header-logo header-logo

Alzheimer victory for pharmaceutical firms

08 May 2008
Issue: 7320 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Community care , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

News

A computer model used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to assess the cost-effectiveness of an Alzheimer’s drug must be made available to drug companies, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

In R (Eisai Ltd) v NICE & Ors the court ruled that NICE had acted unfairly in refusing to allow pharmaceutical firms Eisai and Pfizer access to a “fully executable” version of the economic model it had used when deciding that the drug Aricept should not be prescribed on the NHS to patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease.

Eisai and Pfizer—which market Aricept—were unable to properly challenge NICE’s decision because of the watchdog’s refusal to allow access to the economic model, the court ruled. The Court of Appeal’s decision means that NICE must now make such a version available.

NICE claims the full details of the computer programs are the intellectual property of the academic teams who developed them, and who are entitled to have them protected. It is considering an appeal to the House of Lords. Stephen Hocking, partner in the public law department at law firm Beachcroft, which acted for NICE, says this is a surprising and worrying judgment for all public bodies.

 

“Just as public bodies are expected to respect the role of the courts, so the courts have to respect the role of public bodies.

“There is a boundary between a proper scrutiny of what public bodies do, and an improper interference in how they do it. If the courts do not respect that boundary public bodies are at the mercy of any claimant with an axe to grind,” he says.

 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll