A LEADING scientist has warned that big pharmaceutical companies will pull out of Britain unless the NHS funds more new drugs.
Professor Hilary Calvert, of Newcastle University's Northern Institute for Cancer Research, suggested that the drug watchdog Nice was having a damaging effect on the UK pharmaceutical industry.
By refusing to approve new drugs for the NHS that are widely used in other European countries, he said Nice was driving pharmaceutical companies abroad. Prof Calvert, who published the first scientific paper on Alimta, a new drug that can extend the lives of patients with mesothelioma, said: "It is leading to disinvestment in the UK by the pharmaceutical companies.
"If they do not think they are going to be able to sell their product, they will not want to do their research in the UK."
He made his comments after The Northern Echo highlighted the case of lung cancer sufferer Dave Hill, from Whinfields, Darlington.
Mr Hill, a father of four and stepfather of three, is trying to raise money to pay for a £2,000-a-month drug called Tarceva after his cancer specialist said it could prolong his life.
Tarceva is available on the NHS in Scotland, but after a decision by Nice -the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence -that it was not cost-effective, Tarceva is not being funded by the NHS in England.
Another North-East patient, Barbara Selby, from Richmond, is being denied access to the kidney cancer drug Sutent, which is yet to be approved by Nice, even though patients in neighbouring County Durham can get the drug on the NHS.
Prof Calvert, who had his own battle to ensure that Alimta was given the go-ahead by Nice, said he feared a downward spiral that would result in fewer new drugs manufactured in Britain, as well as fewer drugs trials.
He said he would like to see more new drugs being made available to UK patients, even if some of them were expensive, because keeping people as healthy as possible would cut nursing bills.
A spokeswoman for Nice said: "Our role is to appraise new drugs on the grounds of clinical and cost-effectiveness.
"We look at how well they work and whether they are worth spending NHS funds on."
She said that the bigger picture was a matter for the Government.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article