The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the drug companies Pfizer and Eisai by finding that NICE should have allowed public access to the health economic model
Published 1 May 2008
This is a significant result which further undermines the guidance that NICE has issued.
What has happened today?
Today the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the drug companies Pfizer and Eisai by finding that National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) should have allowed public access to the health economic model that it used in review of Alzheimer's drugs. This is a significant result which further undermines the guidance that NICE has issued.
What does this mean for people diagnosed with Alzheimer's?
NICE will now have to provide access to the model it used to make decisions about who should have access to drug treatment. It is still possible that NICE will appeal the judgment to the House of Lords.
This decision does not by itself mean that the guidance which recommends access to treatment only in the moderate stages of Alzheimer's will change in the short term. However, NICE will have to provide access to the model they used to make their flawed decision. This may lead to further challenge of the NICE guidance as it requires NICE to open up the appraisal process again. At this stage the process is unclear.
The advice of the Society remains that people with Alzheimer's in the early stages of the disease should be allowed access to treatments in the early stages of the disease and doctors should continue to exercise clinical judgement in deciding what is in the best interests of their patients.
What else has happened since the decision last year?
In 2007 the High Court found in favour of the Society's argument that NICE had breached the disability discrimination act and the race relations act, but did not quash the guidance and send them back to the drawing board. NICE had to change their guidance to ensure it was compliant with their equality duties.
The Society decided last year not to appeal the result of the Court but informed the Court that we supported the argument about transparency being put by Eisai and Pfizer.
Separately the House of Commons' Health Select Committee decided to conduct an inquiry into the work of NICE. The Committee agreed with the Society that NICE needed to reconsider its process to look at the way they make their decisions and consider in particular how the benefits of treatment to carers could be better reflected in their decisions.
The Department of Health agreed with that finding and has begun consulting people,including the Society, on how the work of NICE can change to reflect the true costs and benefits of treatment. In addition, the Society has requested a meeting with the Health Minister, Dawn Primarolo, to discuss the future of NICE.
Please let us know if you have any more queries about the Court Judgement by emailing us at campaigns@alzheimers.org.uk
