Evidence Review Group 's Base Case Research Articles

Abemaciclib in Combination with Endocrine Therapy for Adjuvant Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative, Node-Positive Early Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) of abemaciclib (Verzenios) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) for the treatment of adult patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence, as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in combination with Newcastle University, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarised the Company Submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS and also independently searched for relevant evidence and modified the manufacturer decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. A systematic literature review identified the MonarchE trial, an ongoing, open-label, randomised, double blind trial involving 5637 people comparing abemaciclib in combination with ET versus ET alone. The trial included two cohorts that used different inclusion criteria to define high risk of recurrence. The ERG considered Cohort 1 as an adequate representation of this population and the AC concluded that Cohort 1 was generalisable to National Health Service clinical practice. Trial results showed improvements in invasive disease-free survival for the abemaciclib arm, which was considered an appropriate surrogate outcome. The ERG believed that the modelling structure presented in the de novo economic model by the company was appropriate but highlighted several areas of uncertainty that had the potential to have a significant impact on the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Areas of uncertainty included the extrapolation of long-term survival curves, the duration of treatment effect and treatment waning, and the proportion of patients who receive other CDK4/6 treatments for metastatic disease after receiving abemaciclib. ICER estimates were £9164 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the company's base-case and £17,810 for the ERG's base-case. NICE recommended abemaciclib with ET as an option for the adjuvant treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

Filgotinib for Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Gilead) of filgotinib (JyselecaTM), as part of the single technology appraisal process, to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG’s critical review of the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the NICE Appraisal Committee. The evidence for filgotinib was based on two good-quality international randomised controlled trials. In FINCH 1, filgotinib was compared with placebo, and in FINCH 2, filgotinib was compared with adalimumab and placebo. As there was no head-to-head evidence with most active comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), one for the conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs–inadequate response population and one for the biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs–inadequate response population. The outcomes analysed were American College of Rheumatology response criteria at weeks 12 and 24, and European League Against Rheumatism response criteria at 24 weeks. The statistical methods used to perform the NMAs were valid and were in line with previous NICE appraisals. Results of the NMAs are confidential and cannot be reported here, but they were uncertain due to heterogeneity of the included studies. The economic analysis of the patient population with moderate RA suffered from limited evidence on the progression from moderate to severe health states. For the moderate RA population, the final analyses comparing filgotinib, with or without methotrexate, against standard of care resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of around £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in the company’s and ERG’s base-case and scenario analyses. NICE recommended filgotinib in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy when methotrexate is contraindicated, or if people cannot tolerate it, for patients with moderate RA whose disease had responded inadequately to two or more conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). For the severe RA population, in view of the higher or similar net health benefits that filgotinib provided versus its comparators, NICE recommended filgotinib with or without methotrexate for patients whose disease had responded inadequately to two or more conventional DMARDs, who had been treated with one or more biological DMARDs, if rituximab was not an option, or after treatment with rituximab.

Arsenic Trioxide for Treating Acute Promyelocytic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Teva, the company manufacturing arsenic trioxide (ATO; tradename Trisenox®), to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of ATO for untreated and relapsed or refractory acute promyelocytic leukaemia (APL). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Center, was commissioned as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper presents a summary of the company submission (CS), the ERG’s critical review of the clinical and cost effectiveness evidence in the CS, key methodological considerations and the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee (AC). The CS presented three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two of these were trials in newly diagnosed APL (APL0406 and AML17) and the third trial was in patients with relapsed APL. Results from APL0406 showed that more people having AATO [ATO plus all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA)] were alive at 50 months compared with people having AIDA (ATRA in combination with idarubicin) (99% vs. 93%; p = 0.007). There was also a statistically significant lower cumulative incidence of relapse with AATO compared with AIDA at 50 months (2% vs. 14%; p = 0.001). At 4 years, results from AML17 showed a significant difference in event-free survival (91% vs. 70%; p = 0.002) favouring AATO but not in overall survival (93% vs. 89%; p = 0.250). The only trial presented for relapsed/refractory patients compared AATO with ATO, which was not a relevant comparison according to the NICE scope. The AC concluded that AATO was effective for untreated APL while for relapsed or refractory APL the effectiveness of ATO was considered uncertain and the long-term safety remains unexplored. In the CS base-case, AATO was less expensive (£31,088 saved) and more effective (2.546 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained) than AIDA and thus the dominating strategy for newly diagnosed low- to intermediate-risk APL. However, the ERG’s critical assessment highlighted a number of concerns, including deviations from the NICE reference case and a lack of detailed description and justification of parameters and assumptions related to (the extrapolation of) treatment effectiveness. However, it was reassuring that AATO for untreated APL remained dominant in the ERG base-case, and that the worst-case scenario produced by the ERG resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £21,622. The AC concluded that although there was uncertainty in the model, it could recommend ATO for both untreated and relapsed or refractory APL.

Strimvelis® for Treating Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Caused by Adenosine Deaminase Deficiency: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Highly Specialised Technology Evaluation.

The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics Technology Assessment Group at the University of York was commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Highly Specialised Technologies (HST) programme to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG) for an appraisal of Strimvelis®, a gene therapy treatment for adenosine deaminase deficiency–severe combined immunodeficiency (ADA-SCID). This paper describes the manufacturing company’s submission of clinical and economic evidence, the ERG’s review and the resulting NICE guidance. For Strimvelis® compared with haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) from a matched unrelated donor (MUD) and HSCT from a haploidentical donor, the company base-case deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £36,360 and £14,645 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively (using a discount rate of 1.5%). Although overall survival in patients receiving Strimvelis® was substantially higher than historical comparator data on HSCT from a MUD or haploidentical donor, the ERG was concerned that the estimated treatment benefit remained highly uncertain. The ERG critiqued some assumptions in the cost-effectiveness model, including that all patients return to general population mortality and morbidity after a successful procedure; that all patients receive a matched sibling donor following an unsuccessful engraftment; and that differences in wait times exist between the treatments. Incorporating a number of changes to the model, the ERG’s base-case ICERs were £86,815 per QALY gained for Strimvelis® compared with HSCT from a MUD and £16,704 per QALY gained compared with HSCT from a haploidentical donor (using a discount rate of 1.5%). The ICER for Strimvelis® compared with HSCT from a MUD was highly sensitive to the difference in procedural mortality and could exceed NICE’s £100,000 per QALY gained threshold for HSTs, if HSCT survival rates have improved since the most recent data. The evaluation committee concluded that the most plausible ICERs were lower than £100,000 per QALY gained and that Strimvelis® should be recommended for treatment of ADA-SCID where a matched related donor is unavailable.

Nivolumab for Treating Metastatic or Unresectable Urothelial Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Bristol-Myers Squibb) of nivolumab (Opdivo®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for metastatic or unresectable urothelial cancer. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG), which produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission to NICE. Nivolumab was compared with docetaxel, paclitaxel, best supportive care and retreatment with platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin plus gemcitabine, but only for patients whose disease has had an adequate response in first-line treatment). Two ongoing, phase I/II, single-arm studies for nivolumab were identified, but no studies directly compared nivolumab with any specified comparator. Evidence from directly examining the single arms of the trial data indicated little difference between the outcomes measured from the nivolumab and comparator studies. A simulated treatment comparison (STC) analysis was used in an attempt to reduce the bias induced by naïve comparison, but there was no clear evidence that risk of bias was reduced. Multiple limitations in the STC were identified and remained. The effect of an analysis based on different combinations of covariates in the prediction model remains unknown. The ERG's concerns regarding the economic analysis included the use of a non-established response-based survival analysis method, which introduced additional uncertainty. The use of time-dependent hazard ratios produced overfitting and was not represented in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The use of a treatment stopping rule to cap treatment cost left treatment effectiveness unaltered. A relevant comparator was excluded from the base-case analysis. The revised ERG deterministic base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on the company's Appraisal Consultation Document response were £58,791, £78,869 and £62,352 per quality-adjusted life-year gained versus paclitaxel, docetaxel and best supportive care, respectively. Nivolumab was dominated by cisplatin plus gemcitabine in the ERG base case. Substantial uncertainties about the relative treatment effectiveness comparing nivolumab against all comparators remained. NICE did not recommend nivolumab, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults who have had platinum-containing therapy, and considered that nivolumab was not suitable for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund.

Abiraterone Acetate for the Treatment of Chemotherapy-Naïve Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of an NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Janssen, the company manufacturing abiraterone acetate (AA; tradename Zytiga®), to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of AA in combination with prednisone/prednisolone (AAP) compared with watchful waiting (i.e. best supportive care [BSC]) for chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Center, was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper presents a summary of the company submission (CS), the ERG report, subsequent addenda, and the development of the NICE guidance for the use of this drug in England and Wales by the Appraisal Committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of AAP based on the CS. An important question in this appraisal was, according to the ERG, whether AAP followed by docetaxel is more effective than BSC followed by docetaxel. In the COU-AA-302 trial, 239 of 546 (43.8 %) AAP patients and 304 of 542 (56.1 %) BSC patients received docetaxel as subsequent therapy, following AA or placebo. The results for this specific group of patients were not presented in the CS; therefore, the ERG asked the company to provide these data in the clarification letter; however, these data were presented as commercial-in-confidence and cannot therefore be reported here. The ERG’s critical assessment of the company’s economic evaluation highlighted a number of concerns, including (a) not using the intention-to-treat (ITT) population; (b) inconsistencies in estimating prediction equations; (c) not fully incorporating the impact of adverse events; (d) incorrectly incorporating the new patient access scheme (PAS); and (e) the assumption that AA non-compliance leads to recoverable drug costs. Although some of these issues were adjusted in the ERG base case, the ERG could not estimate the impact of all of these issues, and thus acknowledges that there are still uncertainties concerning the cost-effectiveness evidence. With the exception of the ERG’s preference for using the ITT population, the AC agreed with the approach taken in the ERG base case. The original company and ERG base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £46,722 and £57,688 per QALY gained, respectively; these changed to £28,563 and £38,061 per QALY gained, respectively, in the revised base cases applying a new PAS. Regarding the end-of-life criteria, after 24 months approximately 63 % of patients in the control group of the COU-AA-302 trial were still alive, and the median survival was 30.1 months (95 % CI 27.3–34.1). Therefore, it is unlikely that life expectancy would be less than 24 months. The AC stated that the most plausible ICER is likely between £28,600 and £32,800 per QALY gained, and concluded that AAP at this stage in the treatment pathway did not meet the end-of-life criterion for short life expectancy. Moreover, in March 2016, the AC produced the final guidance, stating that AAP is recommended, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating mCRPC.

Ledipasvir-Sofosbuvir for Treating Chronic Hepatitis C: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal-An Evidence Review Group Perspective.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Gilead, the company manufacturing ledipasvir-sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of LDV/SOF for treating chronic hepatitis C. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) Technology Assessment Group was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company's submission (CS), the ERG review and the subsequent decision of the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence of LDV/SOF based upon the CS. The clinical effectiveness data for LDV/SOF were taken from ten trials: three phase III trials and seven phase II trials. Trials compared different durations of LDV/SOF, with and without ribavirin (RBV). There were no head-to-head trials comparing LDV/SOF with any comparator listed in the NICE scope. Data from the trials were mostly from populations with genotype 1 (GT1) disease, although some limited data were available for populations with genotypes 3 and 4. For GT1 treatment-naïve patients, sustained viral response for 12weeks (SVR12) rates for LDV/SOF ranged from 93.1 to 99.4% for subgroups of patients with non-cirrhotic disease, whilst SVR rates of 94.1 to 100% were reported for subgroups of patients with compensated cirrhosis. For GT1 treatment-experienced patients, SVR12 rates ranging from 95.4 to 100% were reported for subgroups of non-cirrhotic patients, and SVR rates ranging from 81.8 to 100% were reported within subgroups of patients with compensated cirrhosis. Comparator data were not searched systematically as part of the submission, but were based on the company's previous NICE submission of sofosbuvir, with additional targeted searches. The ERG's critical appraisal of the company's economic evaluation highlighted a number of concerns. The ERG's base case analyses suggested that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for LDV/SOF (+RBV) are dependent on (a) treatment durations, (b) whether patients have been previously treated and (c) whether patients have liver cirrhosis or not. The AC concluded that it was appropriate to use the approach taken in the ERG's exploratory analyses, in line with the marketing authorisation, which considered people with and without cirrhosis separately, and estimated the cost effectiveness for each recommended treatment duration of LDV/SOF.