09 PM on 02/02/2012
You are absolutely right. Please see my comments above because I mention the charitable donations you refer to. There is a marked difference in how private cancer care and NHS cancer care compare. I am not knocking the NHS, they do have the know how, but they fall short on monitering, ie follow up scans etc., the level of scan, the extent of the surgery, the better safe than sorry approach, also the private cases are discussed at multi disciplinary meetings than NHS patients, because they are only discussed continually if a serious problem crops up. I know this because a friend of mine had this experience, I supported them and visited hospital so was able to compare and contrast the two. Not knocking the NHS because they definitely have the know how but are just too overloaded.
02:13 PM on 02/02/2012
Lets hope you or a member of your family are not told you can not live longer for want of cash. Thats what those of us who donate and pay taxes would expect for someone they care for.
majdf18148
I have nothing to declare but my curiosity
03:16 PM on 02/02/2012
I do not say I agree with the decision. I merely point out what I know to be fact. Re-read my post and you will see I explain that I would want the drug if it came to the push. That aside there is nothing to be gained by refusing to see what is de facto the reality of life in a world where sadly (almost) everything has a price. these decisions have been made for years because of the finite budget the NHS works with. If there were no financial restrictions everyone could have everything that had even the remotest chance of doing them some good.That would be utopia but will never happen.....sadly!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
werba
10:48 AM on 02/02/2012
No, 'the NHS' did not decide against this drug - that decision was made by NICE, which is a wholly irrelevant, useless and incredibly expensive QUANGO. We were promised a bonfire of the quangos - NICE ought to have been first on the pile. These people sit in fabulous (recently re-furbished at huge expense) offices in London, and spend a lot of their time on jaunts to exotic locations - all on taxpayer money. Abolish NICE now!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Norman Mitchison
10:26 AM on 02/02/2012
Cull the management and pen pusher base and there will be enough money.
09:24 AM on 02/02/2012
Irrespective of where you come down on this one, it really is about time we recognised that NICE is a misnomer. As far as I am aware it stands for National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. To me, I would have thought that this drug passes the Health & Clinical test. Top of the heap for this Quango is value for money not Clinical Excellence.
08:34 AM on 02/02/2012
The drug companies are ripping off this country whilst giving away the same drugs to other countries.They use emotion to force through high prices.

Their interest is not patients but shareholders.
10:27 AM on 02/02/2012
Their interest is not patients but shareholders.
------------------
Yes, it is in the interests of shareholders. they are companies. this is a capitalist country. that is how things work.

We could do the research with government money but unfortunately the people do not like taxes going up. Perhaps government could buy shares in the companies but that does not seem to work well with the banks the government has shares in. It is not easy to think of a better ways except raise taxes either to pay for the drugs or the research.
11:24 AM on 02/02/2012
The relevant research here was funded by a combination of taxpayers' money and publicly donated money.
This comment has been removed.