CLLSA and Leukaemia Care Joint Response to NHS... - CLL Support

CLL Support

23,324 members40,026 posts

CLLSA and Leukaemia Care Joint Response to NHS England regarding Ibrutinib Prescribing as per NICE TA

Jm954 profile image
Jm954Administrator
35 Replies

This is the letter sent to Professor Peter Clarke on 2nd July 2018 for the review of Ibrutinib prescribing.

Professor Peter Clark

Chair NHS England Chemotherapy Clinical Reference Group and Clinical Lead for the Cancer Drugs Fund,
 Specialised Commissioning 
NHS England

CLLSA and Leukaemia Care welcome the decision by NHS England to review of the criteria and evidence for treating relapsed CLL patients with Ibrutinib and the opportunity to contribute.

The recent decision by NHSE to restrict access to relapsed CLL patients who have had a remission longer than three years or are younger than 65 is preventing treating clinicians and patients accessing a suitable NICE approved therapy. This has created a therapeutic void and health equity issue between patients in the relapsed setting as these restrictions are not in place in Scotland or Wales.

In contrast to the NICE STA, FAD and guidance determination process, the restrictions added by NHSE to the NICE guidance were not reached following a transparent consultation process involving clinical experts and patient groups. We therefore hope that this review will add transparency to a process where all evidence and expert clinical and patient perspectives are considered.

CLLSA and Leukaemia Care firmly support and endorse the review replies, positions and current combined evidence provided by the CLL Forum (the UK CLL clinical expert group) and Janssen (the manufacturer). We ask that all the clinical guidance, reasoning and evidence provided to the committee is accepted to remove all the restrictions that are causing CLL patients immense distress and harm and that NICE/NHSE consider removing others imposed at a time when data sets were not mature and real-world evidence was not available.

This review provides an opportunity for NHSE to ensure that the relapsed CLL treatment pathway is easily and transparently navigable by patients and their clinicians and remains relevant today.

• We appeal to NHSE to use this review to remove the restrictions for relapsed patients with remission durations greater than 3 years.

The most recent draft BSH CLL Therapy Guidelines based upon recent trial data and real-world data experience are now in press and are available to NHSE.

The BSH guidelines state that retreatment with chemoimmunotherapy may be considered an option for fit CLL patients who relapse after a prolonged remission. This should remain as an option for patients who may wish a treatment free period but this should be agreed between the patient and clinician as the best option in that patient’s particular circumstances. Many patients are unsuitable for retreatment with a chemoimmunotherapy or do not wish to endure the effects of accumulative toxicities and significant infection/bone marrow suppression risks associated with chemo-based regimens. The draft BSH CLL treatment guidelines state: ‘Idelalisib with rituximab or ibrutinib monotherapy are the treatments of choice for patients with CLL who are refractory to CIT, have relapsed after CIT, or for whom re-treatment with CIT is inappropriate.’

Data and patient experiences also show that 2nd remissions gained following second line use of chemo-based regimens are likely to be much shorter and the negative quality of life issues experienced by patients are more severe. It is unreasonable to expect treating clinicians to expose patients to these toxicities and risks when they do not feel that chemotherapy is the best option for their patient. Following a shorter second remission Ibrutinib is often then prescribed but after health capacities and quality of life have been impaired.

Patients are today very aware of what treatments should be available and understand the process of disease evolution in CLL. Repeated use of chemotherapeutic agents hastens this. Restricting access to patients is causing significant emotional and psychological damage because they know that Ibrutinib offers them the chance of a longer remission than further chemotherapy.

• We appeal to NHSE to use this review to remove the restriction for relapsed patients younger than 65

The arbitrary age cut off at 65 that restricts access for relapsed patients younger than 65 is harming patients, as patients of any age may not tolerate chemoimmunotherapy if they have co-morbidities.

In an era of patient engagement and involvement in healthcare decisions, choice is important for a patient when considering maintaining quality of life and maintaining commitments. Many in this group will be in work, education and contributing to the family and community and quality of life and ability to carry out daily activities is an important consideration.

Outside of the trial setting, retreatment with chemoimmunotherapy is currently likely to be the only available option for this group. Chemoimmunotherapy adds a financial burden to patients who will be unfit for normal activities or work while also burdening the NHS with infection related complications and day clinic time to administrate the antibody therapy.

• We appeal to NHSE to use this review to make Ibrutinib available to all relapsed patients as was intended in the NICE STA, FAD and guidance determination.

We request that guidance includes access for those relapsing from a chemo-based regimen without a CD20 antibody therapy or from a chemoimmunotherapy using a different antibody therapy and includes those who could not tolerate an antibody therapy. We also request that those relapsed patients who have disease related cytopenias are not excluded from NHSE treatment with ibrutinib

• We appeal to NHSE to use this review to consider appropriate access to Ibrutinib for patients who develop Idelalisib related toxicity after 6 months

Current NICE guidance for ibrutinib use prevents patients failing Idelalisib from treatment with ibrutinib unless the patient fails due to Idelalisib related toxicity within six months of commencement of treatment. It is not clear how this particular guidance was established as Idelalisib related toxicity can develop at any time during treatment. We therefore request that the new guidance includes access to Ibrutinib if a patient fails Idelalisib due to treatment toxicity related issues at any time since commencement of therapy.

Written by
Jm954 profile image
Jm954
Administrator
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Read more about...
35 Replies
Mick491 profile image
Mick491

Great. Hope this works.

Kwenda profile image
Kwenda

Well done, lets keep the pressure on to reverse this decision.

Dick

pkguk2 profile image
pkguk2PartnerCLL Support Association

Thanks for the work that has gone into this. A balanced and reasoned letter which deserves to be heard.

Newdawn profile image
NewdawnAdministrator in reply topkguk2

I absolutely second that. A lot of unseen work and effort has gone into this submission and we hope earnestly for a positive result.

Newdawn

MsLockYourPosts profile image
MsLockYourPostsPassed Volunteer

I hope that this helps lead to a reasoned and reasonable decision!

ornstin profile image
ornstin

This is really great. Will it be supported in any way by expert clinicians?-eg those who wrote to the Times in protest. I would have thought our position stronger if clinicians could also write to NHS England in support. Antony

Jm954 profile image
Jm954Administrator

Yes, it has been supported by the UKCLL Forum which is the CLL Expert group but I haven't seen the letter.

Also, Janssen, the pharma company that markets Ibrutinib has sent a strong letter citing new evidence and some issues around policy, NICE etc.

They have said the evidence will be reviewed by the end of July and we're hopeful for a good outcome.

Mick491 profile image
Mick491 in reply toJm954

As someone directly affected by the decision by NHSE where my consultants want to put me on Ibrutinib but cant, I want to sincerely thank all those that have put so much effort in behind the scenes, in their own unpaid time for the benefit of patients like me. I hope it's successful and the result is back quickly as I am deteriorating. Thank you so much and well done all Mick.

Fran57 profile image
Fran57

Sincere thanks to everyone for all their hard work- it shouldn’t be necessary, but thank you!

Fran 😉

carnvellan profile image
carnvellan

Thank you for this. Only today, before seeing this letter I had written again to my MP, Helen Hayes, after she received the standard reply from Lord O'Shaughnessy. My letter is to urge her to press the secretary of State to persuade NHSE to follow the NICE decision as it is lawfully required to do.

By the way, what is CLLSA & Leukaemia Care's view of the suggestion that NICE revised its decision? Did this happen or not? Was it before or after the NHSE decision and have you seen any such revision? Is it empowered to revise its advice without going through its normal consultation process? I believe we should be pressing NICE to explain. It is important for NICE's credibility that it is seen to be acting openly and in accordance with its powers.

Jm954 profile image
Jm954Administrator in reply tocarnvellan

My understanding is that NICE did not change its determination regarding the treatment but said that NHSE was entitled to interpret its determination as it did, i.e within the trial inclusion criteria. I'll see if I can find the wording.

AdrianUK profile image
AdrianUK in reply toJm954

The wording is on the NICE web page and also quoted in my long reply to them. They haven’t changed the guideline. NHSE is trying to break the link between NICE and automatic funding.

AdrianUK profile image
AdrianUK in reply toAdrianUK

And no NICE has no legal basis for changing its view and could be legally challenged in my non lawyer view for what they have said.

Newdawn profile image
NewdawnAdministrator in reply toAdrianUK

You appear to have replied to yourself there Adrian 😉

Newdawn

AdrianUK profile image
AdrianUK in reply toNewdawn

Yeh yeh.

AdrianUK profile image
AdrianUK in reply toAdrianUK

What a Wally

AdrianUK profile image
AdrianUK in reply toAdrianUK

I’m not a Wally

AdrianUK profile image
AdrianUK in reply toAdrianUK

Oh yes we are!

AdrianUK profile image
AdrianUK in reply toAdrianUK

Look stop talking to me

AdrianUK profile image
AdrianUK in reply toAdrianUK

Your talking to me too.

AdrianUK profile image
AdrianUK in reply toAdrianUK

Wait. You ARE me. So if we are both talking to each other we must be Crazy.

AdrianUK profile image
AdrianUK in reply toAdrianUK

I guess so....

Newdawn profile image
NewdawnAdministrator in reply toAdrianUK

Maybe you need to talk to a psychiatrist...oh, of course, that’s the problem, you already are! ☺️

Newdawn

AdrianUK profile image
AdrianUK in reply toNewdawn

Well the do say us psychiatrists are a little bit nutty...

Newdawn profile image
NewdawnAdministrator

What does occur to me about this is the fact that the right to receive NICE approved treatment (subject to clinical suitability), is enshrined into the NHS Constitution. This is a pledge to patients and surely challengeable on that basis. I can’t copy the words but I think it’s 2a of the Constitution.

ncuh.nhs.uk/patients-and-vi...

I appreciate ‘interpretation’ of the NICE wording will be cited but its fairly unequivocal to me in the Constitution.

Newdawn

in reply toNewdawn

Did you see the post Jm954 did last night in regard NICE approving Ibrutinib and obinutuzimab as a first line therapy thru the NHS, really good news if and when you might need treatment.

Stuart

Newdawn profile image
NewdawnAdministrator in reply to

Yes it’s very promising indeed Lewis 😊

We need to keep the momentum going on all these issues and it’s great to see inroads being made.

I only hope I can hold off long enough to see it become operational.

Newdawn

in reply toNewdawn

How are you at the moment? Are You still suffering with the pollen count, this is definitely one of the longest heatwaves we’ve had in a while.

Yes your right we do need to keep up the momentum, are you still way off needing any treatment.

Unfortunately it doesn’t apply to me as I’m still having my first line therapy thru Flair but I’m lucky enough to have Ibrutinib.

Stuart

Newdawn profile image
NewdawnAdministrator in reply to

I’m suffering with the unusual heat more than the pollen I think Lewis and felt quite breathless yesterday. I began to wonder if these nodes could be impacting on my trachea but maybe that’s just heat hysteria!

I’m having FISH testing next month and hopefully a consult with Prof Hillmen. I’ll take it from there but these neck nodes are becoming bothersome.

Best wishes with your Ibrutinib therapy.

Newdawn

in reply toNewdawn

Sorry to hear that, I was really bad prior to being diagnosed so I can sympathise with how your feeling.

Sounds like you’ve gone straight to the top seeing prof Hillmen! I’m sure you’ll get the best advice and treatment possible thru him.

Good luck and let me know how you get on

Stuart

Jm954 profile image
Jm954Administrator in reply to

Not approving but considering Ib+Ob. Just scoping at the moment, a long way to go yet.

in reply toJm954

Sorry I got a bit ahead of myself reading your posts, but fingers crossed they get approved. Keep up the good work.

AdrianUK profile image
AdrianUK in reply toJm954

Yes it’s not even approved by the EMA yet.

Mick491 profile image
Mick491

Thanks to you all for the efforts. Keep up the good work. Some of us might slip through the net but long term hopefully no one will go through what we do who slip through x

AdrianUK profile image
AdrianUK in reply toMick491

Mick just to say I’ve been thinking about the unprecedented events going on st the moment about ibrutinib.

We have had

1. A debate in the LORDS where nobody raised any views that were different to us (thus was better really than we could have thought would happen even if we had got 100,000 signatures on the petition

2. The minister has said that NHSE are legally obliged to follow NICE

3. NICE has been somehow pressured into writing an explanatory note why they think they believe NHSE are allowed to interpret their document but have NOT changed the guidance. This act itself is in my view without any legal basis but may well reflect that the powers that Be feel that they are at risk of being successfully sued.

4. There’s been a stream of contradictory statements by NHSE including the bizarre claim that they are treating more people with ibrutinb than NICE said and this speedy review organised calling for more recent data from the company and submissions from us. NHSE don’t tend to do anything f fast but it almost feels to me like it could be a face saving exercise allowing them to climb down without looking too foolish.

5. We have had a series of announcements about more money for the health service and the need to improve cancer outcomes all of which are going to look pretty shoddy if the decision doesn’t go our way.

If I was you Mick I would have my solicitor draw up a letter to NHSE threatening legal action if they don’t immediately grant your funding per NICE, also in view of your special circumstances and the IFR that has been submitted. That might seem aggressive, and others might disagree. But if it was me I’d be fighting hard. I presume you sent in a personal submission, however?

Hope you are holding up reasonably well. We are all rooting for you.

Not what you're looking for?

You may also like...

CLLSA Response to NHS England Failing to Fund Ibrutinib in line with NICE Guidance

Many of you will have seen the articles in The Times this weekend which have revealed an issue of...
Jm954 profile image
Administrator

Your opportunity to support affordable access to Ibrutinib and Idelalisib for Aussies - Submissions close next Wed 7th October

Australia's November Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committe (PBAC) meeting will consider listing...
AussieNeil profile image
Partner

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatment algorithm 2022

This 29 November 2022 review article published in the Blood Cancer Journal presents an...
CLLerinOz profile image
Administrator

BTK inhibitors for the treatment of CLL - the current state of play of 'brutinibs'

In just a short time, in many places, BTK inhibitors (BTKi) have largely replaced...
CLLerinOz profile image
Administrator

Ibrutinib combinations in CLL therapy: scientific rationale and clinical results

From Blood Cancer Journal 29th April 2021 Four strategies have been tested in recent years...
Jm954 profile image
Administrator