Health economic analysis of the integrated cognitive assessment tool to aid dementia diagnosis in the United Kingdom.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive economic evaluation of the integrated cognitive assessment (ICA) tool compared with standard cognitive tests when used for dementia screening in primary care and for initial patient triage in memory clinics. Methods: ICA was compared with standard of care comprising a mixture of cognitive assessment tools over a lifetime horizon and employing the UK health and social care perspective. The model combined a decision tree to capture the initial outcomes of the cognitive testing with a Markov structure that estimated long-term outcomes of people with dementia. Quality of life outcomes were quantified using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the economic benefits were assessed using net monetary benefit (NMB). Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3.5% per annum and cost-effectiveness was assessed using a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results: ICA dominated standard cognitive assessment tools in both the primary care and memory clinic settings. Introduction of the ICA tool was estimated to result in a lifetime cost saving of approximately £123 and £226 per person in primary care and memory clinics, respectively. QALY gains associated with early diagnosis were modest (0.0016 in primary care and 0.0027 in memory clinic). The net monetary benefit (NMB) of ICA introduction was estimated at £154 in primary care and £281 in the memory clinic settings. Conclusion: Introduction of ICA as a tool to screen primary care patients for dementia and perform initial triage in memory clinics could be cost saving to the UK public health and social care payer.

An exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel tissue valve compared with mechanical valves for surgical aortic valve replacement in subgroups of people aged 55-64 and 65+ with aortic stenosis in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Exploratory analysis to conceptualize and evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness and economic drivers of using a novel tissue valve compared with mechanical heart valves for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in people aged 55-64 and 65+ with aortic stenosis (AS) from a National Health Service (NHS) UK perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed using a partitioned survival model. Parameter inputs were obtained from published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted to explore the uncertainty around the parameters. RESULTS: The novel tissue valve was potentially associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.01 per person. Potential cost savings were greatest for those aged 55-64 (£408) versus those aged 65+(£53). DSA indicated the results to be most dependent on relative differences in general mortality, procedure costs, and reoperation rates. PSA estimated around 75% of the iterations to be cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY for those aged 55-64, and 57% for those aged 65+. CONCLUSIONS: The exploratory analysis suggests that the novel tissue valve could be a cost-effective intervention for people over the age of 55 with AS who are suitable for SAVR in the UK.

Economic evaluation of a vision-based patient monitoring and management system in an acute adult and an older adult mental health hospital in England.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients on acute adult and older adult inpatient mental health wards are at an increased risk of accidental injuries and deliberate harm to self and others. A vision-based patient monitoring and management (VBPMM) system was designed by Oxehealth Limited to support ward staff to provide better and more efficient care and to reduce incidents. The VBPMM system uses an infrared-sensitive camera, installed in a patient's room, that works with cleared medical device software to deliver contact-free vital sign and activity insights to clinical teams. Data from two studies undertaken at an English National Health Service (NHS) mental health trust were used to inform an early economic assessment of VBPMM implementation into acute adult and older adult mental health wards. METHODS: A cost calculator was used to compare the introduction of the VBPMM system as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone. Observational data were collected at two English NHS mental health trusts. Both compared data pre- and post-VBPMM implementation using a 12-month baseline period. The model estimated cost per occupied bed day, cost per patient, annual cost per average-sized ward, and total cost to NHS mental health trusts across England. Costs were modeled from an NHS perspective over a 12-month time horizon. Scenario analysis was conducted to test the uncertainty of results using statistical significance of key inputs. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: This early analysis indicated that the VBPMM system is likely to be cost saving within both settings examined, with an estimated cost saving of £272 per acute adult mental health patient and £4,591 per older adult mental health patient. This translates to £22.3 and £63.3 million, respectively, across NHS mental health trusts in England every year. VBPMM, therefore, has the potential to augment standard care, leading to positive clinical outcomes and monetary savings.

Economic evaluation of a vision-based patient monitoring and management system in addition to standard care for adults admitted to psychiatric intensive care units in England.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Treating patients in psychiatric intensive care units (PICUs) is costly for the English National Health Service (NHS), requiring significant staff time. Oxevision, a non-contact system, providing vision-based patient monitoring and management (VBPMM) has been introduced in some NHS mental health trusts which aims to help clinicians to deliver safer and more efficient care. The objective of this early economic evaluation was to explore the impact of introducing VBPMM with standard care, versus standard care alone on health and economic outcomes in PICUs across England. METHODS: The model uses a cost calculator approach to evaluate the potential benefits of introducing VBPMM, capturing differences in observation hours and critical events such as assaults. Effectiveness data were primarily based on a 24-month observational before and after study undertaken in an NHS mental health trust using VBPMM. Outcomes reported in this study are incremental costs and reduction in clinical events presented as per occupied bed days, per patient, per average ward, and for the English NHS overall. Scenario analysis was conducted to test the uncertainty of results using statistical significance of key inputs. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The analysis indicates that introducing VBPMM may be cost saving compared with standard care alone. The biggest driver of estimated cost savings was from the potential reduction in one to one observation hours, which may have significant impact in PICUs. Limitations of the analysis include the single center data underpinning the analysis and assumptions made about transferability of clinical data to different sized wards. Scenario analysis was conducted, and the results were robust to statistically significant changes in input parameters. This study suggests that introducing VBPMM on PICUs has the potential to reduce costs and improve efficiency of resource allocation, but results should be confirmed with additional clinical study evidence.

Non-Price-Related Determinants of Value and Access for Novel Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treatments: A Cross-Country Review of HTA Decision Making.

INTRODUCTION: Access and funding for newly approved treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are often dependent on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) involving cost-effectiveness analysis. Whilst methods used by HTA agencies share many similarities, final decisions may differ. This may be the result, not just of price considerations, but also of variation in value judgements by different agencies. The aim of this study was to review international HTA evaluations to identify determinants of value and access for NSCLC treatments. METHODS: A targeted review and analysis was undertaken of published HTAs for NSCLC across HTA agencies in six countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, Ireland and Scotland). Analysis of extracted data consisted of three stages: descriptive analysis, bivariate analysis and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: The analysis included 163 HTAs that assessed oncological treatments for NSCLC from 2003 to 2019. The majority of HTA decisions (67.5%) were positive. However, some evidence of heterogeneity in HTA decisions and the factors informing them were identified. The most influential factors included in the multivariate model related to the HTA agency conducting the appraisal, the year of market authorisation, treatment type and the line of treatment. CONCLUSION: Heterogenous decision-making frameworks can present a challenge to developing HTA submissions. This research contributes to understanding decision-making factors and why countries make different decisions.

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).

Lead-I ECG for detecting atrial fibrillation in patients with an irregular pulse using single time point testing: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with an increased risk of stroke and congestive heart failure. Lead-I electrocardiogram (ECG) devices are handheld instruments that can be used to detect AF at a single time point in people who present with relevant signs or symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of using single time point lead-I ECG devices for the detection of AF in people presenting to primary care with relevant signs or symptoms, and who have an irregular pulse compared with using manual pulse palpation (MPP) followed by a 12-lead ECG in primary or secondary care. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment Database. METHODS: The systematic review methods followed published guidance. Two reviewers screened the search results (database inception to April 2018), extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using bivariate models. An economic model consisting of a decision tree and two cohort Markov models was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lead-I ECG devices. RESULTS: No studies were identified that evaluated the use of lead-I ECG devices for patients with signs or symptoms of AF. Therefore, the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact results presented are derived from an asymptomatic population (used as a proxy for people with signs or symptoms of AF). The summary sensitivity of lead-I ECG devices was 93.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 86.2% to 97.4%] and summary specificity was 96.5% (95% CI 90.4% to 98.8%). One study reported limited clinical outcome data. Acceptability of lead-I ECG devices was reported in four studies, with generally positive views. The de novo economic model yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results of the pairwise analysis show that all lead-I ECG devices generated ICERs per QALY gained below the £20,000-30,000 threshold. Kardia Mobile (AliveCor Ltd, Mountain View, CA, USA) is the most cost-effective option in a full incremental analysis. LIMITATIONS: No published data evaluating the diagnostic accuracy, clinical impact or cost-effectiveness of lead-I ECG devices for the population of interest are available. CONCLUSIONS: Single time point lead-I ECG devices for the detection of AF in people with signs or symptoms of AF and an irregular pulse appear to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources compared with MPP followed by a 12-lead ECG in primary or secondary care, given the assumptions used in the base-case model. FUTURE WORK: Studies assessing how the use of lead-I ECG devices in this population affects the number of people diagnosed with AF when compared with current practice would be useful. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018090375. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of abnormal heart rhythm. People with AF are more likely to have a serious stroke or die than people without the condition. Many people go to their general practitioner (GP) with the signs or symptoms commonly linked to AF, such as feeling dizzy, being short of breath, feeling tired and having heart palpitations. GPs check for AF by taking the patient's pulse by hand. If the GP thinks that the patient might have AF, a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) test is arranged. Lead-I (i.e. one lead) ECGs are handheld electronic devices that could detect AF more accurately than a manual pulse check. If GPs were to routinely use lead-I ECG devices, people with suspected AF could receive treatment while waiting for the AF diagnosis to be confirmed by a 12-lead ECG. This study aimed to assess whether or not the use of lead-I ECGs in GP surgeries could benefit these patients and offer good value for money to the NHS. All studies that examined how well lead-I ECGs identified people with AF were reviewed, and the economic value of using these devices was assessed. No evidence was found that examined the use of lead-I ECGs for people with signs or symptoms of AF. As an alternative, evidence for the use of lead-I ECGs for people with no symptoms of AF was searched for and these data were used to assess value for money. The study found that using a manual pulse check followed by a lead-I ECG offers value for money when compared with a manual pulse check followed by a 12-lead ECG. This is mostly because patients with AF can begin treatment earlier when a GP has access to a lead-I ECG device.

Lead-I ECG for detecting atrial fibrillation in patients attending primary care with an irregular pulse using single-time point testing: A systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with increased risk of stroke and congestive heart failure. Lead-I electrocardiogram (ECG) devices are handheld instruments that can detect AF at a single-time point. PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost effectiveness of single-time point lead-I ECG devices compared with manual pulse palpation (MPP) followed by a 12-lead ECG for the detection of AF in symptomatic primary care patients with an irregular pulse. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database) were searched to March 2018. Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed study quality. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using bivariate models. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an economic model consisting of a decision tree and two cohort Markov models. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy The diagnostic accuracy (13 publications reporting on nine studies) and clinical impact (24 publications reporting on 19 studies) results are derived from an asymptomatic population (used as a proxy for people with signs or symptoms of AF). The summary sensitivity of lead-I ECG devices was 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.2% to 97.4%) and summary specificity was 96.5% (95% CI: 90.4% to 98.8%). Cost effectiveness The de novo economic model yielded incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The results of the pairwise analysis show that all lead-I ECG devices generate ICERs per QALY gained below the £20,000-£30,000 threshold. Kardia Mobile is the most cost effective option in a full incremental analysis. Lead-I ECG tests may identify more AF cases than the standard diagnostic pathway. This comes at a higher cost but with greater patient benefit in terms of mortality and quality of life. LIMITATIONS: No published data evaluating the diagnostic accuracy, clinical impact or cost effectiveness of lead-I ECG devices for the target population are available. CONCLUSIONS: The use of single-time point lead-I ECG devices in primary care for the detection of AF in people with signs or symptoms of AF and an irregular pulse appears to be a cost effective use of NHS resources compared with MPP followed by a 12-lead ECG, given the assumptions used in the base case model. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review is registered on PROSPERO as CRD42018090375.

Paclitaxel as Albumin-Bound Nanoparticles with Gemcitabine for Untreated Metastatic Pancreatic 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 Celgene Ltd to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles (Nab-Pac) in combination with gemcitabine (Nab-Pac + Gem) for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The STA was a review of NICE's 2015 guidance (TA360) in which Nab-Pac + Gem was not recommended for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The review was prompted by a proposed Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount on the price of Nab-Pac and new evidence that might lead to a change in the guidance. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission for Nab-Pac + Gem, and the Appraisal Committee (AC) decision. The final scope issued by NICE listed three comparators: gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem), gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine (Gem + Cap), and a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX). Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was from the phase III CA046 randomized controlled trial. Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) showed statistically significant improvement for patients treated with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus FOLFIRINOX and versus Gem + Cap was derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results of the NMA did not indicate a statistically significant difference in OS or PFS for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus either Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The ERG's main concerns with the clinical effectiveness evidence were difficulties in identifying the patient population for whom treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem is most appropriate, and violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption in the CA046 trial. The ERG highlighted methodological issues in the cost-effectiveness analysis pertaining to the modelling of survival outcomes, estimation of drug costs and double counting of adverse-event disutilities. The AC accepted all the ERG's amendments to the company's cost-effectiveness model; however, these did not make important differences to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The company's base-case ICER was £46,932 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem was dominated both by treatment with Gem + Cap and with FOLFIRINOX in the company's base case. The AC concluded that the most plausible ICER for treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was in the range of £41,000-£46,000 per QALY gained. The AC concluded that Nab-Pac + Gem was not cost effective compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX, and accepted that treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem met the end-of-life criteria versus Gem but did not consider Nab-Pac + Gem to meet the end-of-life criteria compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The AC also concluded that although patients who would receive Nab-Pac + Gem rather than FOLFIRINOX or Gem + Cap were difficult to distinguish, they were identifiable in clinical practice. The AC recommended treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer for whom other combination chemotherapies were unsuitable and who would otherwise receive Gem.

Pegylated Liposomal Irinotecan Hydrochloride Trihydrate for Treating Pancreatic Cancer After Gemcitabine: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Shire Pharmaceuticals) of pegylated liposomal irinotecan hydrochloride trihydrate (liposomal irinotecan) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for its use in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and folic acid/leucovorin (LV) for treating patients with pancreatic cancer following prior treatment with gemcitabine as part of the institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the company's evidence, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance (TA440), issued on 26 April 2017. Clinical evidence for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus 5-FU/LV was derived from 236 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the multinational, open-label, randomised controlled NAPOLI-1 trial. Results from analyses of progression-free survival and overall survival showed statistically significant improvements for patients treated with liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV compared with those treated with 5-FU/LV. However, 5-FU/LV alone is rarely used in National Health Service clinical practice for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine. The company, ERG and Appraisal Committee (AC) all agreed that oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV is the most commonly used treatment. Oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV was compared with 5-FU/LV in two trials identified by the company. However, the company and the ERG both considered attempts to compare the efficacy of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV with oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV to be methodologically flawed; not only was there heterogeneity between trials and their populations but also the proportional hazards assumption required to conduct a robust indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was violated. Nonetheless, data derived from an ITC were used to inform the company's economic model. Using the discounted patient access scheme price for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV, the company reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £54,412 for the comparison with oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV. The ERG considered that the company's base-case cost-effectiveness results for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV were underestimates and should be interpreted with extreme caution. Following implementation of a number of model amendments, the ERG's modified exploratory ICER for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV was £106,898 per QALY gained. The AC accepted the majority of the ERG's amendments to the model, and also highlighted that the total QALYs for oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV were lower than for 5-FU/LV in the company's model, which the AC considered to be clinically implausible. The AC therefore considered results from exploratory analyses, undertaken by the ERG, which included altering the QALY difference between liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV by ± 10%. These analyses resulted in ICERs for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV of between £201,019 per QALY gained to liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV being dominated by oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV. Therefore, despite uncertainty around the clinical-effectiveness evidence and cost-effectiveness results, the AC was confident that the ICER was in excess of £50,000 per QALY gained. The final guidance issued by NICE is that liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV is not recommended within its marketing authorisation for treating metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas in adults whose disease has progressed after gemcitabine-based therapy.

Talimogene Laherparepvec for Treating Metastatic Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Amgen) of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for previously untreated advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the company's submission of T-VEC, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance (TA410), issued in September 2016. T-VEC is an oncolytic virus therapy granted a marketing authorisation by the European Commission for the treatment of adults with unresectable melanoma that is regionally or distantly metastatic (stage IIIB, IIIC and IVM1a) with no bone, brain, lung or other visceral disease. Clinical evidence for T-VEC versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) was derived from the multinational, open-label randomised controlled OPTiM trial [Oncovex (GM-CSF) Pivotal Trial in Melanoma]. In accordance with T-VEC's marketing authorisation, the company's submission focused primarily on 249 patients with stage IIIB to stage IV/M1a disease who constituted 57% of the overall trial population (T-VEC, n = 163 and GM-CSF, n = 86). Results from analyses of durable response rate, objective response rate, time to treatment failure and overall survival all showed marked and statistically significant improvements for patients treated with T-VEC compared with those treated with GM-CSF. However, GM-CSF is not used to treat melanoma in clinical practice. It was not possible to compare treatment with T-VEC with an appropriate comparator using conventionally accepted methods due to the absence of comparative head-to-head data or trials with sufficient common comparators. Therefore, the company compared T-VEC with ipilimumab using what it described as modified Korn and two-step Korn methods. Results from these analyses suggested that treatment with T-VEC was at least as effective as treatment with ipilimumab. Using the discounted patient access scheme (PAS) price for T-VEC and list price for ipilimumab, the company reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For the comparison of treatment with T-VEC versus ipilimumab, the ICER per QALY gained was -£16,367 using the modified Korn method and -£60,271 using the two-step Korn method. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) agreed with the ERG that the company's methods for estimating clinical effectiveness of T-VEC versus ipilimumab were flawed and therefore produced unreliable results for modelling progression in stage IIIB to stage IVM1a melanoma. The AC concluded that the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatment with T-VEC compared with ipilimumab is unknown in patients with stage IIIB to stage IV/M1a disease. However, the AC considered that T-VEC may be a reasonable option for treating patients who are unsuitable for treatment with systemically administered immunotherapies (such as ipilimumab). T-VEC was therefore recommended by NICE as a treatment option for adults with unresectable, regionally or distantly metastatic (stage IIIB to stage IVM1a) melanoma that has not spread to bone, brain, lung or other internal organs, only if treatment with systemically administered immunotherapies is not suitable and the company provides T-VEC at the agreed discounted PAS price.