RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Does The Reformed Cancer Drug Fund Generate Evidence On Effectiveness? A Cross-sectional Analysis On Publicly Accessible Documentation
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.03.06.19014944
DO 10.1101/2020.03.06.19014944
A1 Macdonald, Helen
A1 Goldacre, Ben
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/08/2020.03.06.19014944.abstract
AB Introduction The Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) was reformed in 2016 with an ambition to generate new evidence on effectiveness, and to review existing drugs in the fund. We set out to evaluate: whether drugs transitioning from the old CDF were re-reviewed as planned; whether new drugs have a “data collection arrangement” (DCA) as planned; and whether evidence generated under the DCA using routine data from the “Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment” (SACT) database was of high quality.Methods We accessed documents from NHS England, Public Health England and NICE at August 2018. We calculated the proportion of old CDF drugs re-reviewed, and of new drugs and indications with a DCA. We described key features of the DCAs. For all SACT studies we set out to obtain a protocol in order to analyse the quality of the planned methods.Results 47 old drugs and indications transitioned to the new CDF. For 14 there was no evidence of a re-review; 9 of these remain under CDF at August 2019 (all off-label uses). 33 had marketing authorisations: 22 of these had a review completed by September 2017 as planned (67%). 20 new drugs and indications entered the CDF by August 2018: 19 had a DCA; one (off-label) had no DCA or equivalent. All DCAs identify uncertainty about overall survival; all express an intent to conduct observational analysis using SACT data; SACT data was central to decision-making for 6 (32%). We were able to find 0 protocols of the 19 planned SACT studies (0). Following Freedom of Information requests we were told these protocols are prepared after the data are collected, and posted with the reappraisal: however we could not locate any protocol for either of the two published re-appraisals. We were therefore unable to assess the quality of the methods in any of the proposed SACT studies.Conclusions The revised CDF has not been implemented as planned. Reporting of observational analyses in SACT data fall substantially short of best practice, and the full methods used cannot be established. There is very little information in the public domain around evaluation of off-label uses. Lastly, SACT data itself does not appear to be able to support clinical decision-making in the manner suggested by the CDF policy documents. NHS England should review the conduct of the fund, but also the planning, as unrealistic commitments may have been made.Competing Interest StatementHM is a clinical editor at The BMJ and has also worked as a junior doctor and then GP in the NHS. BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the NHS National Institute for Health Research School of Primary Care Research, the Health Foundation, and the World Health Organisation; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science.Clinical TrialDid not consider at the time of starting the projectFunding StatementNo specific funding was sought for this project. BG’s work on transparency has been supported by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data are attached to the main paper.