Sir,
We note Professor Bielack’s concern (Bielack, 2012) regarding our reference to his European Journal of Cancer Care editorial ‘Osteosarcoma: time to move on?’ (Bielack, 2010). However, he misinterprets the reason for our reference to his contribution. We were not suggesting that Professor Bielack had said that he had fears that ‘the viability of the EURAMOS trial of established therapies would be impaired if more osteosarcoma patients were able to access MTP’.
Rather, we referred to his editorial primarily because it describes the scale of the EURAMOS trial, and secondarily because it illustrates aspects of the debate surrounding the value of MTP. In the latter context, we note that in the United Kingdom, towards the end of 2011, NICE recommended MTP as cost-effective for NHS use in the treatment of osteosarcoma, albeit this was some 30 months after this medicine was licensed by the EMEA.
We wish to emphasise that the purpose of our article (Davies et al, 2012) was to highlight the difficulties that innovators may face when they seek to have medicines for orphan and ultra-orphan indications licensed, and made available for use on a reimbursed basis. The MPT example illustrates a range of relevant barriers and inconsistencies, but it is not in itself central to our argument.
Change history
24 January 2013
This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication
References
Bielack BB (2012) Comment on ‘Developing and paying for medicines for orphan indications in oncology: utilitarian regulation vs equitable care?’. Br J Cancer; 107: 583
Bielack SS (2010) Osteosarcoma: time to move on? Eur J Cancer 46: 1942–1945
Davies JE, Neidle S, Taylor DG (2012) Developing and paying for medicines for orphan indications in oncology: utilitarian regulation vs equitable care? Br J Cancer 106: 14–17
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Davies, J., Neidle, S. & Taylor, D. Reply: Comment on ‘Developing and paying for medicines for orphan indications in oncology: utilitarian regulation vs equitable care?’. Br J Cancer 107, 584 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.281
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.281