Zelboraf Access

› Forums › General Melanoma Community › Zelboraf Access

  • Post
    • June 27, 2012 at 1:57 pm
    mrf
    Keymaster

      The news reported a few days ago that the the review panel for Britain's National Health Service have said that Zelboraf is too expensive and the long-term benefits are unclear, so they recommend the NHS not cover the drug.  This is devastating news for melanoma patients in Britain, and I believe we need to help reverse this recommendation.  My colleagues in the UK and Europe have asked for our help, and here is what they recommend:

      If you are a melanoma patient or the family/friend of a patient in the UK, please submit a comment on this issue.

      The news reported a few days ago that the the review panel for Britain's National Health Service have said that Zelboraf is too expensive and the long-term benefits are unclear, so they recommend the NHS not cover the drug.  This is devastating news for melanoma patients in Britain, and I believe we need to help reverse this recommendation.  My colleagues in the UK and Europe have asked for our help, and here is what they recommend:

      If you are a melanoma patient or the family/friend of a patient in the UK, please submit a comment on this issue.

      If you have taken Zelboraf–particularly if you are a long-term responder–please submit a comment even if you don't live in the UK.  Your story can have an impact.  

      You can submit comments here:  http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA/Wave27/5/Consultation/DraftGuidance

      My personal feeling on this is driven by a few widely-reported facts:

      –clinicians have a biomarker that predicts response

      –response rates are high among those patients receiving the drug

      –while the median duration of response is 6 to 7 months, those months tend to be characterized by high quality of life

      –some patients have much longer responses

      This seems like a strong case for approving the drug in the NHS.  

      Tim–MRF

    Viewing 8 reply threads
    • Replies
        • June 27, 2012 at 2:52 pm
        awillett1991
        Participant
          Done! Thanks for posting this link Tim!
          • June 27, 2012 at 2:52 pm
          awillett1991
          Participant
            Done! Thanks for posting this link Tim!
            • June 27, 2012 at 2:52 pm
            awillett1991
            Participant
              Done! Thanks for posting this link Tim!
              • June 27, 2012 at 4:56 pm
              Richard_K
              Participant

                Done. (Not an easy document to wade through.)

                Dick

                • June 27, 2012 at 4:56 pm
                Richard_K
                Participant

                  Done. (Not an easy document to wade through.)

                  Dick

                  • June 27, 2012 at 4:56 pm
                  Richard_K
                  Participant

                    Done. (Not an easy document to wade through.)

                    Dick

                    • June 28, 2012 at 2:11 am
                    AllyNTAus
                    Participant

                      This is the same sort of disappointing economic rationalist approach that was taken by the Australia Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Board in rejecting the application for subsidisation of Yervoy just recently, and it worries me that when it comes to them considering Zelboraf, which they will do shortly given it was approved for use by the Therapeutic Goods Administration recently, they will say much the same thing.

                      I know the drugs are expensive and public funding has to come through taxes, but hey, we've all paid our taxes and deserve some support in return!

                      • June 28, 2012 at 2:11 am
                      AllyNTAus
                      Participant

                        This is the same sort of disappointing economic rationalist approach that was taken by the Australia Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Board in rejecting the application for subsidisation of Yervoy just recently, and it worries me that when it comes to them considering Zelboraf, which they will do shortly given it was approved for use by the Therapeutic Goods Administration recently, they will say much the same thing.

                        I know the drugs are expensive and public funding has to come through taxes, but hey, we've all paid our taxes and deserve some support in return!

                        • June 28, 2012 at 2:11 am
                        AllyNTAus
                        Participant

                          This is the same sort of disappointing economic rationalist approach that was taken by the Australia Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Board in rejecting the application for subsidisation of Yervoy just recently, and it worries me that when it comes to them considering Zelboraf, which they will do shortly given it was approved for use by the Therapeutic Goods Administration recently, they will say much the same thing.

                          I know the drugs are expensive and public funding has to come through taxes, but hey, we've all paid our taxes and deserve some support in return!

                      Viewing 8 reply threads
                      • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
                      About the MRF Patient Forum

                      The MRF Patient Forum is the oldest and largest online community of people affected by melanoma. It is designed to provide peer support and information to caregivers, patients, family and friends. There is no better place to discuss different parts of your journey with this cancer and find the friends and support resources to make that journey more bearable.

                      The information on the forum is open and accessible to everyone. To add a new topic or to post a reply, you must be a registered user. Please note that you will be able to post both topics and replies anonymously even though you are logged in. All posts must abide by MRF posting policies.

                      Popular Topics