Histopathologically Validated Diagnostic Accuracy of PSMA-PET/CT in the Primary and Secondary Staging of Prostate Cancer and the Impact of PSMA-PET/CT on Clinical Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a highly expressed protein in prostate cancer (PCa) and has become an increasingly popular target for molecular imaging in recent years. PSMA based positron-emission-tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is a well characterised hybrid imaging modality that combines the high sensitivity of PET with the high spatial resolution of CT imaging. The combination of these two imaging modalities provides an accurate tool for detecting and managing PCa. Several diagnostic accuracy and clinical management studies investigating the role of PSMA PET/CT in PCa have been published recently. This study aimed to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of PSMA PET/CT in localised, lymph node metastatic (LNM) and recurrent PCa patients and assess its impact on the clinical management of primary and recurrent PCa. Using Medline, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy and clinical management of PSMA PET/CT were analysed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Statistical analyses were conducted using random-effects models, and meta-regression explored observed heterogeneity. Results indicate that the sensitivity and specificity of PSMA PET/CT for localised PCa were 71.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 58.0, 81.0) and 92.0% (95% CI: 86.0, 96.0), respectively (N = 10; n = 404 patients). Sensitivity and specificity in LNM were 57.0% (95% CI: 49.0, 64.0) and 96.0% (95% CI: 95.0, 97.0) (N = 36; n = 3,659 patients). For patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR), sensitivity was 84.0% (95% CI: 74.0, 90.0), and specificity was 97.0% (95% CI: 88.0, 99.0) (N = 9; n = 818 patients). The pooled proportion of management changes in primary (N = 16; n = 1,099 patients) and recurrent (N = 40; n = 5,398 patients) PCa was 28.0% (95% CI: 23.0, 34.0) and 54.0% (95% CI: 50.0, 58.0), respectively. In conclusion, PSMA PET/CT shows moderate sensitivity and high specificity in localised and LNM disease, while the accuracy in BCR patients was high. PSMA PET/CT also had a large impact on the clinical management of PCa patients. This is the most extensive and first systematic review to include three subgroups of PCa with histologically verified diagnostic accuracy and clinical management change reported separately in primary and recurrent disease settings.

Economic Evaluation of Three BRAF + MEK Inhibitors for the Treatment of Advanced Unresectable Melanoma With BRAF Mutation From a US Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The combinations of BRAF + MEK inhibitors-encorafenib (ENC) + binimetinib (BIN), cobimetinib (COB) + vemurafenib (VEM), and dabrafenib (DAB) + trametinib (TRA)-are recommended for the treatment of BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ENC + BIN versus COB + VEM versus DAB + TRA from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to simulate a hypothetical cohort over a time horizon of 10 years. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were independently digitized from a randomized controlled trial for ENC + BIN and fitted using R software. Published and indirectly estimated hazard ratios were used to fit OS and PFS curves for COB + VEM and DAB + TRA. Costs, life-year gains, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with the 3 treatment combinations were estimated. A base case analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). A discount rate of 3.5% was applied on cost and outcomes. RESULTS: The ENC + BIN versus COB + VEM comparison was associated with an ICUR of $656 233 per QALY gained. The ENC + BIN versus DAB + TRA comparison was associated with an ICUR of $3 135 269 per QALY gained. The DAB + TRA combination dominated COB + VEM. The base case analysis estimates were confirmed by the PSA estimates. ENC + BIN was the most cost-effective combination at a high willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $573 000 per QALY and $1.5 million/QALY when compared to COB + VEM and DAB + TRA, respectively. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Given current prices and acceptable WTP thresholds, our study suggests that DAB + TRA is the optimum treatment. In this study, ENC + BIN was cost-effective only at a very high WTP per QALY threshold.

Microcosting Study of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has emerged as a promising imaging tool in prostate cancer diagnosis. PSMA PET/CT radiotracers are produced in-house (gallium-68, eg, 68Ga-PSMA-11) or provided by commercial entities (fluorine-18, eg, 18F-DCFPyL). Nevertheless, the cost per procedure is not well established given that current estimates have several limitations. This study aimed to establish the cost of PSMA PET/CT in Australia. METHODS: Hospitals and diagnostic facilities currently conducting PSMA PET/CT in Australia in metropolitan and regional areas completed a survey of PSMA PET/CT throughput, radiotracers involved, and the cost of assets, departmental staffing, consumables, and occupancy. Total costs were estimated using a top-down microcosting approach, involving identifying all relevant cost components and valuing each component for the average patient, and a gross costing approach, involving apportioning cost components at an aggregated level. RESULTS: Data were collected from 8 facilities. The most common radiotracer used was 18F-DCFPyL (7 facilities, 87%), followed by 68Ga-PSMA-11 (4 facilities, 50%). The average cost of PSMA PET/CT was A$1554.77 and A$1306.00 based on the microcosting and gross costing approaches, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a detailed and accurate estimation of the cost of PSMA PET/CT in Australia. These costs can be used as a benchmark to identify potential efficiencies and help policy makers set the appropriate reimbursement rate for this procedure. The use of data from facilities using different radiotracers in metropolitan and regional areas and with different throughput increases the generalizability of the results, especially in countries with similar health systems.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) for the Primary Staging of Prostate Cancer in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) combined with computed tomography (CT) is a new imaging modality to detect the extra-prostatic spread of prostate cancer. PSMA PET/CT has a higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional imaging (CT ± whole body bone scan [WBBS]). This study conducted a cost-utility analysis of PSMA PET/CT compared with conventional imaging for patients with newly diagnosed, intermediate-risk or high-risk primary prostate cancer. PERSPECTIVE: Australian healthcare perspective. SETTING: Tertiary. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model combined data from a variety of sources. The time horizon was 35 years. The sensitivity and specificity of PSMA PET/CT and CT alone were based on meta-analyses and the test accuracy of CT+WBBS was based on a single randomised controlled trial. Health outcomes included cases detected, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years. Costs related to other diagnostic tests, initial treatment, adverse events, and post-disease progression were included. All costs were reported in 2021 Australian Dollars (A$). RESULTS: The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PSMA PET/CT was estimated to be A $21,147/quality-adjusted life-year gained versus CT+WBBS, and A$36,231/quality-adjusted life-year gained versus CT alone. The results were most sensitive to the time horizon, and the initial treatments received by patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer. The probability of PSMA PET/CT being cost effective was estimated to be 91% versus CT+WBBS and 89% versus CT alone, using a threshold of AU$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA PET/CT is likely to be more costly than CT+WBBS or CT alone in Australia; however, it is still likely to be considered cost effective compared with conventional imaging.

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring TNF-alpha inhibitors and antibody levels in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease that primarily causes inflammation, pain and stiffness in the joints. People with severe disease may be treated with biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors, but the efficacy of these drugs is hampered by the presence of anti-drug antibodies. Monitoring the response to these treatments typically involves clinical assessment using response criteria, such as Disease Activity Score in 28 joints or European League Against Rheumatism. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays can also be used to measure drug and antibody levels in the blood. These tests may inform whether or not adjustments to treatment are required or help clinicians to understand the reasons for treatment non-response or a loss of response. METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted to identify studies reporting on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to measure drug and anti-drug antibody levels to monitor the response to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors [adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie, Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA), etanercept (Enbrel®; Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA), infliximab (Remicade®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, UK), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia®; UCB Pharma Limited, Slough, UK) and golimumab (Simponi®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited)] in people with rheumatoid arthritis who had either achieved treatment target (remission or low disease activity) or shown primary or secondary non-response to treatment. A range of bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), were searched from inception to November 2018. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-1 (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool for non-randomised studies, with adaptations as appropriate. Threshold and cost-utility analyses that were based on a decision tree model were conducted to estimate the economic outcomes of adding therapeutic drug monitoring to standard care. The costs and resource use were considered from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. No discounting was applied to the costs and effects owing to the short-term time horizon of 18 months that was adopted in the economic analysis. The impact on the results of variations in testing and treatment strategies was explored in numerous clinically plausible sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Two studies were identified: (1) a non-randomised controlled trial, INGEBIO, that compared standard care with therapeutic drug monitoring using Promonitor® assays [Progenika Biopharma SA (a Grifols-Progenika company), Derio, Spain] in Spanish patients receiving adalimumab who had achieved remission or low disease activity; and (2) a historical control study. The economic analyses were informed by INGEBIO. Different outcomes from INGEBIO produced inconsistent results in both threshold and cost-utility analyses. The cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring varied, from the intervention being dominant to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £164,009 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, when the frequency of testing was assumed to be once per year and the cost of phlebotomy appointments was excluded, therapeutic drug monitoring dominated standard care. LIMITATIONS: There is limited relevant research evidence and much uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based testing for therapeutic drug monitoring in rheumatoid arthritis patients. INGEBIO had serious limitations in relation to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence scope: only one-third of participants had rheumatoid arthritis, the analyses were mostly not by intention to treat and the follow-up was 18 months only. Moreover, the outcomes might not be generalisable to the NHS. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, no firm conclusions could be made about the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK: Further controlled trials are required to assess the impact of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring the anti-tumour necrosis factors in people with rheumatoid arthritis. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105195. 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. 25, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Rheumatoid arthritis is a long-term condition that causes pain, swelling and stiffness in the joints. People with severe disease may be treated with drugs called tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors [adalimumab (Humira^®; AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA), etanercept (Enbrel^®; Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA), infliximab (Remicade^®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, UK), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia^®; UCB Pharma Limited, Slough, UK) and golimumab (Simponi^®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited)]. Some people taking these drugs find that their disease improves, whereas others do not respond to the treatment or improve initially and then experience loss of response. One cause of lost response is that individuals develop antibodies (i.e. protective proteins) against the drug, which hamper the effect of treatment. Various tests have been developed to measure the level of drugs and antibodies against these drugs in patient's blood samples. This kind of monitoring would allow treatment to be adjusted in response to the test outcomes to optimise benefit for the patient, and help clinicians to better understand the reasons for an absence or a loss of response to treatment. The aim of this study was to find out whether or not it would be clinically effective (i.e. good for patients) and cost-effective (i.e. a good use of NHS resources) to use these tests for monitoring drug and antibody levels, as a means of assessing treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are controlled, have not responded or have lost response. Results from a systematic review showed that, because of the limited and poor-quality evidence, there was much uncertainty in the clinical effectiveness of testing. A simple mathematical model drew on evidence from one poorly reported study, which was heavily supplemented by data from other studies and expert advice. Results from the model were inconclusive and suggest that there is considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness of testing. Therefore, the results presented here should be considered with caution. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of tumour necrosis factor testing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Three biomarker tests to help diagnose preterm labour: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth may result in short- and long-term health problems for the child. Accurate diagnoses of preterm births could prevent unnecessary (or ensure appropriate) admissions into hospitals or transfers to specialist units. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this report is to assess the test accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic tests PartoSure™ (Parsagen Diagnostics Inc., Boston, MA, USA), Actim® Partus (Medix Biochemica, Espoo, Finland) and the Rapid Fetal Fibronectin (fFN)® 10Q Cassette Kit (Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA) at thresholds ≠50 ng/ml [quantitative fFN (qfFN)] for women presenting with signs and symptoms of preterm labour relative to fFN at 50 ng/ml. METHODS: Systematic reviews of the published literature were conducted for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies of PartoSure, Actim Partus and qfFN for predicting preterm birth, the clinical effectiveness following treatment decisions informed by test results and economic evaluations of the tests. A model-based economic evaluation was also conducted to extrapolate long-term outcomes from the results of the diagnostic tests. The model followed the structure of the model that informed the 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on preterm labour diagnosis and treatment, but with antenatal steroids use, as opposed to tocolysis, driving health outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty studies were identified evaluating DTA against the reference standard of delivery within 7 days and seven studies were identified evaluating DTA against the reference standard of delivery within 48 hours. Two studies assessed two of the index tests within the same population. One study demonstrated that depending on the threshold used, qfFN was more or less accurate than Actim Partus, whereas the other indicated little difference between PartoSure and Actim Partus. No study assessing qfFN and PartoSure in the same population was identified. The test accuracy results from the other included studies revealed a high level of uncertainty, primarily attributable to substantial methodological, clinical and statistical heterogeneity between studies. No study compared all three tests simultaneously. No clinical effectiveness studies evaluating any of the three biomarker tests were identified. One partial economic evaluation was identified for predicting preterm birth. It assessed the number needed to treat to prevent a respiratory distress syndrome case with a 'treat-all' strategy, relative to testing with qualitative fFN. Because of the lack of data, our de novo model involved the assumption that management of pregnant women fully adhered to the results of the tests. In the base-case analysis for a woman at 30 weeks' gestation, Actim Partus had lower health-care costs and fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than qfFN at 50 ng/ml, reducing costs at a rate of £56,030 per QALY lost compared with qfFN at 50 ng/ml. PartoSure is less costly than Actim Partus while being equally effective, but this is based on diagnostic accuracy data from a small study. Treatment with qfFN at 200 ng/ml and 500 ng/ml resulted in lower cost savings per QALY lost relative to fFN at 50 ng/ml than treatment with Actim Partus. In contrast, qfFN at 10 ng/ml increased QALYs, by 0.002, and had a cost per QALY gained of £140,267 relative to fFN at 50 ng/ml. Similar qualitative results were obtained for women presenting at different gestational ages. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the test accuracy and cost-effectiveness results. We are aware of four ongoing UK trials, two of which plan to enrol > 1000 participants. The results of these trials may significantly alter the findings presented here. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017072696. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Infants may suffer from health problems if they are born early. If a mother has symptoms of labour before her baby is due, a test could be used to predict if the symptoms are real or a false alarm. A test could help the doctor to decide whether the mother needs treatment or to move to a specialist hospital or if she could be sent home (if it is a false alarm). Our report compares three tests [PartoSure™ (Parsagen Diagnostics Inc., Boston, MA, USA), Actim^® Partus (Medix Biochemica, Espoo, Finland) and the Fetal Fibronectin (fFN) Test (Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA)] on how well they predict an early birth and how the costs and the long-term health outcomes of the child compare between and among tests. All the published literature reporting the accuracy of the three tests and their costs was reviewed. We developed a new cost-effectiveness model, which estimated the long-term health outcomes of the child based on the test results. Twenty of the studies reviewed looked at how good the tests were at predicting an early birth within the next 7 days, and six looked at predicting birth within 48 hours. The designs of the studies and the women taking part in the studies varied greatly. This meant that comparing the accuracy of the tests was very difficult and it would be unfair to decide which test was the best. Our model suggested no firm conclusions for the cost-effectiveness of fFN compared with Actim Partus. PartoSure appears to be less costly than Actim Partus and equally good at predicting preterm birth, but this is based on a study of very few patients. There were no data that allowed us to compare all three tests together. The accuracy of the results is uncertain, mainly because all the studies are very different. We are aware of four related UK trials that are currently ongoing that plan to include large numbers of women.

Everolimus, lutetium-177 DOTATATE and sunitinib for advanced, unresectable or metastatic neuroendocrine tumours with disease progression: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a group of heterogeneous cancers that develop in cells in the diffuse neuroendocrine system. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness of three interventions [everolimus (Afinitor®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), lutetium-177 DOTATATE (177Lu-DOTATATE) (Lutathera®; Imaging Equipment Ltd, Radstock, UK) and sunitinib (Sutent®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA)] for treating unresectable or metastatic NETs with disease progression and establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched from inception to May 2016: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily, Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature on everolimus, 177Lu-DOTATATE and sunitinib for treating advanced, unresectable or metastatic progressive NETs. The following NET locations were considered separately: pancreas, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and lung, and GI tract (midgut only). We wrote a survival partition cohort-based economic evaluation in Microsoft Excel® 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) from the UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. This comprised three health states: (1) progression-free survival (PFS), (2) progressed disease and (3) death. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RADIANT-3 [RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Third Trial; pancreatic NETs (pNETs): everolimus vs. best supportive care (BSC)], A6181111 (pNETs: sunitinib vs. BSC) and RADIANT-4 (RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Fourth Trial; GI and lung NETs: everolimus vs. BSC), met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness systematic review. The risk of bias was low. Although the NETTER-1 (Neuroendocrine Tumors Therapy) RCT, of 177Lu-DOTATATE plus 30 mg of octreotide (Sandostatin®, Novartis) compared with 60 mg of octreotide, was excluded from the review, we nonetheless present the results of this trial, as it informs our estimate of the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-DOTATATE. The pNETs trials consistently found that the interventions improved PFS and overall survival (OS) compared with BSC. Our indirect comparison found no significant difference in PFS between everolimus and sunitinib. Estimates of OS gain were confounded because of high rates of treatment switching. After adjustment, our indirect comparison suggested a lower, but non-significant, hazard of death for sunitinib compared with everolimus. In GI and lung NETs, everolimus significantly improved PFS compared with BSC and showed a non-significant trend towards improved OS compared with BSC. Adverse events were more commonly reported following treatment with targeted interventions than after treatment with BSC. In the base case for pNETs, assuming list prices, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for everolimus compared with BSC of £45,493 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for sunitinib compared with BSC of £20,717 per QALY. These ICERs increased substantially without the adjustment for treatment switching. For GI and lung NETs, we estimated an ICER for everolimus compared with BSC of £44,557 per QALY. For GI (midgut) NETs, the ICERs were £199,233 per QALY for everolimus compared with BSC and £62,158 per QALY for a scenario analysis comparing 177Lu-DOTATATE with BSC. We judge that no treatment meets the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) end-of-life criteria, although we cannot rule out that sunitinib in the A6181111 trial does. LIMITATIONS: A RCT with included comparators was not identified for 177Lu-DOTATATE. The indirect treatment comparison that our economic analysis was based on was of a simple Bucher type, unadjusted for any differences in the baseline characteristics across the two trials. CONCLUSIONS: Given NICE's current stated range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY for the cost-effectiveness threshold, based on list prices, only sunitinib might be considered good value for money in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK: Further analysis of individual patient data from RADIANT-3 would allow assessment of the robustness of our findings. The data were not made available to us by the company sponsoring the trial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041303. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Economic Analysis of First-Line Treatment with Cetuximab or Panitumumab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapies with cetuximab (Erbitux®; Merck Serono UK Ltd) and panitumumab (Vectibix®; Amgen UK Ltd) are shown to be less effective in adults with metastatic colorectal cancer who have mutations in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and NRAS oncogenes from the rat sarcoma (RAS) family. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of these drugs in patients with previously untreated RAS wild-type (i.e. non-mutated) metastatic colorectal cancer, not eligible for liver resection at baseline, from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. METHODS: We constructed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the long-term costs and benefits of cetuximab and panitumumab combined with either FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin) or FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) vs. FOLFOX or FOLFIRI alone. The economic analysis was based on three randomised controlled trials. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted at 3.5% per annum. RESULTS: Based on the evidence available, both drugs fulfil the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's end-of-life criteria. In the analysis, assuming discount prices for the drugs from patient access schemes agreed by the drug manufacturers with the Department of Health, predicted mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cetuximab + FOLFOX, panitumumab + FOLFOX and cetuximab + FOLFIRI compared with chemotherapy alone appeared cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, applicable to end-of-life treatments. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab and panitumumab were recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with previously untreated RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, not eligible for liver resection at baseline, for use within the National Health Service in England. Both treatments are available via the UK Cancer Drugs Fund.

Correction to: Olaratumab in Combination with Doxorubicin for the Treatment of Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Single Technology Appraisal.

Page 41, Column 1, Section 3.1, paragraph 2, 1st sentence which.

Olaratumab in Combination with Doxorubicin for the Treatment of Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Single Technology Appraisal.

The manufacturer of olaratumab (Lartruvo®), Eli Lilly & Company Limited, submitted evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug, in combination with doxorubicin, for untreated advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) not amenable to surgery or radiotherapy, as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal process. The Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG), critically reviewed the company's submission. Clinical effectiveness evidence for the company's analysis was derived from an open-label, randomised controlled trial, JGDG. The analysis was based on a partitioned survival model with a time horizon of 25 years, and the perspective was of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year. Given the available evidence, olaratumab is likely to meet NICE's end-of-life criteria. To improve the cost effectiveness of olaratumab, the company offered a discount through a Commercial Access Agreement (CAA) with the NHS England. When the discount was applied, the mean base-case and probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for olaratumab plus doxorubicin versus the standard-of-care doxorubicin were £46,076 and £47,127 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively; the probability of this treatment being cost effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000 per QALY gained, applicable to end-of-life treatments, was 0.54. The respective ICERs from the ERG's analysis were approximately £60,000/QALY gained, and the probability of the treatment being cost effective was 0.21. In August 2017, the NICE Appraisal Committee recommended olaratumab in combination with doxorubicin for this indication for use via the UK Cancer Drugs Fund under the agreed CAA until further evidence being collected in the ongoing phase III trial-ANNOUNCE-becomes available in December 2020.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (review of technology appraisal no. 176) and panitumumab (partial review of technology appraisal no. 240) for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast, lung and prostate cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually treated with active chemotherapy as first- or second-line therapy. Targeted agents are available, including the antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents cetuximab (Erbitux®, Merck Serono UK Ltd, Feltham, UK) and panitumumab (Vecitibix®, Amgen UK Ltd, Cambridge, UK). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy and cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy for rat sarcoma (RAS) wild-type (WT) patients for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. DATA SOURCES: The assessment included a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, a review and critique of manufacturer submissions, and a de novo cohort-based economic analysis. For the assessment of effectiveness, a literature search was conducted up to 27 April 2015 in a range of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of RCTs of cetuximab or panitumumab in participants with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS WT status. All steps in the review were performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Narrative synthesis and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted for outcomes of interest. An economic model was developed focusing on first-line treatment and using a 30-year time horizon to capture costs and benefits. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses and probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The searches identified 2811 titles and abstracts, of which five clinical trials were included. Additional data from these trials were provided by the manufacturers. No data were available for panitumumab plus irinotecan-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + irinotecan) (FOLFIRI) in previously untreated patients. Studies reported results for RAS WT subgroups. First-line treatment with anti-EGFR therapies in combination with chemotherapy appeared to have statistically significant benefits for patients who are RAS WT. For the independent economic evaluation, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RAS WT patients for cetuximab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin) (FOLFOX) compared with FOLFOX was £104,205 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained; for panitumumab plus FOLFOX compared with FOLFOX was £204,103 per QALY gained; and for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI was £122,554 per QALY gained. The ICERs were sensitive to treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival (resected patients only) and resection rates. LIMITATIONS: The trials included RAS WT populations only as subgroups. No evidence was available for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI. Two networks were used for the NMA and model, based on the different chemotherapies (FOLFOX and FOLFIRI), as insufficient evidence was available to the assessment group to connect these networks. CONCLUSIONS: Although cetuximab and panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy appear to be clinically beneficial for RAS WT patients compared with chemotherapy alone, they are likely to represent poor value for money when judged by cost-effectiveness criteria currently used in the UK. It would be useful to conduct a RCT in patients with RAS WT. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016111. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Azacitidine for Treating Acute Myeloid Leukaemia with More Than 30 % Bone Marrow Blasts: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of azacitidine (Celgene) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia with more than 30 % bone marrow blasts in adults who are not eligible for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, as part of the NICE's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Peninsula Technology Assessment Group was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness data used in the company's economic analysis were derived from a single randomised controlled trial, AZA-AML-001. It was an international, multicentre, controlled, phase III study with an open-label, parallel-group design conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of azacitidine against a conventional care regimen (CCR). The CCR was a composite comparator of acute myeloid leukaemia treatments currently available in the National Health Service: intensive chemotherapy followed by best supportive care (BSC) upon disease relapse or progression, non-intensive chemotherapy followed by BSC and BSC only. In AZA-AML-001, the primary endpoint was overall survival. Azacitidine appeared to be superior to the CCR, with median overall survival of 10.4 and 6.5 months, respectively. However, in the intention-to-treat analysis, the survival advantage associated with azacitidine was not statistically significant. The company submitted a de novo economic evaluation based on a partitioned survival model with four health states: "Remission", "Non-remission", "Relapse/Progressive disease" and "Death". The model time horizon was 10 years. The perspective was the National Health Service and Personal Social Services. Costs and health effects were discounted at the rate of 3.5 % per year. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of azacitidine compared with the CCR was £20,648 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the mean ICER was £17,423 per QALY. At the willingness-to-pay of £20,000, £30,000 and £50,000 per QALY, the probability of azacitidine being cost effective was 0.699, 0.908 and 0.996, respectively. The ERG identified a number of errors in Celgene's model and concluded that the results of the company's economic evaluation could not be considered robust. After amendments to Celgene's model, the base-case ICER was £273,308 per QALY gained. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the mean ICER was £277,123 per QALY. At a willingness-to-pay of £100,000 per QALY, the probability of azacitidine being cost effective was less than 5 %. In all exploratory analyses conducted by the ERG, the ICER exceeded the NICE's cost-effectiveness threshold range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Given the evidence provided in the submission, azacitidine did not fulfil NICE's end-of-life criteria. After considering the analyses performed by the ERG and submissions from clinician and patient experts, the NICE Appraisal Committee did not recommend azacitidine for this indication.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival. OBJECTIVES: To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport(®), Sandoz; Capexion(®), Mylan; Modigraf(®), Astellas Pharma; Perixis(®), Accord Healthcare; Prograf(®), Astellas Pharma; Tacni(®), Teva; Vivadex(®), Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf(®) Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip(®), Zentiva; CellCept(®), Roche Products; Myfenax(®), Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation. METHODS: Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association's electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death. RESULTS: Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled. FUTURE WORK: High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome. CONCLUSION: Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (epoetin and darbepoetin) for treating cancer treatment-induced anaemia (including review of technology appraisal no. 142): a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia is a common side effect of cancer treatments and can lead to a reduction in quality of life. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are licensed for use in conjunction with red blood cell transfusions to improve cancer treatment-induced anaemia (CIA). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ESAs in anaemia associated with cancer treatment (specifically chemotherapy). DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched from 2004 to 2013: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, British Nursing Index, Health Management Information Consortium, Current Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov. The US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites were also searched. Bibliographies of included papers were scrutinised for further potentially includable studies. REVIEW METHODS: The clinical effectiveness review followed principles published by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or systematic reviews of RCTs, of ESAs (epoetin or darbepoetin) for treating people with CIA were eligible for inclusion in the review. Comparators were best supportive care, placebo or other ESAs. Anaemia- and malignancy-related outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. When appropriate, data were pooled using meta-analysis. An empirical health economic model was developed comparing ESA treatment with no ESA treatment. The model comprised two components: one evaluating short-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (while patients are anaemic) and one evaluating long-term QALYs. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 1457 titles and abstracts screened, 23 studies assessing ESAs within their licensed indication (based on start dose administered) were included in the review. None of the RCTs were completely aligned with current European Union licenses. The results suggest a clinical benefit from ESAs for anaemia-related outcomes and an improvement in HRQoL scores. The impact of ESAs on AEs and survival remains highly uncertain, although point estimates are lower, confidence intervals are wide and not statistically significant. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for ESA treatment compared with no ESA treatment ranged from £ 19,429 to £ 35,018 per QALY gained, but sensitivity and scenario analyses demonstrate considerable uncertainty in these ICERs, including the possibility of overall health disbenefit. All ICERs were sensitive to survival and cost. LIMITATIONS: The relative effectiveness of ESAs was not addressed; all ESAs were assumed to have equivalent efficacy. No studies were completely aligned with their European labelling beyond the starting dose evaluated. There is questionable generalisability given that the included trials were published >20 years ago and there have been many changes to chemotherapy as well as to the quality of supportive treatment. Trial quality was moderate or poor and there was considerable unexplained heterogeneity for a number of outcomes, particularly survival, and evidence of publication bias. Adjustments were not made to account for multiple testing. CONCLUSIONS: ESAs could be cost-effective when used closer to licence, but there is considerable uncertainty, mainly because of unknown impacts on overall survival. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005812. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A model-based assessment of the cost-utility of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndrome caused by mutations in the DNA mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2. Individuals with Lynch syndrome have an increased risk of colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian and other cancers. Lynch syndrome remains underdiagnosed in the UK. Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients is proposed as a method to identify more families affected by Lynch syndrome and offer surveillance to reduce cancer risks, although cost-effectiveness is viewed as a barrier to implementation. The objective of this project was to estimate the cost-utility of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in individuals with early-onset colorectal cancer in the NHS. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed which simulated diagnostic and long-term outcomes over a lifetime horizon for colorectal cancer patients with and without Lynch syndrome and for relatives of those patients. Nine diagnostic strategies were modelled which included microsatellite instability (MSI) testing, immunohistochemistry (IHC), BRAF mutation testing (methylation testing in a scenario analysis), diagnostic mutation testing and Amsterdam II criteria. Biennial colonoscopic surveillance was included for individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome and accepting surveillance. Prophylactic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (H-BSO) was similarly included for women diagnosed with Lynch syndrome. Costs from NHS and Personal Social Services perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated and discounted at 3.5% per annum. RESULTS: All strategies included for the identification of Lynch syndrome were cost-effective versus no testing. The strategy with the greatest net health benefit was MSI followed by BRAF followed by diagnostic genetic testing, costing £5,491 per QALY gained over no testing. The effect of prophylactic H-BSO on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is uncertain and could outweigh the health benefits of testing, resulting in overall QALY loss. CONCLUSIONS: Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients is predicted to be a cost-effective use of limited financial resources in England and Wales. Research is recommended into the cost-effectiveness of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in other associated cancers and into the impact of prophylactic H-BSO on HRQoL.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of diagnostic strategies for Lynch syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited autosomal dominant disorder characterised by an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and other cancers, and caused by mutations in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair genes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of strategies to identify LS in newly diagnosed early-onset CRC patients (aged < 50 years). Cascade testing of relatives is employed in all strategies for individuals in whom LS is identified. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted of the test accuracy of microsatellite instability (MSI) testing or immunohistochemistry (IHC) in individuals with CRC at risk of LS, and of economic evidence relating to diagnostic strategies for LS. Reviews were carried out in April 2012 (test accuracy); and in February 2012, repeated in February 2013 (economic evaluations). Databases searched included MEDLINE (1946 to April week 3, 2012), EMBASE (1980 to week 17, 2012) and Web of Science (inception to 30 April 2012), and risk of bias for test accuracy was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) quality appraisal tool. A de novo economic model of diagnostic strategies for LS was developed. RESULTS: Inconsistencies in study designs precluded pooling of diagnostic test accuracy results from a previous systematic review and nine subsequent primary studies. These were of mixed quality, with significant methodological concerns identified for most. IHC and MSI can both play a part in diagnosing LS but neither is gold standard. No UK studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of diagnosing and managing LS, although studies from other countries generally found some strategies to be cost-effective compared with no testing. The de novo model demonstrated that all strategies were cost-effective compared with no testing at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with the most cost-effective strategy utilising MSI and BRAF testing [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) = £5491 per QALY]. The maximum health benefit to the population of interest would be obtained using universal germline testing, but this would not be a cost-effective use of NHS resources compared with the next best strategy. When the age limit was raised from 50 to 60 and 70 years, the ICERs compared with no testing increased but remained below £20,000 per QALY (except for universal germline testing with an age limit of 70 years). The total net health benefit increased with the age limit as more individuals with LS were identified. Uncertainty was evaluated through univariate sensitivity analyses, which suggested that the parameters substantially affecting cost-effectiveness: were the risk of CRC for individuals with LS; the average number of relatives identified per index patient; the effectiveness of colonoscopy in preventing metachronous CRC; the cost of colonoscopy; the duration of the psychological impact of genetic testing on health-related quality of life (HRQoL); and the impact of prophylactic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy on HRQoL (this had the potential to make all testing strategies more expensive and less effective than no testing). LIMITATIONS: The absence of high-quality data for the impact of prophylactic gynaecological surgery and the psychological impact of genetic testing on HRQoL is an acknowledged limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that reflex testing for LS in newly diagnosed CRC patients aged < 50 years is cost-effective. Such testing may also be cost-effective in newly diagnosed CRC patients aged < 60 or < 70 years. Results are subject to uncertainty due to a number of parameters, for some of which good estimates were not identified. We recommend future research to estimate the cost-effectiveness of testing for LS in individuals with newly diagnosed endometrial or ovarian cancer, and the inclusion of aspirin chemoprevention. Further research is required to accurately estimate the impact of interventions on HRQoL. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002436. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Evolution of a cost-utility model of donepezil for Alzheimer's disease.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the evolution of a cost-utility model used to inform the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's (NICE) most recent decisions on the cost-utility of drug treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD), and to explore the impact of structural assumptions on the cost-utility results. METHODS: Changes informed by noted limitations of the decision model used in NICE's previous decisions (in 2006) were made cumulatively to the original decision model for donepezil compared with best supportive care (for patients with mild to moderate AD). Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were undertaken for each cumulative change of the model. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) of parameter estimates and structural assumptions was also calculated. RESULTS: Cumulative changes to the decision model highlighted how the results of the original model (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £81,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) related to those of the new model (where donepezil was estimated to be cost-saving), mainly due to uncertainty in the incremental cost of donepezil treatment over best supportive care (ranging from -£600 to £3,000 per patient). The partial EVPI analysis reflected this finding where further information on treatment discontinuations and cost parameter estimates were shown to be valuable in terms of reducing decision uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing the evolution of the cost-utility model helped to identify and explore structural differences between cohort-based models and is likely to be useful for decision models in other disease areas. This approach makes the structural uncertainty explicit, forcing decision makers to address structural uncertainty in addition to parameter uncertainty.

Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab, cetuximab plus irinotecan, and panitumumab for third and further lines of treatment for KRAS wild-type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab monotherapy, cetuximab plus irinotecan, and panitumumab monotherapy compared with best supportive care (BSC) for the third and subsequent lines of treatment of patients with Kirsten rat sarcoma wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. METHODS: An "an area under the curve" cost-effectiveness model was developed. The clinical effectiveness evidence for both cetuximab and panitumumab was taken from a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) in each case and for cetuximab plus irinotecan from several sources. RESULTS: Patients are predicted to survive for approximately 6 months on BSC, 8.5 months on panitumumab, 10 months on cetuximab, and 16.5 months on cetuximab plus irinotecan. Panitumumab is dominated, and cetuximab is extended dominated. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £95,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was estimated for cetuximab versus BSC and is likely to be relatively accurate, because the relevant clinical evidence is taken from a high-quality RCT. The estimated ICER for panitumumab versus BSC, at £187,000 per QALY, is less certain due to assumptions in the adjustment for the substantial crossing-over of patients in the RCT. The ICER for cetuximab plus irinotecan versus BSC, at £88,000 per QALY, is least certain due to substantial uncertainty about progression-free survival, treatment duration, and overall survival. Nonetheless, when key parameters are varied within plausible ranges, all three treatments always remain poor value for money. CONCLUSIONS: All three treatments are highly unlikely to be considered cost-effective in this patient population in the United Kingdom. We explain how the reader can adapt the model for other countries.

Evolution of the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for Alzheimer's disease: systematic review and economic model.

INTRODUCTION: in 2007 the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) restricted the use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine. METHODS: we conducted a health technology assessment (HTA) of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of AD to re-consider and up-date the evidence base used to inform the 2007 NICE decision. The systematic review of effectiveness targeted randomised controlled trials. A comprehensive search, including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library, was conducted from January 2004 to March 2010. All key review steps were done by two reviewers. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted. The cost-effectiveness was assessed using a cohort-based model with three health states: pre-institutionalised, institutionalised and dead. The perspective was NHS and Personal Social Services and the cost year 2009. RESULTS: confidence about the size and statistical significance of the estimates of effect of galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine improved on function and global impact in particular. Cost-effectiveness also changed. For donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in 2004 was above £50,000; in 2010 the same drugs 'dominated' best supportive care (improved clinical outcome at reduced cost). This was primarily because of changes in the modelled costs of introducing the drugs. For memantine, the cost-effectiveness also improved from a range of £37-53,000 per QALY gained to a base-case of £32,000. CONCLUSION: there has been a change in the evidence base between 2004 and 2010 consistent with the change in NICE guidance. Further evolution in cost-effectiveness estimates is possible particularly if there are changes in drug prices.