Faced with an ever-increasing workload, and squeezed NHS resources, one would guess that living up to the prestigious title of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (better known as NICE) could on occasion be described as a challenge. What better then, than to propose a scheme which would both save on resources and speed new drugs from already-established classes on the way to their patient recipients in record time, with minimal loss of scrutiny? If this sounds like it might be too good to be true, the early planning stage of the scheme may be a good stage to examine its details.

This is the brief for which NICE has designed a new streamlined pathway, the Abbreviated Technology Appraisal (ATA) scheme, to save cost and time resources for funding decisions on medicines which show similar efficacy and safety to those already recommended by NICE in the same indication. A document detailing the proposal for consultation was submitted to a NICE board meeting on 18 May 2016, and a draft guidance for public consultation was published on 2 June 2016.

Saving time and money by streamlining the economic analysis stage and using direct comparators

The aim of the process is to combine resource savings for NICE with accelerated patient access to drugs from the more established classes, by eliminating analytical steps which may be redundant. NICE themselves have suggested there may be concerns from outside parties about the possibility of insufficient evidence being available to make a fully informed decision, and the perception that the procedure may favour companies producing less innovative therapies.

To be eligible for NICE’s proposed ATA scheme, a new drug should have safety and efficacy similar to or greater than a NICE-recommended drug for the same indication, with a similar or lower cost, and should be comparable with at least one drug already recommended in published NICE guidance for that indication. NICE envisages streamlining of the approval process by eliminating the need for cost-per-quality-adjusted life year (QALY) analyses, and would require the same level of clinical evidence as a standard Single Technology Appraisal (STA). Economic analyses would be performed as cost comparisons against comparator drugs. In addition, patient access schemes may only be considered if submitted at the outset, but not during the course of the ATA process.

The process in a nutshell

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

View profiles in store

Company Profile – free sample

Thank you!

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

By GlobalData

Submit

UK USA Afghanistan Åland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Democratic Republic of the Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d"Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati North Korea South Korea Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Réunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates US Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam British Virgin Islands US Virgin Islands Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Kosovo

Industry * Academia & Education Aerospace, Defense & Security Agriculture Asset Management Automotive Banking & Payments Chemicals Construction Consumer Foodservice Government, trade bodies and NGOs Health & Fitness Hospitals & Healthcare HR, Staffing & Recruitment Insurance Investment Banking Legal Services Management Consulting Marketing & Advertising Media & Publishing Medical Devices Mining Oil & Gas Packaging Pharmaceuticals Power & Utilities Private Equity Real Estate Retail Sport Technology Telecom Transportation & Logistics Travel, Tourism & Hospitality Venture Capital

Tick here to opt out of curated industry news, reports, and event updates from Pharmaceutical Technology.

Submit and download

Visit our Privacy Policy for more information about our services, how we may use, process and share your personal data, including information of your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications. Our services are intended for corporate subscribers and you warrant that the email address submitted is your corporate email address.

The proposed ATA process would basically follow an identical process for evidence submission, review and appraisal as for a conventional STA, but with the following modifications:

• Timelines for company submissions and evidence review group (ERG) assessments would be reduced from 8 weeks to 6 weeks each.
• After the first NICE appraisal committee meeting, a final appraisal determination (FAD) would be produced if the drug was recommended. An appraisal consultation document (ACD) would only be produced if the drug was not recommended, or if use of the drug was to be limited more than stipulated in the marketing authorization or comparator drug guidelines.
• Patient access schemes would only be considered if approved by the UK Department of Health before the company submission deadline, but not if submitted during the course of an ATA.
• An additional engagement step is included, involving review of a redacted executive summary by non-company consultants and commentators to assess clinical and resource similarities of the drug in clinical practice, and comparator companies will have the opportunity to comment on any factual inaccuracies regarding their own product.
• The level of clinical evidence considered would be similar to that for an STA, including a full systematic review to identify all relevant studies and indirect comparisons.
• Appraisal of costs would be via a direct cost-comparison analysis with competitor products. Unlike the STA process, QALYs would not be required to assess benefit. The cost analysis would then be considered alongside evidence of clinical effectiveness to evaluate the best use of National Health Service (NHS) resources.
• If two or more clinically similar treatments are approved by NICE, the recommendation would normally start with the lowest-cost option.
• The new process would retain an option for appeal, with similar principles and processes as for STAs.
• The decision about whether a drug would be appraised by an ATA or STA process would rest with NICE itself, but they stressed that companies would have a say in the final decision.

The NICE board meeting discussion document detailing the ATA proposal is available (on pages 115-141).

What are likely to be the pros and cons?

Even at this preliminary discussion stage, one key advantage of this scheme could not be argued – the ATA process would provide a realistic system for dealing with an ever-increasing workload, while requiring significantly fewer resources than for an STA. NICE reported that resource savings could be as high as 50% over a standard STA, plus the review process could be shortened by 4-6 weeks.

NICE did express the concern themselves that companies may be reluctant to follow the ATA process, and that it could be perceived externally as a less intensive appraisal, favouring second- or third-in-class technologies, or small additions to options for which effective treatments are already available. However, they did not envisage a significant market access advantage for the less innovative drugs, since guidance would be published well within six months of marketing authorization, as with a regular STA, and it was stressed that the ATA decision-making process was no more or less rigorous than for an STA.

The inability to propose a patient access scheme (PAS) part way through the ATA process is an interesting point. In certain cases, this may represent a problem – it has been seen recently that late-stage PAS proposals have often been used to turn an initial rejection into an approval, for example in the final recommendation of Novartis’ Zykadia for lung cancer (UK NICE recommends Novartis’ Zykadia for non-small cell lung cancer). It will be interesting to see how companies adapt to this aspect of the new scheme, if implemented, where the more expensive drugs are involved, particularly in cancer – however, the more innovative therapies will of course still be appraised by the more conventional route, which is amenable to this approach, and PAS details can be submitted, though only at the outset.

Few would argue the fact that that the new scheme would clearly represent a much-needed major cost saving to NICE, with concomitant advantages of resource streamlining, throughput and time savings. However, it remains to be seen whether the hoped-for minimal impact on quality and rigour of analysis would be evident in practice, and whether any controversy would arise over the comparator product assessments. Much will depend on the detail in practice.

Since the proposal is still at a very early stage of planning, we are likely to see much discussion and amendments to the procedure. A draft guidance document for public review was published on 2 June 2016.