HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

NICE call for evidence: biologic drugs for UC treatment

Support Forums
>
Ulcerative Colitis
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 9/27/2014 12:12 PM (GMT 0)
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (the UK version of the FDA) are calling for evidence regarding the use of infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab for maintenance therapy in Ulcerative Colitis. Right now these therapies are not approved because they're not considered cost effective.

I am so excited about this, it's about time that we get the treatment we need. They're asking for success stories, so if anyone has a spare moment please please please help us out and share your evidence.

The link is here:
www.crohnsandcolitis.org.uk/whats-new/nice-review-of-biologics-for-ulcerative-colitis-public-call-for-evidence

Hopefully the use of biologics here will soon become the norm.
Posted 9/27/2014 1:44 PM (GMT 0)
To me this sounds so stupid. The FDA already has study evidence, that's why they approved them in the first place. Seems like the UK version could have access to that. I'm not sure what cost effective means. Most people on biologics are on them in the first place because the "cost effective" treatments didn't work, so "cost effective" doesn't really apply.
Posted 9/27/2014 2:13 PM (GMT 0)
It's actually good to see more countries heading towards making as many medical tools as possible available for the treatment of UC.

As far as cost-effectiveness, that is about determining whether losses arising due to people needing regular hospitalization, surgery, unemployment etc, can be mitigated by providing better medications.
Productive humans who pay tax and don't use public resources are desirable! ;-)

Each country has to do its own due diligence, with consideration for its own cultural and geographic circumstances. (Is entyvio included?)
Posted 9/27/2014 2:46 PM (GMT 0)

garylouisville said...
To me this sounds so stupid. The FDA already has study evidence, that's why they approved them in the first place. Seems like the UK version could have access to that. I'm not sure what cost effective means. Most people on biologics are on them in the first place because the "cost effective" treatments didn't work, so "cost effective" doesn't really apply.

I know this, you know this, and they know this; but we just have to jump through these hoops first. It may be stupid but it needs to be done. Obviously every country will want their own controlled studies done according to their own guidelines before approving drugs, so we're still in that stage even though it's been approved elsewhere.

Remember that in the UK we do not pay for our healthcare, and biologics are effing expensive - there has to be a LOT of good evidence that it'll definitely work on enough people before the NHS start forking out the money for this.

Ambling: No I don't think entyvio is included in this. One step at a time I guess.
Posted 9/27/2014 3:18 PM (GMT 0)
I always hated hoop jumping. I think it sucks that anywhere in the world doctors aren't allowed to be doctors. They are just puppets of the insurance companies or national health services. They do what they are told by these entities and the hell with the patients because "big brother" knows best. I had a talk one day with my GI and he was very frustrated in that he had to prescribe meds that he really didn't want to prescribe to certain patients due to the various insurances when he knew that another med would work much better. I would hate being a doctor because it's a lot of BS to have treat a patient in a different way than I really wanted to just because some entity tells me I have to jump through hoops first. In fact, sometimes I wonder why we even need doctors at all. The insurance companies and/or national health services could just set up offices in every city and you go there for treatment and skip the middle man doctor because he just has to follow their orders anyway. In a way that is one solution to high medical costs - eliminating doctors altogether and just jump through the hoops that we are forced to jump through anyway and we save the costs of having to pay for doctors. What good are they if they have to make their decisions based on insurance companies or national health systems?
Posted 9/27/2014 5:31 PM (GMT 0)
Not sure this is hoop jumping. I am sure they are looking at the research available to FDA, and other published literature. they are managed care and public health experts - they are not stupid.

it also mentioned "maintenance" - I think it is a fair question if the effects wear off. or if there are adverse events with long term use. "safe" in a 6 month trial does not mean safe for a decade.

seem there are plenty other things to rag on about, that we dong have to turn this advance of the NHS into an opportunity to cry and moan and bash.
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply