Evidence Review Group 's Base Research Articles

Filgotinib for Treating Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer (Galapagos) of filgotinib (Jyseleca®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of filgotinib for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults who have had an inadequate response, loss of response or were intolerant to a previous biologic agent or conventional therapy. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group. This paper summarises the company submission, presents the Evidence Review Group's critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the company submission, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The company submission included one relevant study for the comparison of filgotinib versus placebo: the SELECTION trial. As there was no head-to-head evidence with any of the comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses, one for the biologic-naïve population and one for the biologic-experienced population, and for both the induction and maintenance phases. The Evidence Review Group questioned the validity of the maintenance network meta-analysis because it assumed all active treatments to be comparators in this phase, which is not in line with clinical practice. The economic analysis used a number of assumptions that introduced substantial uncertainty, which could not be fully explored, for instance, the assumption that a risk of loss of response would be independent of health state and constant over time. Company and Evidence Review Group results indicate that at its current price, and disregarding confidential discounts for comparators and subsequent treatments, filgotinib dominates some comparators (golimumab and adalimumab in the company base case, all but intravenous and subcutaneous vedolizumab in the Evidence Review Group's base case) in the biologic-naïve population. In the biologic-experienced population, filgotinib dominates all comparators in both the company and the Evidence Review Group's base case. Results should be interpreted with caution as some important uncertainties were not included in the modelling. These uncertainties were mostly centred around the maintenance network meta-analysis, loss of response, health-related quality-of-life estimates and modelling of dose escalation. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended filgotinib within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults when conventional or biological treatment cannot be tolerated, or if the disease has not responded well enough or has stopped responding to these treatments, and if the company provides filgotinib according to the commercial arrangement.

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.