The Cost-Effectiveness of Selective Internal Radiation Therapies Compared With Sorafenib for Treating Advanced Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) compared with sorafenib for the treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the United Kingdom, including a selected subgroup of patients who have been identified as benefiting from treatment with SIRT. METHODS: A de novo economic model was developed comparing SIRT with sorafenib using data from two large randomized controlled trials. The model structure comprised a decision tree representing the outcome of the work-up procedure, transitioning into a 3-state partitioned survival model to project long-term survival outcomes. Cost-effectiveness in a post hoc defined subgroup with low tumor burden and good liver function was explored. RESULTS: At list price, SIRT was predicted to be less costly but less effective than sorafenib with an estimated saving of £156 089 per quality-adjusted life-year forgone, with cost savings of £4589 and 0.029 fewer quality-adjusted life-years than sorafenib. Accounting for existing confidential discounts for sorafenib, two SIRTs were cost-effective at a £30 000 willingness-to-pay threshold compared with sorafenib when a discount for the technologies was introduced. In the subgroup with low tumor burden and good liver function, SIRT may be associated with greater survival benefits and cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for confidential discounts, on average, SIRT technologies represent value for money in the whole advanced hepatocellular carcinoma population, being less effective but less costly than sorafenib. Results from a subgroup with low tumor burden and good liver function suggest that the cost-effectiveness of SIRTs may be maximized in this group, but further research is required to demonstrate the validity of effectiveness benefits.

Appraising the Costs of Genomic Testing for Histology-Independent Technologies: An Illustrative Example for NTRK Fusions.

OBJECTIVES: Histology-independent (HI) technologies are authorized for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer if they express a particular biomarker regardless of its position in the body. Although this represents an important advancement in cancer treatment, genomic testing to identify eligible individuals for HI technologies will require substantial investment and impact their cost-effectiveness. Estimating these costs is complicated by several issues, which affect not only the overall cost of testing but also the distribution of testing costs across tumor types. METHODS: Key issues that should be considered when evaluating the cost of genomic testing to identify those eligible for HI technologies are discussed. These issues are explored in illustrative analyses where costs of genomic testing for NTRK fusions in England for recently approved HI technologies are estimated. RESULTS: The prevalence of mutation, testing strategy adopted, and current testing provision affect the cost of identifying eligible patients. The illustrative analysis estimated the cost of RNA-based next-generation sequencing to identify 1 individual with an NTRK fusion ranged between £377 and £282 258. To improve cost-effectiveness, testing costs could be shared across multiple technologies. An estimated additional ∼4000 patients would need to be treated with other HI therapies for testing in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of testing to identify individuals eligible for HI technologies affect the drug's cost-effectiveness. The cost of testing across tumor types varies owing to heterogeneity in the mutation's prevalence and current testing provision. The cost-effectiveness of HI technologies may be improved if testing costs could be shared across multiple agents.

Coenzyme Q10 to manage chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure is a debilitating condition that accounts for an annual NHS spend of £2.3B. Low levels of endogenous coenzyme Q10 may exacerbate chronic heart failure. Coenzyme Q10 supplements might improve symptoms and slow progression. As statins are thought to block the production of coenzyme Q10, supplementation might be particularly beneficial for patients taking statins. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of coenzyme Q10 in managing chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. METHODS: A systematic review that included randomised trials comparing coenzyme Q10 plus standard care with standard care alone in chronic heart failure. Trials restricted to chronic heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction were excluded. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched up to March 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (version 5.2). A planned individual participant data meta-analysis was not possible and meta-analyses were mostly based on aggregate data from publications. Potential effect modification was examined using meta-regression. A Markov model used treatment effects from the meta-analysis and baseline mortality and hospitalisation from an observational UK cohort. Costs were evaluated from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective and expressed in Great British pounds at a 2019/20 price base. Outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3.5% annual rate. RESULTS: A total of 26 trials, comprising 2250 participants, were included in the systematic review. Many trials were reported poorly and were rated as having a high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Meta-analysis suggested a possible benefit of coenzyme Q10 on all-cause mortality (seven trials, 1371 participants; relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.03). The results for short-term functional outcomes were more modest or unclear. There was no indication of increased adverse events with coenzyme Q10. Meta-regression found no evidence of treatment interaction with statins. The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis produced incremental costs of £4878, incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 1.34 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3650. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year coenzyme Q10 had a high probability (95.2% and 95.8%, respectively) of being more cost-effective than standard care alone. Scenario analyses in which the population and other model assumptions were varied all found coenzyme Q10 to be cost-effective. The expected value of perfect information suggested that a new trial could be valuable. LIMITATIONS: For most outcomes, data were available from few trials and different trials contributed to different outcomes. There were concerns about risk of bias and whether or not the results from included trials were applicable to a typical UK population. A lack of individual participant data meant that planned detailed analyses of effect modifiers were not possible. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggested that, if prescribed, coenzyme Q10 has the potential to be clinically effective and cost-effective for heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. However, given important concerns about risk of bias, plausibility of effect sizes and applicability of the evidence base, establishing whether or not coenzyme Q10 is genuinely effective in a typical UK population is important, particularly as coenzyme Q10 has not been subject to the scrutiny of drug-licensing processes. Stronger evidence is needed before considering its prescription in the NHS. FUTURE WORK: A new independent, well-designed clinical trial of coenzyme Q10 in a typical UK heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction population may be warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018106189. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People living with chronic heart failure suffer from shortness of breath, ankle swelling, tiredness, frequent stays in hospital and reduced quality of life and have shorter lives. The NHS spends over £2 billion each year managing chronic heart failure. Coenzyme Q10 is a vitamin-like substance made by the body that helps cells produce energy. Low levels of coenzyme Q10 in heart muscle may lead to, or exacerbate, chronic heart failure. Taking coenzyme Q10 supplements might improve symptoms or slow deterioration. To the best of our knowledge, we found all randomised clinical trials of coenzyme Q10 in patients with the type of chronic heart failure caused by muscle weakness (i.e. heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, where the heart's pumping function is weaker than normal). We asked the research groups responsible for these trials to provide the patient data that they had collected in their trials. Most research groups did not share their data and so we mainly used information from published trial reports. This limited our planned analyses. We found that taking coenzyme Q10 alongside usual treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction potentially reduced deaths by approximately one-third and reduced readmission to hospital by around 40%. However, these results were uncertain. Side effects were not increased. We had some concerns about how reliable the data were, and it is not clear how well the results apply to UK patients. We also worked out what the benefits and costs to the NHS would be if coenzyme Q10 became available on prescription for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Our model found that prescription could be worthwhile; however, a new trial is needed first to make sure that coenzyme Q10 improves outcomes for patients. A new trial would be particularly important because coenzyme Q10 has not been assessed in the same way as prescribed medicines. A new trial could make sure that there is better evidence about whether or not prescribing would be a good use of NHS resources.

Exploring Heterogeneity in Histology-Independent Technologies and the Implications for Cost-Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and a number of international health technology assessment agencies have recently undertaken appraisals of histology-independent technologies (HITs). A strong and untested assumption inherent in the submissions included identical clinical response across all tumour histologies, including new histologies unrepresented in the trial. Challenging this assumption and exploring the potential for heterogeneity has the potential to impact upon cost-effectiveness. METHOD: Using published response data for a HIT, a Bayesian hierarchical model (BHM) was used to identify heterogeneity in response and to estimate the probability of response for each histology included in single-arm studies, which informed the submission for the HIT, larotrectinib. The probability of response for a new histology was estimated. Results were inputted into a simplified response-based economic model using hypothetical parameters. Histology-independent and histology-specific incremental cost-effectiveness ratios accounting for heterogeneity were generated. RESULTS: The results of the BHM show considerable heterogeneity in response rates across histologies. The predicted probability of response estimated by the BHM is 60.9% (95% credible interval 16.0; 91.8%), lower than the naively pooled probability of 74.5%. A mean response probability of 56.9% (0.2; 99.9%) is predicted for an unrepresented histology. Based on the economic analysis, the probability of the hypothetical HIT being cost-effective under the assumption of identical response is 78%. Allowing for heterogeneity, the probability of various approval decisions being cost-effective ranges from 93% to 11%. CONCLUSIONS: Central to the challenge of reimbursement of HITs is the potential for heterogeneity. This study illustrates how heterogeneity in clinical effectiveness can result in highly variable and uncertain estimates of cost-effectiveness. This analysis can help improve understanding of the consequences of histology-independent versus histology-specific decisions.

Modelling approaches for histology-independent cancer drugs to inform NICE appraisals: a systematic review and decision-framework.

BACKGROUND: The first histology-independent marketing authorisation in Europe was granted in 2019. This was the first time that a cancer treatment was approved based on a common biomarker rather than the location in the body at which the tumour originated. This research aims to explore the implications for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. METHODS: Targeted reviews were undertaken to determine the type of evidence that is likely to be available at the point of marketing authorisation and the analyses required to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Several challenges were identified concerning the design and conduct of trials for histology-independent products, the greater levels of heterogeneity within the licensed population and the use of surrogate end points. We identified approaches to address these challenges by reviewing key statistical literature that focuses on the design and analysis of histology-independent trials and by undertaking a systematic review to evaluate the use of response end points as surrogate outcomes for survival end points. We developed a decision framework to help to inform approval and research policies for histology-independent products. The framework explored the uncertainties and risks associated with different approval policies, including the role of further data collection, pricing schemes and stratified decision-making. RESULTS: We found that the potential for heterogeneity in treatment effects, across tumour types or other characteristics, is likely to be a central issue for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Bayesian hierarchical methods may serve as a useful vehicle to assess the level of heterogeneity across tumours and to estimate the pooled treatment effects for each tumour, which can inform whether or not the assumption of homogeneity is reasonable. Our review suggests that response end points may not be reliable surrogates for survival end points. However, a surrogate-based modelling approach, which captures all relevant uncertainty, may be preferable to the use of immature survival data. Several additional sources of heterogeneity were identified as presenting potential challenges to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal, including the cost of testing, baseline risk, quality of life and routine management costs. We concluded that a range of alternative approaches will be required to address different sources of heterogeneity to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. An exemplar case study was developed to illustrate the nature of the assessments that may be required. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately designed and analysed basket studies that assess the homogeneity of outcomes and allow borrowing of information across baskets, where appropriate, are recommended. Where there is evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects and estimates of cost-effectiveness, consideration should be given to optimised recommendations. Routine presentation of the scale of the consequences of heterogeneity and decision uncertainty may provide an important additional approach to the assessments specified in the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methods guide. FURTHER RESEARCH: Further exploration of Bayesian hierarchical methods could help to inform decision-makers on whether or not there is sufficient evidence of homogeneity to support pooled analyses. Further research is also required to determine the appropriate basis for apportioning genomic testing costs where there are multiple targets and to address the challenges of uncontrolled Phase II studies, including the role and use of surrogate end points. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 76. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In May 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration granted the first approval for a cancer treatment based on a common biomarker rather than the location in the body at which the tumour originated (the tumour site); that is, a site-agnostic or 'histology-independent' indication was granted. Research from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence suggests that there are approximately 20 technologies currently in development for histology-independent indications. The first marketing authorisation was granted in Europe in 2019. Histology-independent treatments have the potential to have important effects in patient populations for whom there are currently limited or no available treatment options. However, it is also important to ensure that the use of these treatments in the NHS is supported by systematic and robust assessments of clinical evidence (i.e. how well the medicine or treatment works) and economic evidence (i.e. the medicine's value for money). These assessments are undertaken by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, usually for treatments targeting specific tumours sites. However, a histology-independent marketing authorisation would probably include many tumour sites and it is not possible for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to conduct a separate assessment for each tumour site for which the treatment could be beneficial. As a result, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence needs to consider how these products can be appropriately assessed without creating unnecessary delays in patient access. This research explores the extent to which the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's existing approaches for assessing clinical and economic value can be applied to histology-independent indications, and any changes that might be required. We explore the nature and amount of evidence that is typically available at the point of initial marketing authorisation and develop recommendations to establish the evidence and analyses required to help inform the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's decisions. We use case studies to highlight possible challenges and to explore ways that these challenges might be addressed. This research will help to inform future National Institute for Health and Care Excellence policy on how to appraise cancer drugs with histology-independent indications. It will also inform the development of guidance for those developing these treatments to help their understanding of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness assessments that will be required to inform the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's appraisals.

Selective internal radiation therapies for unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review, network meta-analysis and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of primary liver cancer. Treatment choice is dependent on underlying liver dysfunction and cancer stage. Treatment options include conventional transarterial therapies for patients with intermediate-stage disease and systemic therapy [e.g. sorafenib (Nexavar®; Bayer plc, Leverkusen, Germany)] for patients with advanced-stage disease. Selective internal radiation therapies deliver radiation to liver tumours via microspheres that are injected into the hepatic artery. There are three selective internal radiation therapies: TheraSphere™ [BTG Ltd, London, UK (now Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)], SIR-Spheres® (Sirtex Medical Ltd, Woburn, MA, USA) and QuiremSpheres® (Quirem Medical BV, Deventer, the Netherlands). OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for treating patients with unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: A search was undertaken to identify clinical effectiveness literature relating to selective internal radiation therapies and relevant comparators for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies were critically appraised and summarised. The network of evidence was mapped to estimate the relative effectiveness of the different selective internal radiation therapies and comparator treatments. An economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two large randomised controlled trials rated as having a low risk of bias [SARAH: Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, Guiu B, Ilonca AD, Pageaux GP, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1624-36; and SIRveNIB: Chow PKH, Gandhi M, Tan SB, Khin MW, Khasbazar A, Ong J, et al. SIRveNIB: selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in Asia-Pacific patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1913-21] found no significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between SIR-Spheres and sorafenib (systemic therapy) in an advanced population, despite greater tumour response in the SIR-Spheres arm of both trials. There were some concerns regarding generalisability of the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials to UK practice. All other studies of SIR-Spheres, TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres were either rated as being at a high risk of bias or caused some concerns regarding bias. A network meta-analysis was conducted in adults with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had Child-Pugh class A liver cirrhosis and were ineligible for conventional transarterial therapies. The analysis included the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials as well as a trial comparing lenvatinib (Kisplyx®; Eisai Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) (systemic therapy) with sorafenib. There were no meaningful differences in overall survival between any of the treatments. The base-case economic analysis suggested that TheraSphere may be cost-saving relative to both SIR-Spheres and QuiremSpheres. However, incremental cost differences between TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres were small. In a fully incremental analysis, which included confidential Patient Access Scheme discounts, lenvatinib was the most cost-effective treatment and dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. In pairwise comparisons of sorafenib with each selective internal radiation therapy, sorafenib also dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. LIMITATIONS: The existing evidence cannot provide decision-makers with clear guidance on the comparative effectiveness of treatments in early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma or on the efficacy of TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres. CONCLUSIONS: In the advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma population, two large randomised trials have shown that SIR-Spheres have similar clinical effectiveness to sorafenib. None of the selective internal radiation therapies was cost-effective, being more costly and less effective than lenvatinib, both at list price and with Patient Access Scheme discounts. FUTURE WORK: Future studies may wish to include early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients and the low tumour burden/albumin-bilirubin 1 subgroup of advanced-stage patients. Future high-quality studies evaluating alternative selective internal radiation therapies would be beneficial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019128383. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of liver cancer. The choice of treatment depends on the extent of the cancer and liver function. Selective internal radiation therapies deliver radiation directly to liver tumours via tiny beads injected into the main blood vessel into the liver. There are three selective internal radiation therapies: TheraSphere™ [BTG Ltd, London, UK (now Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)], SIR-Spheres^® (Sirtex Medical Ltd, Woburn, MA, USA) and QuiremSpheres^® (Quirem Medical BV, Deventer, the Netherlands). Our aim was to assess the clinical effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma that is not treatable by surgery, and to assess whether or not these therapies represent good value for money. There was no meaningful difference between SIR-Spheres and sorafenib (Nexavar^®; Bayer plc, Leverkusen, Germany), which is a cancer drug for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies of other selective internal radiation therapies and studies in patients with less advanced disease were generally of poor quality, so their results may not be reliable. We could not assess whether or not selective internal radiation therapies are beneficial to patients with early- or intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, or whether or not TheraSphere and QuiremSpheres are beneficial. Compared with sorafenib or lenvatinib (Kisplyx^®; Eisai Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) (another systemic cancer drug), none of the selective internal radiation therapies were good value for money for treating patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We found that TheraSphere might be cheaper than SIR-Spheres and QuiremSpheres, but differences between TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres were small. There was not enough evidence for patients with early or intermediate disease to say whether or not selective internal radiation therapy is good value for treating these patients. Future studies in these populations, alongside any studies comparing the selective internal radiation therapies against each other, would be helpful.

Methods for selecting the best evidence to inform a NICE technology appraisal on selective internal radiation therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of medical devices are particularly challenging as the quality of evidence tends to be more limited than evidence on pharmaceutical products. This article describes the methods used to identify, select and critically appraise the best available evidence on selective internal radiation therapy devices for treating hepatocellular carcinoma, to inform a technology appraisal for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. METHODS: A comprehensive search of ten medical databases and six grey literature sources was undertaken to identify studies of three devices (TheraSphere®, SIR-Spheres® and QuiremSpheres®) for treating hepatocellular carcinoma. The large evidence base was scoped before deciding what level of evidence to include for data extraction and critical appraisal. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using criteria relevant to each study design. RESULTS: Electronic searches identified 4755 records; over 1000 met eligibility criteria after screening titles and abstracts. A hierarchical process was used to scope these records, prioritising comparative studies over non-comparative studies, where available. One hundred ninety-four full papers were ordered; 64 met the eligibility criteria. For each intervention, studies were prioritised by study design and applicability to current UK practice, resulting in 20 studies subjected to critical appraisal and data extraction. Only two trials had a low overall risk of bias. In view of the poor quality of the research evidence, our technology appraisal focused on the two higher quality trials, including a thorough critique of their reliability and generalisability to current UK practice. The 18 poorer quality studies were briefly summarised; many were very small and results were often contradictory. No definitive conclusions could be drawn from the poorer quality research evidence available. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic, pragmatic process was used to select and critically appraise the vast quantity of research evidence available in order to present the most reliable evidence on which to develop recommendations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019128383.

Tisagenlecleucel for the Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia in People Aged up to 25 Years: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE's) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, Novartis submitted evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel for treating paediatric and young adult patients (under the age of 25 years) with relapsed or refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). This article presents a summary of the Evidence Review Group's (ERG's) independent review of the evidence submission, the committee's deliberations, and the subsequent development of NICE guidance for the use of tisagenlecleucel on the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Tisagenlecleucel is a chimeric antigen receptor-modified T-cell (CAR-T) product, the first of this emerging therapeutic class to be considered by NICE in this indication. The company's evidence submission was based upon three single-arm, phase II studies: ELIANA, ENSIGN, and B2101J. These trials demonstrated a beneficial effect of tisagenlecleucel, with significant extensions in event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to historical control datasets on blinatumomab and salvage chemotherapy. Adverse events were common; 77% of patients suffered from cytokine release syndrome (CRS), 56% of whom required intensive care unit-level care. The ERG did not consider clofarabine monotherapy an appropriate proxy for salvage chemotherapy. The company presented a hybrid cost-effectiveness model, combining a decision tree and three-state partitioned survival model structure. The majority of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were generated through additional life-years in the extrapolated 'long-term survival' phase of the model, where patients were assumed to be 'cured'. The ERG considered the results to be subject to substantial uncertainty, due in part to immature trial data, unresolved long-term treatment effects, and a lack of appropriate comparator data. The ERG implemented a number of changes to the company's model in an alternative base case, producing deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £45,397 per QALY gained versus salvage chemotherapy, and £27,732 versus blinatumomab. The probabilistic model produced ICERs of £48,265 per QALY gained versus salvage chemotherapy, and £29,501 versus blinatumomab. The committee considered the ERG's analysis to be most closely aligned with their preferred assumptions, and did not consider tisagenlecleucel to meet both of the end-of-life (EoL) criteria. In recognition of the innovative nature of tisagenlecleucel, and the present immaturity of ongoing clinical trials, the committee considered further data collection would be valuable in resolving uncertainties around OS, the technology's novel mechanism of action, and the management of CRS and B-cell aplasia. The committee therefore recommended tisagenlecleucel for use in the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) until the conclusion of the ELIANA study (June 2023). This appraisal highlighted the difficulty of interpreting EoL criteria in the context of curative therapies and the valuation of cure versus extension of life. Further clarification of NICE's position in these situations may be necessary to ensure consistency and equity in their decision-making.

Ceritinib for Untreated Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ceritinib (Zykadia®, Novartis) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug, as a first-line treatment for adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive (+) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) and CHE (Centre for Health Economics) Technology Assessment Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the Company's submission (CS), the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The evidence submitted in support of ceritinib, as the first-line treatment in ALK+ advanced NSCLC, was a phase III, international, multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing ceritinib with pemetrexed/cisplatin plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy (chemotherapy [CT] group). The results indicated that ceritinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with CT. The only comparator considered in the CS was crizotinib. The evidence selected in support of crizotinib was PROFILE 1014, an open-label RCT of crizotinib, compared with pemetrexed/cisplatin CT (without maintenance therapy), in previously untreated advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC. The design and population of PROFILE 1014 was similar to that of ASCEND-4, though there were some differences between the trials. The Company considered it not possible to perform an 'anchor-based' analysis of first-line ceritinib and crizotinib, and presented a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of ceritinib and crizotinib using only the ALK inhibitor arm of ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. The indirect comparison suggests that ceritinib may be more effective in prolonging PFS than crizotinib. The ERG agreed that an indirect comparison using only the ALK inhibitor arm of the trials was the only option available in the present assessment; however, a number of limitations and potential bias were identified in this analysis. The Company's model estimated that ceritinib was cost effective when compared with crizotinib. However, the ERG highlighted several concerns with the Company's analysis; the ERG's preferred base case estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £69,255 per quality-adjusted life-year (no patient access scheme [PAS] included). The ERG considered the economic analysis to be sensitive to changes in assumption used, partly due to the due to the immaturity of the overall survival data from trials, which leads to uncertainty around the extrapolation used. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ceritinib is recommended, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC in adults, if the Company provides it with the discount agreed in the PAS.

Correction to: Ceritinib for Untreated Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The title of the article should read.

Tofacitinib in the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: a cost-effectiveness analysis compared with adalimumab in Taiwan.

Aims: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of the second-line treatment with tofacitinib, compared with adalimumab, both plus methotrexate (MTX), in patients with moderate-to-severe RA and an inadequate response to the first-line MTX, from a Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration perspective. Materials and methods: A patient-level simulation model was used to project lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Base-case analysis compared second-line treatment with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily plus MTX vs adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks plus MTX. Patients switched or discontinued treatment due to a lack or loss of effectiveness or a serious adverse event. Efficacy was measured by change in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score. HAQ-DI scores were used to predict mortality and resource utilization, and were mapped onto utility values to estimate QALYs. Efficacy and safety data were derived from clinical trials and other secondary sources. Uncertainty in model parameters was explored using one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Patients gained 0.09 more QALYs with second-line tofacitinib plus MTX compared with adalimumab plus MTX (5.13 vs 5.04, respectively) at an additional cost of New Taiwan Dollars (NT$) 12,881. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was NT$143,122/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case result was robust. Limitations: The lack of available clinical data, particularly for HAQ-DI scores, may introduce some bias in the analysis. No patients were in an early stage of RA, which may limit the generalizability of these results. Base-case results from our study are not necessarily generalizable to countries with healthcare systems that differ considerably from Taiwan. Conclusions: From a payer perspective, second-line treatment with tofacitinib plus MTX is a cost-effective treatment strategy, compared with adalimumab plus MTX, in patients with moderate-to-severe RA in Taiwan.

An Economic Evaluation of Tofacitinib Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis After Methotrexate or After 1 or 2 TNF Inhibitors from a U.S. Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Treatment cycling with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), is common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can result in reduced clinical efficacy and increased economic burden. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the economic effect of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) treatment directly after methotrexate (MTX) in the MTX-inadequate responder population, or after MTX and 1 TNFi (adalimumab [ADA] or etanercept [ETN]) or 2 TNFi (ADA and ETN) in TNF-inadequate responder patients with RA, from a U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: A decision-tree economic model was used to evaluate costs over 2 years. Treatment response was modeled as American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response. ACR response rates at 6-month intervals were derived from U.S. prescribing information for monotherapy and combination therapy. Safety event rates were sourced from a meta-analysis. It was assumed that 75% of patients switched therapy after an adverse event or lack of response. Cost inputs included drugs, monitoring and administration (including physician visits), health care utilization, and treatment for adverse events. The population comprised all organization members (i.e., RA and non-RA members); RA patients receiving TNFi were estimated using epidemiologic data. Results were based on an organization size of 1 million. Economic endpoints were total 2-year costs, costs per member per month (PMPM), and costs per ACR20/50 responder. RESULTS: 1,321 patients were included for analysis. Based on ACR20 switch criteria and either 100% or 50% monotherapy rates for all treatments, total 2-year costs and costs PMPM were lower for patients receiving tofacitinib as second-line therapy after MTX and as third-line therapy after MTX and 1 TNFi; costs were highest for patients who cycled through 2 TNFi. Similar trends were observed for switch criteria based on ACR50 response and addition of 20% rebates for ADA and ETN and 0% for tofacitinib, although differences were mitigated slightly. CONCLUSIONS: A treatment strategy with tofacitinib as either second- or third-line therapy after MTX may be a lower cost treatment option, compared with fourth-line introduction of tofacitinib after cycling through 2 TNFi following MTX. DISCLOSURES: All aspects of this study were funded by Pfizer. Claxton was an employee of York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, at the time of this study. Taylor is an employee of York Health Economics Consortium, The University of York, which received funding from Pfizer to conduct this study. Soonasra, Bourret, and Gerber are employees of Pfizer and hold stock/stock options in Pfizer. A previous iteration of the data reported in this manuscript (before adjustment for recent drug price increases) was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 28th Annual Meeting and Expo; April 19-22, 2016; held in San Francisco, CA.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, debilitating disease affecting an estimated 1.5 million patients in the US. The condition is associated with a substantial health and economic burden. An economic model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib (a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor) versus biologic therapies commonly prescribed in the US for the treatment of RA. METHODS: A cost-utility model was developed whereby sequences of treatments were evaluated. Response to treatment was modeled by HAQ change, and informed by a network meta-analysis. Mortality, resource use and quality of life were captured in the model using published regression analyses based on HAQ score. Treatment discontinuation was linked to response to treatment and to adverse events. Patients were modeled as having had an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR), or to a first biologic therapy (TNFi-IR). RESULTS: The tofacitinib strategy was associated with cost savings compared with alternative treatment sequences across all modeled scenarios (i.e. in both the MTX-IR and TNFi-IR scenarios), with lifetime cost savings per patient ranging from $65,205 to $93,959 (2015 costs). Cost savings arose due to improved functioning and the resulting savings in healthcare expenditure, and lower drug and administration costs. The tofacitinib strategies all resulted in an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with additional QALYs per patient ranging from 0.01 to 0.22. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib as a second-line therapy following methotrexate failure and as a third-line therapy following a biologic failure produces lower costs and improved quality of life compared with the current pathway of care.

Simulation Modelling in Ophthalmology: Application to Cost Effectiveness of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept for the Treatment of Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Previously developed models in ophthalmology have generally used a Markovian structure. There are a number of limitations with this approach, most notably the ability to base patient outcomes on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in both eyes, which may be overcome using a different modelling structure. Simulation modelling allows for this to be modelled more precisely, and therefore may provide more accurate and relevant estimates of the cost effectiveness of ophthalmology interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the appropriateness of simulation modelling in ophthalmology, using the disease area of wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) as an example. METHODS: A de novo economic model was built using a patient-level simulation, which compared ranibizumab with aflibercept in wAMD. Disease progression was measured using BCVA. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was estimated using a regression analysis linking BCVA in each eye to utility. The analysis was from the perspective of the National Health Service in the UK. Five different regression models were explored and were based on BCVA in either one eye or both eyes. RESULTS: The model outputs provide some evidence to support the hypothesis that the analyses using the two-eye models for estimating HRQoL generate a more accurate estimation of incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with the positive treatment effect for ranibizumab versus aflibercept. Second-order analysis broadly supported these findings, and showed that the variation in incremental costs was slightly lower than in incremental QALYs. The second-order analysis estimated similar incremental costs and a greater overall variation in incremental QALYs than the first-order analysis, suggesting important non-linearities within the model. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that patient-level simulation models may be well suited to representing the real-world patient pathway in wAMD, particularly when aspects of disease progression cannot be adequately captured using a Markov structure. The benefits of a simulation approach can be demonstrated in the modelling of HRQoL as a function of BCVA in both eyes.

Challenges Associated with Estimating Utility in Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Novel Regression Analysis to Capture the Bilateral Nature of the Disease.

INTRODUCTION: The estimation of utility values for the economic evaluation of therapies for wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a particular challenge. Previous economic models in wet AMD have been criticized for failing to capture the bilateral nature of wet AMD by modelling visual acuity (VA) and utility values associated with the better-seeing eye only. METHODS: Here we present a de novo regression analysis using generalized estimating equations (GEE) applied to a previous dataset of time trade-off (TTO)-derived utility values from a sample of the UK population that wore contact lenses to simulate visual deterioration in wet AMD. This analysis allows utility values to be estimated as a function of VA in both the better-seeing eye (BSE) and worse-seeing eye (WSE). RESULTS: VAs in both the BSE and WSE were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05) when regressed separately. When included without an interaction term, only the coefficient for VA in the BSE was significant (p = 0.04), but when an interaction term between VA in the BSE and WSE was included, only the constant term (mean TTO utility value) was significant, potentially a result of the collinearity between the VA of the two eyes. The lack of both formal model fit statistics from the GEE approach and theoretical knowledge to support the superiority of one model over another make it difficult to select the best model. CONCLUSION: Limitations of this analysis arise from the potential influence of collinearity between the VA of both eyes, and the use of contact lenses to reflect VA states to obtain the original dataset. Whilst further research is required to elicit more accurate utility values for wet AMD, this novel regression analysis provides a possible source of utility values to allow future economic models to capture the quality of life impact of changes in VA in both eyes. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of human milk and breastfeeding in preterm infants in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost savings and health benefits in the UK NHS that could be achieved if human milk usage in the NICU was increased. METHODS: A systematic review established the disease areas with the strong sources of evidence of the short, medium and long-term benefits of human milk for preterm infants as opposed to the use of formula milk. The analysis assessed the economic impact of reducing rates of necrotising enterocolitis, sepsis, sudden infant death syndrome, leukaemia, otitis media, obesity and neurodevelopmental impairment. RESULTS: Based on the number of preterm babies born in 2013, if 100% of premature infants being fed mother's milk could be achieved in the NICU, the total lifetime cost savings to the NHS due to improved health outcomes is estimated to be £46.7 million (£30.1 million in the first year) with a total lifetime QALY gain of 10,594, There would be 238 fewer deaths due to neonatal infections and SIDS, resulting in a reduction of approximately £153.4 million in lifetime productivity. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust to a wide range of inputs. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis established that increasing the use of human milk in NICUs in the UK would lead to cost savings to the NHS. More research is needed on the medium and long term health and economic outcomes associated with breastfeeding preterm infants, and the differences between mother's own and donor breast milk.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Ranibizumab Treat and Extend Regimen Versus Aflibercept in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a chronic eye condition that causes severe deterioration of vision and even blindness. Current wet AMD treatment in the UK involves the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors ranibizumab and aflibercept. Patients with wet AMD require frequent and long-term monitoring for treatment to be effective, contributing to a substantial resource burden at wet AMD centers. The European license for ranibizumab was recently updated with an individualized 'treat and extend' (T&E) regimen, comprising a structured monitoring and treatment protocol. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab T&E versus aflibercept within a UK setting. METHODS: An individual patient-level simulation model was developed utilizing treatment effects from a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The model was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective over a lifetime horizon and the base case utilized probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess uncertainty in the model. Additional scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of changes to the model inputs. RESULTS: Ranibizumab T&E was found to be more effective and less costly than aflibercept, providing, on average, an additional 1.058 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a cost-saving of £19,604 over a lifetime horizon. At list price, ranibizumab T&E was found to be cost-effective versus aflibercept in 100% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. The robustness of the results was tested in several scenario analyses; ranibizumab T&E was found to be more effective, and less costly, than aflibercept in the vast majority of cases. CONCLUSION: This evaluation suggests that treating patients with ranibizumab according to the T&E regimen could be a better use of NHS resources than aflibercept, and could, therefore, be considered as a first-line regimen for patients with wet AMD in the UK. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited.

Cost-effectiveness of stent-retriever thrombectomy in combination with IV t-PA compared with IV t-PA alone for acute ischemic stroke in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of neurothrombectomy with a stent retriever (Solitaire * Revascularization Device) in treating acute ischemic stroke patients from the UK healthcare provider perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate health outcomes and costs of two therapies over a lifetime time horizon: stent-retriever thrombectomy in combination with intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (IV t-PA), and IV t-PA alone. The model incorporated an acute phase (0-90 days) and a rest of life phase (90+ days). Health states were defined by the modified Rankin Scale score. During the rest of life phase, patients remained in the same health state until a recurrent stroke or death. Clinical effectiveness and safety data were taken from the SWIFT PRIME study. Resource use and health state utilities were informed by published data. RESULTS: Combined stent-retriever thrombectomy and IV t-PA led to improved quality-of-life and increased life expectancy compared to IV t-PA alone. The higher treatment costs associated with the use of stent-retriever thrombectomy were offset by long-term cost savings due to improved patient health status, leading to overall cost savings of £33 190 per patient and a net benefit of £79 402. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results were robust to a wide range of parameter inputs. LIMITATIONS: The acute and long-term costs resource use data were taken from a study based on a patient population that was older and may have had additional comorbidities than the SWIFT PRIME population, resulting in costs that may not be representative of the cohort within this model. In addition, the estimates may not reflect stroke care today as no current evidence is available; however, the cost estimates were deemed reasonable by clinical opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Combined stent-retriever neurothrombectomy and IV t-PA is a cost-effective treatment for acute ischemic stroke compared with IV t-PA alone.

An Economic Evaluation of Tofacitinib Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Modeling the Cost of Treatment Strategies in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Tofacitinib is approved in the United States for use in adults with moderately to severely active RA and an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate. OBJECTIVES: To (a) evaluate, using an economic model, the treatment costs of an RA strategy including tofacitinib, compared with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab and tocilizumab biologic RA treatment strategies, which are commonly prescribed in the United States, and (b) assess the economic impact of monotherapy and combination therapy in patients who had an inadequate response to methotrexate therapy (MTX-IR analysis) and to combination therapy in patients who had an inadequate response to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF-IR analysis). METHODS: A transparent, Excel-based economic model with a decision-tree approach was developed to evaluate costs over a 1- and 2-year time horizon. The model compared tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day (BID) either as monotherapy or in combination with MTX with similarly labeled biologic therapies. Response to treatment was modeled as American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response. ACR20 represented clinical response and determined whether patients continued therapy. ACR response rates at 6-month intervals were sourced from prescribing information and safety event rates from a published meta-analysis. Following an adverse event or a lack of response to treatment, it was assumed that 75% of patients switched to the next line of treatment (first to abatacept and then to rituximab). The perspective was that of a U.S. payer. Costs were reported in 2015 U.S. dollars and included drug wholesale acquisition costs, monitoring, drug administration, and treatment for minor and serious adverse events. The patient population eligible for treatment was based on the total number of members (i.e., RA and non-RA) in a payer organization; members with RA treated with biologic therapies were estimated using epidemiological data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of varying key parameters, including treatment-switching probability, product rebate, major rates of adverse drug reaction, and ACR20 rates, on the model outcomes. RESULTS: Tofacitinib combination therapy after MTX failure was associated with the lowest cost per member per month (PMPM) over a 2-year time frame at $5.53, compared with $6.49 for adalimumab, $6.43 for etanercept, $5.95 for certolizumab, and $5.89 for tocilizumab. Similar savings were observed when all biologics were administered as monotherapy. Tofacitinib combination therapy was also associated with the lower PMPM cost compared with adalimumab combination therapy in the TNF-IR analysis. Tofacitinib was also among the lowest cost per ACR20 responder in each analysis. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that tofacitinib would potentially be cost saving even in the least optimistic scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that tofacitinib 5 mg BID following MTX failure is a lower cost per patient treatment option when used either as monotherapy or combination therapy, compared with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab and tocilizumab biologic regimens. Tofacitinib + MTX in TNF-IR patients was also predicted to be a lower-cost treatment option compared with adalimumab+MTX and was associated with the lowest cost per ACR 20/50/70 responder. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Pfizer, which determined the research topic and paid York Health Economics Consortium to develop the analysis and conduct the research. York Health Economics Consortium has received consultancy fees from Pfizer. Gerber, Wallenstein, Mendelsohn, Bourret, Singh, and Moynagh are employees and shareholders of Pfizer. Editorial support was funded by Pfizer and was provided by Claxton, Jenks, and Taylor, who are employees of York Health Economics Consortium. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Taylor, Jenks, Gerber, and Singh, along with the other authors. Gerber, Moynagh, and Singh collected the data, assisted by Bouret and Mendelsohn; data interpretation was performed by Claxton, Gerber, Bouret, and Mendelsohn. The manuscript was written primarily by Claxton, with assistance from the other authors, and revised by Claxton, Gerber, Bouret, and Mendelsohn, with assistance from the other authors.