PP065—An investigation of the horizon scanning approach used for new medicines in the scottish national health service

Abstract

e38 Volume 35 Number 8S PP065—AN INVESTIGATION OF THE HORIZON SCANNING APPROACH USED FOR NEW MEDICINES IN THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE M. Bennie; J. Dear; E. Dunlop Corcoran; S. Hems; R. Newham; S. McTaggart; and C. Waugh Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow; Edinburgh University/ BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, Queen’s Medical Research Institute; and Information Services Division, NHS National Services Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom Introduction: The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) provides advice about clinicaland cost-effectiveness of newly licensed medicines to the National Health Service (NHS) in Scotland. Since 2005, SMC has also provided early intelligence on medicines in developmentthrough “Forward Look” (FL) reports. An investigation was undertaken to examine the completeness of FL and its usefulness to NHS Boards. Patients (or Materials) and Methods: (1) Significant medicines (with the potential for net budget impact exceeding UK£500,000 per annum at year 5 and/or significant service implications or orphan status) in FL reports (April 2006-October 2008) were compared with SMC advice. The actual launch date was compared with the FL predicted date to determine if the medicine was launched within expected time frames. (2) SMC advice (April 2006 March 2010) for all medicines was compared with FL reports. For medicines that were not included in FL reports but accepted by SMC, those predicted by the manufacturer to have a budget impact ≥ UK£500,000 were identified. (3) Interviews were held with NHS Directors of Finance and Directors of Pharmacy to explore how FL reports were used at NHS Board level. Results: (1) Of 116 significant FL medicines, 81 (70%) medicines were reviewed by SMC; only 4 of the medicines not reviewed by SMC had been launched in the United Kingdom. A total of 52 (45%) of the 116 medicines were launched within time frames predicted by FL. Of the remaining 64 medicines, 31 were launched out with expected time frames; 31 were not launched in the UK; and, for 2 medicines, data were unavailable. (2) Of 215 medicines that were reviewed by SMC (April 2006 to March 2010), 123 (57%) medicines had been included in FL reports. Of the 92 (43%) medicines that were not included in FL reports, 53 were accepted for use or restricted use by SMC, including 7 medicines that were predicted by the pharmaceutical company to have a net budget impact ≥ £500,000 at year 5. (3) The qualitative study demonstrated that although NHS Boards did not view FL as completely accurate, it was a useful source of intelligence on medicines in the pipeline and an important starting point for local clinical engagement. Conclusion: Most significant medicines in FL reports were subsequently launched and reviewed by SMC. As expected, it was challenging to accurately predict the launch date of medicines in development, with many launched out with expected timef rames and some not launched at all. Despite the limitations, FL was considered a useful source of intelligence on medicines in the pipeline. Disclosure of Interest: None declared.