Article | Published:

Epidemiology

Impact of NICE guidance on tamoxifen prescribing in England 2011–2017: an interrupted time series analysis

British Journal of Cancervolume 118pages12681275 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

Background

Tamoxifen was recommended by NICE in 2013 for chemoprevention of breast cancer, but a recent survey suggested only a quarter of GPs are aware of this. We set out to measure the uptake of tamoxifen, and the alternative raloxifene, in national prescribing data sets.

Methods

Tamoxifen and raloxifene data were extracted from England’s monthly prescribing data sets, October 2010–October 2017. We used interrupted time series analysis to reveal national and local responses to guidelines. We investigated variation between practices by calculating percentiles for prescribing rates and ratios of change.

Results

We found an increase in monthly tamoxifen prescribing following release of the guidelines, with an increase in gradient (p = 0.001) but no step change (p = 0.342). Alongside a small change in raloxifene prescribing we estimate 8450 women took up chemoprevention between 2013 and 2016. We did not find evidence that this was limited to a small group of practices.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the uptake of new guidance on chemoprevention has been slow and has potentially left women exposed to avoidable risk. Improving dissemination of guidance to healthcare professionals and routinely monitoring implementation could help reduce this risk.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Note: This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Cancer Research UK. Breast cancer statistics. Cancer Research UK. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer. Accessed 27 Mar 2017 (2015).

  2. 2.

    NICE. Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG80. Accessed 21 Dec 2017 (2009).

  3. 3.

    NICE. Advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg81. Accessed 21 Dec 2017 (2009).

  4. 4.

    NICE. Familial breast cancer: classification, care and managing breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer. NICE-familial breast cancer. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg164/ifp/chapter/how-breast-cancer-risk-is-described. Accessed 3 May 2017 (2017).

  5. 5.

    Cuzick, J. et al. Selective oestrogen receptor modulators in prevention of breast cancer: an updated meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet 381, 1827–1834 (2013).

  6. 6.

    Cuzick, J. et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: extended long-term follow-up of the IBIS-I breast cancer prevention trial. Lancet Oncol. 16, 67–75 (2015).

  7. 7.

    Smith S. G. et al. Prescribing tamoxifen in primary care for the prevention of breast cancer: a national online survey of GPs’ attitudes. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 67, e414–e427 (2017).

  8. 8.

    Cancer Taskforce. Achieving world-class cancer outcomes: a strategy For England 2015–2020. Cancer Research UK. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/achieving_world-class_cancer_outcomes_-_a_strategy_for_england_2015-2020.pdf. Accessed Mar 2015 (2015).

  9. 9.

    NHS Digital. Number of patients registered at a GP practice. http://content.digital.nhs.uk/gppatientsregistered. Accessed 3 May 2017 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Kontopantelis, E., Doran, T., Springate, D. A., Buchan, I. & Reeves, D. Regression based quasi-experimental approach when randomisation is not an option: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ 350, h2750 (2015).

  11. 11.

    Donnelly, L. S. et al. Uptake of tamoxifen in consecutive pre-menopausal women under surveillance in a high-risk breast cancer clinic. Br. J. Cancer 110, 1681–1687 (2014).

  12. 12.

    Smith, S. G. et al. Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Oncol. 27, 575–590 (2016).

  13. 13.

    Evans, D. G. et al. Breast cancer risk in young women in the national breast screening programme: implications for applying NICE guidelines for additional screening and chemoprevention. Cancer Prev. Res. 7, 993–1001 (2014).

  14. 14.

    Evans, D., Lalloo, F., Shenton, A., Boggis, C. & Howell, A. Uptake of screening and prevention in women at very high risk of breast cancer. Lancet 358, 889–890 (2001).

  15. 15.

    Evans, D. G., Harvie, M., Bundred, N. & Howell, A. Uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening trials. J. Med. Genet. 47, 853–855 (2010).

  16. 16.

    NICE. Familial breast cancer guideline consultation comments table. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg164/update/CG164/documents/familial-breast-cancer-update-guideline-consultation-comments-with-responses2. Accessed 2 May 2017 (2013).

  17. 17.

    Cuzick, J. et al. Anastrozole for prevention of breast cancer in high-risk post-menopausal women (IBIS-II): an international, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 383, 1041–1048 (2014).

  18. 18.

    Hill, A. & Barber, M. Unexplained rises in UK cancer drug prices between 2011 and 2016. European CanCer Organisation (ECCO) Congress, Amsterdam 2017. http://www.eccocongress.org/en/Scientific-Programme/Searchable-Programme#anchorScpr (2017).

  19. 19.

    Skandarajah, A. R. et al. Patient and medical barriers preclude uptake of tamoxifen preventative therapy in women with a strong family history. Breast 32, 93–97 (2017).

  20. 20.

    National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Cost-effectiveness evidence review. Familial breast cancer: classification and care of women at risk of familial breast cancer and management of breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg164/evidence/cost-effectiveness-evidence-review-pdf-190130944. Accessed 26 Jan 2018 (2013).

  21. 21.

    Sheldon, T. A. et al. What’s the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients’ notes, and interviews. BMJ 329, 999 (2004).

  22. 22.

    Chidgey, J., Leng, G. & Lacey, T. Implementing NICE guidance. J. R. Soc. Med. 100, 448–452 (2007).

  23. 23.

    Dietrich, E. S. Effects of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence’s technology appraisals on prescribing and net ingredient costs of drugs in the National Health Service in England. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 25, 262–271 (2009).

  24. 24.

    Munson, J. C., Kreider, M., Chen, Z., Christie, J. D. & Kimmel, S. E. Effect of treatment guidelines on the initial management of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 70, 118–125 (2010).

  25. 25.

    Connor, A. J. & Fraser, S. G. Glaucoma prescribing trends in England 2000 to 2012. Eye 28, 863–869 (2014).

  26. 26.

    Fitzpatrick, R. W. & Pate, R. G. Assessing the impact of NICE guidance on the prescribing of hormonal treatments of breast cancer in England. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 21, 759–761 (2015).

  27. 27.

    ONS. Conception Statistics, England and Wales. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityrates/datasets/conceptionstatisticsenglandandwalesreferencetables. Accessed January 19, 2018 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Seb Bacon for obtaining the data and Richard Croker for pharmaceutical advice. B.G. has received funding from the Health Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, the West of England Academic Health Sciences Network and NHS England for work on UK prescribing data.

Author contributions

H.C. conceived the project, designed the methods, wrote the paper and interpreted the findings, with input from B.G. H.C. extracted and processed the data in SQL and Excel. A.W. conducted the analysis in Stata. B.G. obtained funding and supervised the project. All authors contributed to and approved the final manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Evidence Based Medicine DataLab, Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, United Kingdom

    • Helen J. Curtis
    • , Alex J. Walker
    •  & Ben Goldacre

Authors

  1. Search for Helen J. Curtis in:

  2. Search for Alex J. Walker in:

  3. Search for Ben Goldacre in:

Competing interest

B.G has received funding from the Health Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, the West of England Academic Health Sciences Network and NHS England for work on UK prescribing data. H.C. and A.W. are employed on these grants. B.G. has additionally received funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the World Health Organisation to work on better use of data in medicine; and receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Goldacre.

Electronic supplementary material

About this article

Publication history

Received

Revised

Accepted

Published

Issue Date

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0065-2

Further reading