When does NICE recommend the use of health technologies within a programme of evidence development?

This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Background: There is growing interest internationally in linking reimbursement decisions with recommendations for further research. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) can issue guidance to approve the routine use of a health intervention, reject routine use or recommend use within a research programme. These latter recommendations have restricted use to ‘only in research’ (OIR) or have recommended further research alongside routine use (‘approval with research’ or AWR). However, it is not currently clear when such recommendations are likely to be made. Objectives: This study aims to identify NICE technology appraisals where OIR or AWR recommendations were made and to examine the key considerations that led to those decisions. Methods: Draft and final guidance including OIR/AWR recommendations were identified. The documents were reviewed to establish the characteristics of the technology appraisal, the cost effectiveness of the technologies, the key considerations that led to the recommendations and the types of research required. Results: In total, 29 final and 31 draft guidance documents included OIR/AWR recommendations up to January 2010. Overall, 86 % of final guidance included OIR recommendations. Of these, the majority were for technologies considered to be cost ineffective (83 %) and the majority of final guidance (66 %) specified the need for further evidence on relative effectiveness. The use of OIR/AWR recommendations is decreasing over time and they have rarely been used in appraisals conducted through the single technology appraisal process. Conclusion: NICE has used its ability to recommend technologies within research programmes, although predominantly within the multiple technology appraisal process. OIR recommendations have been most frequently issued for technologies considered cost ineffective and the most frequently cited consideration is uncertainty related to relative effectiveness. Key considerations cited for most AWR recommendations and some OIR recommendations included a need for further evidence on long-term outcomes and adverse effects of treatment.Medical Research Counci

Identifying Effectiveness in 'The Old Old': Principles and Values in the Age of Clinical Trials

This article explores some implications of the increasing reliance on clinical trials in contemporary health care, particularly health care payers efforts to use them in the so-called fourth hurdle decisions. How do these agencies manage medical uncertainty given the desire to produce clear guidelines for clinicians? Their solutions take account of trials in at least two ways, reflecting broader debates about the meaning of these medical experiments. Trials can be read as either proofs of protocol, straight-forward guides to action with individual drugs in specific populationsor proofs of principle where extrapolation is made possible through an appeal to underlying biological mechanisms. These contrasting readings of trials are illustrated with reference to guidelines on heart disease prevention/cholesterol reduction using statins among the elderly in North America and the United Kingdom. Uncertainty in these cases does not lead to inertia but solutions use different fixed points to aid navigation, including both physiological principles and moral values

Pricing New Medicines in the UK: ‘Price is what you Pay, Value is what you Get'?

Warren Buffett's aphorism neatly captures the ambition underlying proposals which have been put forward for reform of regulation of pharmaceutical pricing in the UK's National Health Service. Through a critical evaluation of the envisioned system of 'value-based pricing', this article explores differing understandings of the value which a new medicine delivers to patients and society. It further considers the possible consequences for regulatory legitimacy of the adoption of the more pluralistic approach to value which the proposals embody