Real-world evidence use in assessments of cancer drugs by NICE.

OBJECTIVE: To establish how real-world evidence (RWE) has been used to inform single technology appraisals (STAs) of cancer drugs conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). METHODS: STAs published by NICE from April 2011 to October 2018 that evaluated cancer treatments were reviewed. Information regarding the use of RWE to directly inform the company-submitted cost-effectiveness analysis was extracted and categorized by topic. Summary statistics were used to describe emergent themes, and a narrative summary was provided for key case studies. RESULTS: Materials for a total of 113 relevant STAs were identified and analyzed, of which nearly all (96 percent) included some form of RWE within the company-submitted cost-effectiveness analysis. The most common categories of RWE use concerned the health-related quality of life of patients (71 percent), costs (46 percent), and medical resource utilization (40 percent). While sources of RWE were routinely criticized as part of the appraisal process, we identified only two cases where the use of RWE was overtly rejected; hence, in the majority of cases, RWE was accepted in cancer drug submissions to NICE. DISCUSSION: RWE has been used extensively in cancer submissions to NICE. Key criticisms of RWE in submissions to NICE are seldom regarding the use of RWE in general; instead, these are typically concerned with specific data sources and the applicability of these to the decision problem. Within an appropriate context, RWE constitutes an extremely valuable source of information to inform decision making; yet the development of best practice guidelines may improve current reporting standards.

Cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab compared with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical and economic impact of vedolizumab compared with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: A decision analytic model in Microsoft Excel was used to compare vedolizumab with other biologic treatments (infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab) for the treatment of biologic-naïve patients with UC in the UK. Efficacy data were obtained from a network meta-analysis using placebo as the common comparator. Other inputs (e.g., unit costs, adverse-event disutilities, probability of surgery, mortality) were obtained from published literature. Costs were presented in 2012/2013 British pounds. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted by 3.5% per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were presented for vedolizumab compared with other biologics. Univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model robustness to parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: The model predicted that anti-tumour necrosis factor-naïve patients on vedolizumab would accrue more QALY than patients on other biologics. The incremental results suggest that vedolizumab is a cost-effective treatment compared with adalimumab (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £22,735/QALY) and dominant compared with infliximab and golimumab. Sensitivity analyses suggest that results are most sensitive to treatment response and transition probabilities. However, vedolizumab is cost-effective irrespective of variation in any of the input parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Our model predicted that treatment with vedolizumab improves QALY, increases time in remission and response, and is a cost-effective treatment option compared with all other biologics for biologic-naïve patients with moderately to severely active UC.

Cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab compared with conventional therapy for ulcerative colitis patients in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical and economic impact of vedolizumab compared with conventional therapy in the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in the UK based on results of the GEMINI I trial. METHODS: A decision-analytic model in Microsoft Excel was used to compare vedolizumab with conventional therapy (aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, immunomodulators) for the treatment of patients with UC in the UK. We considered the following three populations: the overall intent-to-treat population from the GEMINI I trial, patients naïve to anti-TNF therapy, and those who had failed anti-TNF-therapy. Population characteristics and efficacy data were obtained from the GEMINI I trial. Other inputs (eg, unit costs, probability of surgery, mortality) were obtained from published literature. Time horizon was a lifetime horizon, with costs and outcomes discounted by 3.5% per year. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to measure the impact of parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Vedolizumab had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £4,095/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), £4,423/QALY, and £5,972/QALY compared with conventional therapy in the intent-to-treat, anti-TNF-naïve, and anti-TNF-failure populations, respectively. Patients on vedolizumab accrued more QALYs while incurring more costs than patients on conventional therapy. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to induction response and transition probabilities for each treatment. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that vedolizumab results in more QALYs and may be a cost-effective treatment option compared with conventional therapy for both anti-TNF-naïve and anti-TNF-failure patients with moderately-to-severely active UC.

Comparative Effectiveness of Adding Alogliptin to Metformin Plus Sulfonylurea with Other DPP-4 Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Alogliptin is an oral antihyperglycemic agent that is a selective inhibitor of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). There currently exists no comparative data to support the use of alogliptin in combination with metformin (met) and sulfonylurea (SU). A decision-focused network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare the relative efficacy and safety of alogliptin 25 mg once daily to other DPP-4 inhibitors as part of a triple therapy regimen for patients inadequately controlled on metformin and SU dual therapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify published papers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared alogliptin with other DPP-4 inhibitors (linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin) at their Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) recommended daily doses, added on to metformin and SU. Comprehensive comparative analysis involving frequentist meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA compared alogliptin to each DPP-4 inhibitor separately and collectively as a group. Quasi-random effect models were introduced when random effect models could not be estimated. RESULTS: The review identified 2186 articles, and 94 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Eight RCTs contained appropriate data for inclusion in the NMA. All analyses over all trial population sets produced very similar results, and show that alogliptin 25 mg is as least as effective (as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline, but supported by other outcome measures: change in body weight and FPG from baseline) and safe (as measured by incidence of hypoglycemia and adverse events leading to study discontinuation) as all the other DPP-4 inhibitors in triple therapy. CONCLUSION: This decision-focused systematic review and NMA demonstrated alogliptin 25 mg daily to have similar efficacy and safety compared to other DPP-4 inhibitors, for the treatment of T2DM in adults inadequately controlled on metformin and SU. (Funded by Takeda Development Centre Americas; EXAMINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00968708).

Brentuximab vedotin in relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma post-autologous stem cell transplant: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Scotland.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin in patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma who have received autologous stem cell transplantation, from a Scottish healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel-based partitioned survival model comprising three health states (progression-free survival [PFS], post-progression survival, and death) was developed. Relevant comparators were chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy (C/R) and C/R with intent to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT). Data were obtained from the pivotal phase II single-arm trial in 102 patients (SG035-0003; NCT00848926), a systematic literature review and clinical expert opinions (where empirical evidence was unavailable). PFS and overall survival for brentuximab vedotin were estimated using 5-year follow-up data from SG035-0003, and extrapolated using event rates observed for comparator treatments from published survival data. Resource use included drug acquisition and administration; alloSCT; treatment of adverse events; and long-term follow-up. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for brentuximab vedotin was £38,769 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) vs C/R, whereas C/R with intent to alloSCT was dominated by brentuximab vedotin. ICERs for brentuximab vedotin generated by the deterministic sensitivity analysis ranged between £32,000-£54,000 per QALY. Including productivity benefits reduced the ICER to £28,881 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include lack of comparative data from this single arm study and the heterogeneous population. Inconsistent baseline characteristic reporting across studies prevented complete assessment of heterogeneity and the extent of potential bias in clinical and cost-effectiveness estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Although the base case ICER is above the threshold usually applied in Scotland, it is relatively low compared with other orphan drugs, and lower than the ICER generated using a previous data cut of SG035-0003 that informed a positive recommendation from the Scottish Medicines Consortium, under its decision-making framework for assessment of ultra-orphan medicines.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Brentuximab Vedotin in Relapsed or Refractory Systemic Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin in patients with R/R sALCL from a UK NHS perspective. Methods: A partitioned survival model used clinical outcomes for brentuximab vedotin from the pivotal phase-2 single-arm trial of brentuximab vedotin in 58 patients with R/R sALCL (SG035-0004; NCT00866047), over a lifetime (30-year) time horizon. Comparison with conventional chemotherapy was based on data from the Canadian British Columbia Cancer Agency registry from 40 patients starting salvage chemotherapy after front-line treatment between 1980 and 2012. Survival was extrapolated using parametric distributions, with brentuximab vedotin risk after the trial period assumed equal to conventional chemotherapy. Other modelling assumptions were based on a systematic literature review and clinical expert opinion. Results: Based on statistical extrapolation, brentuximab vedotin was associated with 3.1 years longer duration in the progression-free survival health state and an overall survival improvement of 5.4 years, prior to discounting. In addition, brentuximab vedotin was associated with 2.5 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at a total incremental cost of £88 556, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of approximately £35 400. Sensitivity analyses of alternative model assumptions provided ICERs ranging from approximately £28 100 to £61 900. Comparing only first-line salvage patients reduced the ICER to £26 800 per QALY gained. Conversely, considering only patients with Eastern Corporative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 increased the ICER to approximately £38 200. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £50 000, the estimated probability that brentuximab vedotin is cost-effective compared with conventional chemotherapy was 86.5%. Conclusion: Compared to conventional chemotherapy, and considering the full survival period, brentuximab vedotin may provide a valuable treatment choice for patients with R/R sALCL, a population with limited therapeutic options.