Single Technology Appraisal Process Research Articles

HTA191 Discussion of Health Inequalities in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process: A Review of Recent Submissions in NHS England Core20PLUS5 Focus Clinical Areas

HTA191 Discussion of Health Inequalities in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process: A Review of Recent Submissions in NHS England Core20PLUS5 Focus Clinical Areas

Flexibility in assessment of rare disease technologies via NICE's single technology appraisal route: a thematic analysis.

Aim: NICE's highly specialized technology (HST) evaluations are highly restrictive in terms of entry criteria and as a consequence, the vast majority of rare disease medicines are assessed through NICE's standard, single technology appraisal (STA) route. We explored whether NICE shows flexibility and pragmatism when evaluating treatments for rare diseases through its STA process. Materials & methods: We matched a sample of recent, randomly selected STAs for rare diseases to STAs for non-rare diseases and conducted a thematic analysis to identify patterns in NICE's decision-making, with a specific focus on the application of NICE's published methods and the handling of uncertainty. Results: Three themes emerged where some flexibility was shown: 'handling of uncertainty and discretion', 'application of NICE methods' and 'commercial arrangements'. Rare disease technologies were generally subject to longer appraisal times than those for non-rare diseases. Conclusion: Although NICE shows a degree of flexibility and pragmatism toward uncertainties in the evidence base for rare disease medicines, this is often off-set by a lengthy appraisal process, which can lead to delays in patients receiving vital treatment.

Pegcetacoplan for Treating Paroxysmal Nocturnal Haemoglobinuria: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Apellis Pharmaceuticals/Sobi to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of pegcetacoplan versus eculizumab and pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab for treating paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria (PNH) in adults whose anaemia is uncontrolled after treatment with a C5 inhibitor. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). The company pursued a low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) Fast Track Appraisal (FTA). This was a form of STA processed in a shorter time frame and designed for technologies with company base-case ICER < £10,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and most plausible ICER < £20,000 per QALY gained. This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission, and the NICE Appraisal Committee's (AC's) final decision. The company presented clinical evidence from the PEGASUS trial that assessed the efficacy of pegcetacoplan versus eculizumab. At Week 16, patients in the pegcetacoplan arm had statistically significantly greater change from baseline in haemoglobin levels and a higher rate of transfusion avoidance than patients in the eculizumab arm. Using the PEGASUS trial and Study 302 data (a non-inferiority trial that assessed ravulizumab versus eculizumab), the company conducted an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to indirectly estimate the efficacy of pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab. The company identified key differences between trial designs and populations that could not be adjusted for using anchored MAIC methods. The company and ERG agreed that the anchored MAIC results were not robust and should not inform decision making. In the absence of robust indirect estimates, the company assumed that ravulizumab had equivalent efficacy to eculizumab in the PEGASUS trial population. Results from the company base-case cost-effectiveness analysis showed that treatment with pegcetacoplan dominated eculizumab and ravulizumab. The ERG considered that the long-term effectiveness of pegcetacoplan was uncertain and ran a scenario assuming that after 1 year the efficacy of pegcetacoplan would be the same as eculizumab; treatment with pegcetacoplan continued to dominate eculizumab and ravulizumab. The AC noted that treatment with pegcetacoplan had lower total costs than treatment with eculizumab or ravulizumab because it is self-administered and reduces the need for blood transfusions. If the assumption that ravulizumab has equivalent efficacy to eculizumab does not hold, then this will affect the estimate of the cost effectiveness of pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab; however, the AC was satisfied that the assumption was reasonable. The AC recommended pegcetacoplan as an option for the treatment of PNH in adults who have uncontrolled anaemia despite treatment with a stable dose of a C5 inhibitor for ≥ 3 months. Pegcetacoplan was the first technology recommended by NICE via the low ICER FTA process.

Oral Azacitidine for Maintenance Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia After Induction Therapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Celgene) of oral azacitidine (ONUREG), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral azacitidine for maintenance treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) after induction therapy compared with watch-and-wait plus best supportive care (BSC) and midostaurin. 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 on 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. In the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo: median OS gain of 9.9months (24.7months versus 14.8months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.55-0.86), p < 0.001). The median time to relapse was also better for oral azacitidine, and the incidences of TEAEs were similar for the two arms. The company excluded two of the comparators listed in the scope, low-dose cytarabine and subcutaneous azacitidine, informed only by clinical expert opinion, leaving only best supportive care (BSC) and midostaurin for the FLT3-ITD and/or FLT3-TKD (FLT3 mutation)-positive subgroup. An ITC comparing oral azacitidine to midostaurin as maintenance therapy in the appropriate subgroup demonstrated that the OS and relapse-free survival (RFS) HRs were favourable for oral azacitidine when compared with midostaurin. However, in the only available trial of midostaurin as maintenance treatment in AML that was used for this ITC, subjects were not randomised at the maintenance phase, but at induction, which posed a substantial risk of bias. The revised and final probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) presented by the company, including a commercial arrangement, was £32,480 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for oral azacitidine versus watch-and-wait plus BSC. Oral azacitidine was dominant versus midostaurin in the FLT-3 subgroup. The ERG's concerns included the approach of modelling haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the generalisability of the population and the number of cycles of consolidation therapy pre-treatment in the QUAZAR AML-001 trial to UK clinical practice, and uncertainty in the relapse utility. The revised and final ERG base case resulted in a similar probabilistic ICER of £33,830 per QALY gained versus watch-and-wait plus BSC, but with remaining uncertainty. Oral azacitidine remained dominant versus midostaurin in the FLT-3 subgroup. After the second NICE appraisal committee meeting, the NICE Appraisal Committee recommended oral azacitidine (according to the commercial arrangement), within its marketing authorisation, as an option for maintenance treatment for AML in adults who are in complete remission, or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery, after induction therapy with or without consolidation treatment, and cannot have or do not want HSCT.

Trastuzumab Deruxtecan for Treating HER2-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Breast Cancer After Two or More Anti-HER2 Therapies: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides guidance to improve health and social care in England and Wales. NICE invited Daiichi Sankyo to submit evidence for the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for treating human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer (UBC/MBC) after two or more anti-HER2 therapies, in accordance with NICE's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, part of the University of Liverpool, was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the evidence submitted by the company and provides an overview of the NICE Appraisal Committee's (AC's) final decision made in May 2021. Results from the company's base-case fully incremental analysis showed that, compared with T-DXd, eribulin and vinorelbine were dominated and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained versus capecitabine was £47,230. The ERG scenario analyses generated a range of ICERs, with the highest being a scenario relating to a comparison of T-DXd versus capecitabine (£78,142 per QALY gained). The ERG considered that due to a lack of appropriate clinical effectiveness evidence, the relative effectiveness of T-DXd versus any comparator treatment could not be determined with any degree of certainty. The NICE AC agreed that the modelling of overall survival was highly uncertain and concluded that treatment with T-DXd could not be recommended for routine use within the National Health Service (NHS). T-DXd was, however, recommended for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund, provided Managed Access Agreement conditions were followed.

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.

Pralsetinib for RET Fusion-Positive Advanced Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Roche) of pralsetinib (Gavreto®), as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pralsetinib for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with a RET inhibitor. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with University Medical Center Groningen, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarizes 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 CS reported data from the ARROW trial. ARROW is a single-arm, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, multi-cohort study in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and other advanced solid tumors. The CS included both untreated and pre-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients, among other disease types. The comparators in the untreated population were pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The comparators for the pre-treated population were docetaxel monotherapy, docetaxel + nintedanib, and platinum-based chemotherapy ± pemetrexed. As no comparators were included in ARROW, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate relative effectiveness. The ERG's concerns included the immaturity of data, small sample size, and lack of comparative safety evidence. The ERG considers the clinical evidence presented to be insufficiently robust to inform the economic model. Even when all the ERG preferred assumptions were implemented in the model, uncertainty remained on a number of issues, such as the appropriateness of the hazard ratios and the methods and data used to derive them, long-term efficacy of pralsetinib, and direct evidence for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). NICE did not recommend pralsetinib within its marketing authorization for treating RET fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults who have not had a RET inhibitor before. The uncertainty of the clinical evidence and the estimates of cost effectiveness were too high to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Therefore, pralsetinib was not recommended for routine use.

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.

Fenfluramine for Treating Dravet Syndrome: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Fenfluramine, tradename Fintepla®, was appraised within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process as Technology Appraisal 808. Within the STA process, the company (Zogenix International) provided NICE with a written submission and a mathematical health economic model, summarising the company's estimates of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fenfluramine for patients with Dravet syndrome (DS). This company submission (CS) was reviewed by an evidence review group (ERG) independent of NICE. The ERG, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, produced an ERG report. This paper presents a summary of the ERG report and the development of the NICE guidance. The CS included a systematic review of the evidence for fenfluramine. From this review the company identified and presented evidence from two randomised trials (Study 1 and Study 1504), an open-label extension study (Study 1503) and 'real world evidence' from a prospective and retrospective study. Both randomised trials were conducted in patients up to 18 years of age with DS, whose seizures were incompletely controlled with previous anti-epileptic drugs. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare fenfluramine with cannabidiol plus clobazam. There was no evidence of a difference between any doses of fenfluramine and cannabidiol in the mean convulsive seizure frequency (CSF) rate during treatment. However, fenfluramine increased the number of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in CSF frequency from baseline compared to cannabidiol. The company used an individual-patient state-transition model (R version 3.5.2) to model cost-effectiveness of fenfluramine. The CSF and convulsive seizure-free days were estimated using patient-level data from the placebo arm of the fenfluramine registration studies. Subsequently, a treatment effect of either fenfluramine or cannabidiol was applied. Utility values for the economic model were obtained by mapping Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory data from the registration studies to EuroQol-5D-3L Youth (EQ-5D-Y-3L). The company included caregiver utilities in their base-case, as the severe needs of patients with DS have a major impact on parents and caregivers. There were several key issues. First, the company included caregiver utilities in the model in a way that when patients in the economic model died, the corresponding caregiver utility was also set to zero. Second, the model was built in R statistical software, resulting in transparency issues. Third, the company assumed the same percentage reduction for convulsive seizure days as was estimated for CSF. Fourth, during the final appraisal committee meeting, influential changes were made to the model that were not in line with the ERG's preferences (but were accepted by the appraisal committee). The company's revised and final incremental cost effectiveness ratio(ICER) in line with committee preferences resulted in fenfluramine dominating cannabidiol. Fenfluramine was recommended as an add-on to other antiepileptic medicines for treating seizures associated with DS in people aged 2 years and older in the National Health Service(NHS).

Belimumab for Treating Active Autoantibody-Positive Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: 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 (GlaxoSmithKline [GSK]) of Benlysta (belimumab) to submit evidence regarding its clinical and cost effectiveness, for the review and possible extension of a previously conditionally approved intravenous formulation of belimumab for the treatment of active autoantibody-positive systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). 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.This appraisal is different to the previous appraisal in three ways: (1). This appraisal expands its definition of ‘high disease activity’. (2). In TA397, belimumab was approved, with a managed access arrangement (MAA), for adults only. This appraisal includes subjects aged 5 years or older. (3). The original appraisal included an intravenous formulation only, but the current appraisal also includes a new subcutaneous formulation in the form of a prefilled pen.The company was required to collect real-world data from the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register (BILAG-BR), including data on the efficacy, safety, and effect on health-related quality of life of belimumab versus rituximab. This appraisal considers these data as well as additional clinical trial evidence presented in the company’s updated submission to address uncertainties identified during the original appraisal. The ERG identified three major concerns with the evidence presented on the clinical effectiveness in the current submission; namely, short follow-up in the main comparative trials (BLISS-SC, BLISS-52 and BLISS-76); using the propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis in calibrating the cost-effectiveness model can severely bias the results in favour of belimumab; and BILAG-BR data are not suitable for a comparison of belimumab with rituximab.The main issue in the economic analysis was the uncertainty about long-term disease activity progression and resulting organ damage. The company’s approach of calibrating modelled organ damage to longer-term data analysed using the PSM analysis was methodologically inappropriate. The final analysis comparing belimumab with standard treatment for the intravenous formulation resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,335 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and £30,278 per QALY gained in the company’s and ERG’s base-case analyses, respectively. For the subcutaneous formulation, the final analysis resulted in £8480 per QALY gained and £29,313 per QALY gained in the company’s and ERG’s base-case analyses, respectively. NICE recommended belimumab in both intravenous and subcutaneous formulations as an add-on treatment option for active autoantibody-positive SLE in the HDA-2 subgroup.

Medicine characteristics affecting the time to guidance publication by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the single technology appraisal process.

In England, the time gap between marketing authorization (MA) and guidance publication by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) can limit patients' access to new medicines. In this study, our aim was to identify medicine characteristics associated with the long time gap between MA and guidance publication and explore the influencing factors. We identified 116 single technology appraisals from 2016 to 2020 using publicly available data, and extracted information on the year of appraisal completion, application type, experiences of similar appraisals, orphan medicinal products (OMPs), cancer medicines, and accelerated assessment. Multiple regression analyses were performed to analyze the associations between the medicine characteristics and key time periods related to health technology assessment and MA processes. OMPs were associated with a long period between MA and guidance publication. Specifically, OMPs and cancer medicines were associated with slow guidance publication after the final scope (FS) development. However, there was no association between OMPs and the period between validation of MA application and FS development. Non-double-blinded randomized clinical trials and the use of comparators not specified in the FS were associated with slow guidance publication after the FS development. Our results demonstrate that OMPs are associated with a longer period between MA and guidance publication by the NICE than non-OMPs; this may be attributed to the slow guidance publication after the FS development. These findings indicate the necessity to shorten the appraisal process for OMPs.

Mogamulizumab for Previously Treated Mycosis Fungoides and Sézary Syndrome: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Kyowa Kirin) of mogamulizumab (Poteligeo®), as part of the single technology appraisal process, to submit evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness for previously treated mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS). 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 Appraisal Committee. Based on a systematic literature review, one randomised controlled trial, MAVORIC, was identified showing favourable results in patients with MF and SS. However, MAVORIC compared mogamulizumab to vorinostat, which is not standard care in the NHS, and there is uncertainty due to the study design, specifically crossover of patients. Based on a “naïve comparison of results from the vorinostat arm of the MAVORIC study and the physician’s choice arm (methotrexate or bexarotene i.e. United Kingdom [UK] standard treatments) of the ALCANZA study as well as comparison to Phase II bexarotene data”, the company considered vorinostat to be “a reasonable proxy for current standard of care in the NHS”. The ERG considered, based on the limited data available, that the comparability of vorinostat (MAVORIC) and physician’s choice (ALCANZA) could not be established. In response to the Appraisal Consultation Document, the company provided an unanchored matched adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of mogamulizumab with UK standard care by analysing Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. However, given the high risk of bias of an unanchored MAIC, these results needed to be regarded with a considerable degree of caution. The economic analysis suffered from uncertainty because there was no trial evidence on the comparator in the England and Wales National Health Service (NHS), and it was unclear to what extent the trial (MAVORIC) comparator (vorinostat) was comparable to standard care, referred to as established clinical management (ECM) in the NHS. The evidence for overall survival had not reached maturity and was confounded by treatment switching, for which different crossover adjustment methods produced large variations in life years. Caregiver utilities were applied in the analysis, but there was a lack of guidance on their application and whether these were indicated in this appraisal. After consultation, the company updated the economic analysis with the MAIC. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing mogamulizumab against ECM were (depending on whether the HES or MAVORIC comparison were used) £31,030 or £32,634 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained according to the company’s base case and £38,274 or £80,555 per QALY gained according to the ERG’s base case. NICE did not recommend mogamulizumab for treating MF or SS in adults who have had at least one previous systemic treatment. This decision was subsequently appealed, and an appeal decision has been reached.

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.

PNS183 Has the New Nice STA Process Addressed Inefficiencies within the Appraisal Process, Resulting in Faster Patient Access?

Historically, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) appraisal process has been resource intensive, with most drugs requiring two committee meetings prior to receiving a positive NICE outcome. To address this, in April 2018, NICE began the roll-out of a new single technology appraisal (STA) process, incorporating a technical engagement phase to resolve any issues within submissions prior to committee meetings. This study aimed to assess whether the new process has resulted in changes to outcomes of STAs. STAs published by NICE between January 2017 and June 2020 were identified. For each appraisal, data were extracted on outcomes of ACDs (if relevant) and FADs. Of the 148 appraisals identified, 12% were assessed by the new and 88% by the old STA process. Both processes resulted in similar proportions of recommended (R), optimized (O) and not recommend (NR) outcomes (R: 61% vs. 51%, O: 33% vs. 37%, NR: 6% vs. 11% in the new and old processes, respectively). In terms of number of committee meetings, a greater proportion of drugs undergoing the new process required only one committee meeting compared to the old process (53% vs. 35%). The remaining 47% of new process drugs receiving a positive outcome required two committee meetings to achieve this, however for drugs undergoing the old process, 50% required two committee meetings and a further 15% required three committee meetings, before achieving a positive NICE outcome. Introduction of the new process does not appear to have changed the proportion of drugs achieving a recommended, optimized or not recommended NICE outcome. However, the new process has reduced the number of appraisal committee meetings required before achieving a final positive NICE outcome, aiding faster patient access. Nevertheless, nearly half of appraisals undergoing the new process still require two meetings, suggesting a potential need for further improvement.

Lenalidomide with Rituximab for Previously Treated Follicular Lymphoma and Marginal Zone Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Celgene) of lenalidomide (Revlimid®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide in combination with rituximab (MabThera®), together referred to as R2, for the treatment of adults with treated follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). 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 on 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 CS included one relevant study, for the comparison of R2 versus rituximab monotherapy (R-mono): the AUGMENT trial. In addition, the company performed an unanchored indirect comparison of R2 versus rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) and rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CVP), using data for R2 from the AUGMENT trial and pooled data for R-CHOP/R-CVP from the Haematological Malignancy Research Network (HMRN) database. During the STA process, the company provided an addendum containing evidence on only the FL population, in line with the marketing authorisation obtained at that time, which did not include MZL. The probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) presented by the company were £27,768 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for R2 versus R-CHOP, £41,602 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CVP, and £23,412 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-mono. The ERG’s concerns included the validity of the unanchored comparison, the unavailability of a state transition model to verify the outcomes of the partitioned survival model, substantial uncertainty in survival curves, and potential over-estimation of utility values. The revised ERG base case resulted in ICERs ranging from £16,874 to £44,888 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CHOP, from £23,135 to £59,810 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CVP, and from £18,779 to £27,156 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-mono. Substantial uncertainty remained around these ranges. NICE recommended R2 within its marketing authorisation, as an option for previously treated FL (grade 1–3A) in adults, contingent on the company providing lenalidomide according to the commercial arrangement.

Patient characteristics as effect modifiers for psoriasis biologic treatment response: an assessment using network meta-analysis subgroups

BackgroundNetwork meta-analyses (NMAs) of psoriasis treatments, undertaken as part of the NICE Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, have included heterogeneous studies. When there is inconsistency or heterogeneity across the different comparisons or trials within the network of studies, the results of the NMA may not be valid. We explored the impact of including studies with heterogeneous patient characteristics on the results of NMAs of psoriasis treatments.MethodsAll NMAs undertaken for psoriasis STAs were identified and the included studies tabulated, including patient characteristics that may influence relative treatment effects. In addition to the original network of all studies using licensed treatment doses, a range of smaller, less heterogeneous networks were mapped: ‘no previous biologic use’ (< 25% patients had prior biologic therapy exposure), ‘Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score ≤ 25’, ‘weight ≤ 90 kg’ and ‘white ethnicity’ (≥ 90% patients were white).ResultsSixty-nine studies were included in our synthesis (34,924 participants). A random effects model with a log-normal prior distribution was chosen for each of the subgroup NMAs. Heterogeneity was reduced for the four smaller networks. There were no significant differences in the relative treatment effect (PASI 75 response) for each treatment across the five NMAs, with all credible intervals overlapping, although there were noticeable differences. Treatment rankings based on the median relative risks were also generally consistent across the networks. However, the NMA that included only studies in which < 25% patients had prior biologic therapy exposure had slightly different treatment rankings; the anti-TNF therapies certolizumab pegol and infliximab ranked higher in this network than any other network, although credible intervals were large.ConclusionsThis work has highlighted potential differences in treatment response for biologic-naïve patients. When conducting NMAs in any area, heterogeneity in patient characteristics of included trials should be carefully assessed and effect modification related to certain patient characteristics investigated through clinically relevant subgroup analyses.

Encorafenib with Binimetinib for the Treatment of Patients with BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Pierre Fabre to submit evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with binimetinib (Enco + Bini) versus dabrafenib with trametinib (Dab + Tram) as a first-line treatment for advanced (unresectable or metastatic) BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG’s review of the company’s evidence submission (CS), and the Appraisal Committee’s (AC’s) final decision. The main clinical evidence in the CS was derived from the COLUMBUS trial and focused on the efficacy of Enco + Bini (encorafenib 450 mg per day plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily) compared to vemurafenib. The company conducted network meta-analyses (NMAs) to indirectly estimate the relative effects of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for Enco + Bini versus Dab + Tram. None of the results from the NMAs demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the treatment regimens for any outcomes. The ERG advised caution when interpreting the results from the company’s NMAs due to limitations relating to the methods. The ERG considered that use of the OS and PFS hazard ratios (HRs) generated by the company’s NMAs to model the relative effectiveness of Enco + Bini versus Dab + Tram in the company model was inappropriate as these estimates were not statistically significantly different. The ERG amended the company’s economic model to include estimates of equivalent efficacy, safety and HRQoL for Enco + Bini and Dab + Tram. The ERG considered use of different estimates of relative dose intensity to be inappropriate and used the same estimate for both drug combinations. The ERG also concluded that as only the prices of drug combinations were different, a cost comparison was an appropriate method of economic analysis. Using this approach (combined with confidential discounted drug prices for Enco + Bini and Dab + Tram), treatment with Enco + Bini was more cost effective than treatment with Dab + Tram. The AC raised concerns that an absence of evidence of a difference in outcomes between Enco + Bini and Dab + Tram did not constitute evidence of absence. However, as the numerical differences in outcomes generated by the company’s networks were small, the AC did not have a preferred approach and considered that both the company’s and the ERG’s methods of incorporating outcome estimates into the economic model were suitable for decision making. The NICE AC recommended Enco + Bini as a first-line treatment for unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation.

Brentuximab Vedotin for Treating Relapsed or Refractory CD30-Positive Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited Takeda UK Ltd to submit clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence for brentuximab vedotin (BV) for treating relapsed or refractory CD30-positive (CD30+) cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the evidence review group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG’s review of the company’s submission for BV and the appraisal committee (AC) decision. The principal clinical evidence was derived from a subgroup of patients with advanced-stage CD30+ mycosis fungoides (MF) or primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (pcALCL) in the phase III ALCANZA randomised controlled trial (RCT). This trial compared BV versus physician’s choice (PC) of methotrexate or bexarotene. Evidence from three observational studies was also presented, which included patients with other CTCL subtypes. The ERG’s main concerns with the clinical evidence were the lack of RCT evidence for CTCL subtypes other than MF or pcALCL, lack of robust overall survival data (data were immature and confounded by subsequent treatment and treatment crossover on disease progression) and lack of conclusive results from analyses of health-related quality-of-life data. The ERG noted that many areas of uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analysis were related to the clinical data, arising from the rarity of the condition and its subtypes and the complexity of the treatment pathway. The ERG highlighted that the inclusion of allogeneic stem-cell transplant (alloSCT) as an option in the treatment pathway was based on weak evidence and generated more uncertainty in a disease area that, because of its rarity and diversity, was already highly uncertain. The ERG also lacked confidence in the company’s modelling of the post-progression pathway and was concerned that it may not produce reliable results. Results from the company’s base-case comparison (including a simple discount patient access scheme [PAS] for BV) showed that treatment with BV dominated PC. The ERG’s revisions and scenario analyses highlighted the high level of uncertainty around the company base-case cost-effectiveness results, ranging from BV dominating PC to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained of £494,981. The AC concluded that it was appropriate to include alloSCT in the treatment pathway even though data were limited. The AC recommended BV as an option for treating CD30+ CTCL after at least one systemic therapy in adults if they have MF, stage IIB or higher pcALCL or Sézary syndrome and if the company provides BV according to the commercial arrangement (i.e. simple discount PAS).

Durvalumab for the Treatment of Locally Advanced, Unresectable, Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (AstraZeneca) of durvalumab (IMFINZITM) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable, stage III non-small cell lung cancer whose tumours express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) on ≥ 1% of tumour cells and whose disease has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation therapy. 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 on 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 CS included a systematic review that identified one randomised controlled trial, comparing durvalumab with SoC. Participants with tumours expressing PD-L1 on ≥ 1% of tumour cells accounted for approximately 40% of the total participants. In this subgroup, a benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31–0.63] and overall survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35–0.81) was reported. Adverse events were comparable between both treatments, but more serious adverse events were reported for durvalumab (64/213 [30%] vs. 18/90 [20%]). The ERG’s concerns regarding the economic analysis included a likely overestimation of PFS for the durvalumab arm, the choice of timepoint for treatment waning, as well as the way treatment waning was incorporated in the model, and potential overestimation of utility values without applying an age- or treatment-related decrement. The revised ERG base-case resulted in a deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £50,238 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with substantial remaining uncertainty. NICE recommended durvalumab as an option for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund only in a subpopulation (concurrent platinum-based chemoradiation therapy) with a commercially managed access agreement in place.

Cenegermin for Treating Neurotrophic Keratitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of cenegermin (OXERVATE®, Dompé) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cenegermin for neurotrophic keratitis (NK). The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG’s review of the evidence submitted by the company and provides a summary of the Appraisal Committee’s (AC) final decision. Clinical-effectiveness evidence from two phase II randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cenegermin found cenegermin to improve corneal healing after 8 weeks compared with vehicle, considered a proxy for artificial tears. Longer-term data and comparisons with other relevant comparators were insufficient to draw conclusions. The company developed a de novo economic model that found cenegermin to be dominant when compared with artificial tears, except in one of seven scenarios. However, the ERG considered that the model had a major structural flaw in that it failed to allow patients to enter a ‘sustained healing’ state from ‘standard of care (SoC) non-healing’ and ‘SoC deteriorating’ states, or to move into an ‘SoC deteriorating’ state from an ‘SoC non-healing’ state. Following the first AC meeting, the company submitted a revised model with a revised model structure that removed the ‘SoC deteriorating’ state and introduced an ‘SoC healed’ state to sit alongside the existing ‘sustained healing’ and ‘SoC non-healing’ states from the original model. However, the ERG continued to express concerns, which included (1) extrapolation of the treatment effect of cenegermin over a patient’s lifetime; (2) the assumption that patients had two specialist visits a month; (3) the assumption that artificial tears, autologous serum eye drops and contact lenses continued for a lifetime after healing; (4) the simplified modelling of costs and utilities; and (5) the underlying uncertainty in the utility values. The ERG therefore considered the company’s model could not produce a robust incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ERG did however present an alternative ICER by amending the use and cost of autologous serum eye drops, contact lenses and artificial tears in the ‘healed’ and ‘non-healed’ states. Applying these changes produced an ICER of £302,717 per QALY gained. Because of uncertainties with the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence, the AC concluded that cenegermin cannot be recommended within its marketing authorisation for NK.