Now on ScienceBlogs: "Global Warming is not real because weather patterns have stabilized in the last 10 years!" Why statements like this need a little context.

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Profile

me_w.jpg
I'm a neuroscientist by training and a writer by inclination Contact me

rss2-1.png


Follow me on Twitter
Get e-mail updates

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Search


Selected posts

Books


wishlist.gif


My photos

www.flickr.com

Rotating blogroll

(Complete list/Shared items)

Archives

« Parapsychology in higher ed | Main | Interview with PLoS cofounder »

Court ruling upholds guidance that limits availability of Alzheimer's drug

Category: Medicine & Health
Posted on: August 11, 2007 5:15 PM, by Mo

From The Times:

A ruling by the national drug watchdog to limit access to an Alzheimer's drug has been upheld by the High Court.

The drug company Eisai challenged the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) over its guidance that for most patients Eisai's drug Aricept was not a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

This is a complex judgement. In November, the government body NICE, which issues guidelines regarding all aspects of healthcare in the National Health Service, stated that the acetylcholinesterase inhibitors Aricept (Donepezil), Reminyl (Galantamine) and Exelon (Rivastigmine) should be prescribed to patients with moderate, but not mild, Alzheimer's Disease. This was based on assessments of the cost effectiveness of providing the drugs to patients in the early stages of the disease.

The pharmaceutical company Eisai, together with other interested parties, such as the Alzheimer's Society, challenged this decision, on three grounds: that NICE was not correctly following the procedures for assessing cost-effectiveness; that its rigid assessment guidelines were discriminatory; and that it had behaved irrationally while dealing with previous appeals against its decisions.

The judge ruled in favour of NICE on all but one challenge. She ruled that the system used by NICE to assess patients was discriminatory, because it made it less likely that those with disabilities or language difficulties would be prescribed Aricept. NICE has therefore been ordered to change its assessment procedures to take these factors into account.

The Times has the full court judgement

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Trackbacks

Trackback URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/47753

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM