In the first ever judicial review case brought against the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), Mrs Justice Linda Dobbs ruled that the Government's drugs watchdog was correct to state that the drugs are only cost-effective when prescribed in later stages of the disease.
The case was brought by Eisai, the Japanese pharmaceutical firm, and Pfizer, which distributes the drugs in Britain, and backed by the Alzheimer's Society charity, which said that treating people at an earlier stage could slow their mental degeneration.
They had accused NICE of acting "irrationally and unlawfully" in recommending that the drugs should not be funded on the NHS for people with early-stage symptoms. They also argued that Nice's decision was "procedurally flawed".
Although the case was defeated on five out of six counts, the campaigners were successful on one count - that tests to assess Alzheimer's were "discriminatory" against people who speak English as a second language or those with learning disabilities.
However, the key claim of the campaigners - that patients should be given NHS Alzheimer's treatment at an earlier stage in the illness - was defeated.
More at TimesOnLine
1 comment:
Treatment early is definitely the best way to make things better in the long run, but there's always the gamble on whether the treatment might end up being worse than the problem. I don't blame them for being wary of using the drugs on people, but why feel the need to specify early or late.
-Aaron
Post a Comment