How health technology assessment can help to address challenges in drug repurposing: a conceptual framework.

Drug repurposing faces various challenges that can impede its success. We developed a framework outlining key challenges in drug repurposing to explore when and how health technology assessment (HTA) methods can address them. We identified 20 drug-repurposing challenges across the categories of data access, research and development, collaboration, business case, regulatory and legal challenges. Early incorporation of HTA methods, including literature review, empirical research, stakeholder consultation, health economic evaluation and uncertainty assessment, can help to address these challenges. HTA methods canassess the value proposition of repurposed drugs, inform further research and ultimately help to bring cost-effective repurposed drugs to patients.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI): Explanation and Elaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Although the ISPOR Value of Information (VOI) Task Force's reports outline VOI concepts and provide good-practice recommendations, there is no guidance for reporting VOI analyses. VOI analyses are usually performed alongside economic evaluations for which the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Statement provides reporting guidelines. Thus, we developed the CHEERS-VOI checklist to provide reporting guidance and checklist to support the transparent, reproducible, and high-quality reporting of VOI analyses. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review generated a list of 26 candidate reporting items. These candidate items underwent a Delphi procedure with Delphi participants through 3 survey rounds. Participants rated each item on a 9-point Likert scale to indicate its relevance when reporting the minimal, essential information about VOI methods and provided comments. The Delphi results were reviewed at 2-day consensus meetings and the checklist was finalized using anonymous voting. RESULTS: We had 30, 25, and 24 Delphi respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After incorporating revisions recommended by the Delphi participants, all 26 candidate items proceeded to the 2-day consensus meetings. The final CHEERS-VOI checklist includes all CHEERS items, but 7 items require elaboration when reporting VOI. Further, 6 new items were added to report information relevant only to VOI (eg, VOI methods applied). CONCLUSIONS: The CHEERS-VOI checklist should be used when a VOI analysis is performed alongside economic evaluations. The CHEERS-VOI checklist will help decision makers, analysts and peer reviewers in the assessment and interpretation of VOI analyses and thereby increase transparency and rigor in decision making.

Comprehensive Review of Methods to Assess Uncertainty in Health Economic Evaluations.

Uncertainty assessment is a cornerstone in model-based health economic evaluations (HEEs) that inform reimbursement decisions. No comprehensive overview of available uncertainty assessment methods currently exists. We aimed to review methods for uncertainty assessment for use in model-based HEEs, by conducting a snowballing review. We categorised all methods according to their stage of use relating to uncertainty assessment (identification, analysis, communication). Additionally, we classified identification methods according to sources of uncertainty, and subdivided analysis and communication methods according to their purpose. The review identified a total of 80 uncertainty methods: 30 identification, 28 analysis, and 22 communication methods. Uncertainty identification methods exist to address uncertainty from different sources. Most identification methods were developed with the objective to assess related concepts such as validity, model quality, and relevance. Almost all uncertainty analysis and communication methods required uncertainty to be quantified and inclusion of uncertainties in probabilistic analysis. Our review can help analysts and decision makers in selecting uncertainty assessment methods according to their aim and purpose of the assessment. We noted a need for further clarification of terminology and guidance on the use of (combinations of) methods to identify uncertainty and related concepts such as validity and quality. A key finding is that uncertainty assessment relies heavily on quantification, which may necessitate increased use of expert elicitation and/or the development of methods to assess unquantified uncertainty.

Filgotinib for Treating Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer (Galapagos) of filgotinib (Jyseleca®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of filgotinib for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults who have had an inadequate response, loss of response or were intolerant to a previous biologic agent or conventional therapy. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group. This paper summarises the company submission, presents the Evidence Review Group's critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the company submission, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The company submission included one relevant study for the comparison of filgotinib versus placebo: the SELECTION trial. As there was no head-to-head evidence with any of the comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses, one for the biologic-naïve population and one for the biologic-experienced population, and for both the induction and maintenance phases. The Evidence Review Group questioned the validity of the maintenance network meta-analysis because it assumed all active treatments to be comparators in this phase, which is not in line with clinical practice. The economic analysis used a number of assumptions that introduced substantial uncertainty, which could not be fully explored, for instance, the assumption that a risk of loss of response would be independent of health state and constant over time. Company and Evidence Review Group results indicate that at its current price, and disregarding confidential discounts for comparators and subsequent treatments, filgotinib dominates some comparators (golimumab and adalimumab in the company base case, all but intravenous and subcutaneous vedolizumab in the Evidence Review Group's base case) in the biologic-naïve population. In the biologic-experienced population, filgotinib dominates all comparators in both the company and the Evidence Review Group's base case. Results should be interpreted with caution as some important uncertainties were not included in the modelling. These uncertainties were mostly centred around the maintenance network meta-analysis, loss of response, health-related quality-of-life estimates and modelling of dose escalation. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended filgotinib within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults when conventional or biological treatment cannot be tolerated, or if the disease has not responded well enough or has stopped responding to these treatments, and if the company provides filgotinib according to the commercial arrangement.

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

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

Implementation Barriers to Value of Information Analysis in Health Technology Decision Making: Results From a Process Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Value of information (VOI) analysis can support health technology assessment decision making, but it is a long way from being standard use. The objective of this study was to understand barriers to the implementation of VOI analysis and propose actions to overcome these. METHODS: We performed a process evaluation of VOI analysis use within decision making on tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for use in the Dutch breast cancer population screening. Based on steering committee meeting attendance and regular meetings with analysts, we developed a list of barriers to VOI use, which were analyzed using an established diffusion model. We proposed actions to address these barriers. Barriers and actions were discussed and validated in a workshop with stakeholders representing patients, clinicians, regulators, policy advisors, researchers, and the industry. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on groups of barriers, which included characteristics of VOI analysis itself, stakeholder's attitudes, analysts' and policy makers' skills and knowledge, system readiness, and implementation in the organization. Observed barriers did not only pertain to VOI analysis itself but also to formulating the objective of the assessment, economic modeling, and broader aspects of uncertainty assessment. Actions to overcome these barriers related to organizational changes, knowledge transfer, cultural change, and tools. CONCLUSIONS: This in-depth analysis of barriers to implementation of VOI analysis and resulting actions and tools may be useful to health technology assessment organizations that wish to implement VOI analysis in technology assessment and research prioritization. Further research should focus on application and evaluation of the proposed actions in real-world assessment processes.

Filgotinib for Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Gilead) of filgotinib (JyselecaTM), as part of the single technology appraisal process, to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the NICE Appraisal Committee. The evidence for filgotinib was based on two good-quality international randomised controlled trials. In FINCH 1, filgotinib was compared with placebo, and in FINCH 2, filgotinib was compared with adalimumab and placebo. As there was no head-to-head evidence with most active comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), one for the conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-inadequate response population and one for the biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-inadequate response population. The outcomes analysed were American College of Rheumatology response criteria at weeks 12 and 24, and European League Against Rheumatism response criteria at 24 weeks. The statistical methods used to perform the NMAs were valid and were in line with previous NICE appraisals. Results of the NMAs are confidential and cannot be reported here, but they were uncertain due to heterogeneity of the included studies. The economic analysis of the patient population with moderate RA suffered from limited evidence on the progression from moderate to severe health states. For the moderate RA population, the final analyses comparing filgotinib, with or without methotrexate, against standard of care resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of around £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in the company's and ERG's base-case and scenario analyses. NICE recommended filgotinib in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy when methotrexate is contraindicated, or if people cannot tolerate it, for patients with moderate RA whose disease had responded inadequately to two or more conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). For the severe RA population, in view of the higher or similar net health benefits that filgotinib provided versus its comparators, NICE recommended filgotinib with or without methotrexate for patients whose disease had responded inadequately to two or more conventional DMARDs, who had been treated with one or more biological DMARDs, if rituximab was not an option, or after treatment with rituximab.

Exploring the Feasibility of Comprehensive Uncertainty Assessment in Health Economic Modeling: A Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: Decision makers adopt health technologies based on health economic models that are subject to uncertainty. In an ideal world, these models parameterize all uncertainties and reflect them in the cost-effectiveness probability and risk associated with the adoption. In practice, uncertainty assessment is often incomplete, potentially leading to suboptimal reimbursement recommendations and risk management. This study examines the feasibility of comprehensive uncertainty assessment in health economic models. METHODS: A state transition model on peripheral arterial disease treatment was used as a case study. Uncertainties were identified and added to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis if possible. Parameter distributions were obtained by expert elicitation, and structural uncertainties were either parameterized or explored in scenario analyses, which were model averaged. RESULTS: A truly comprehensive uncertainty assessment, parameterizing all uncertainty, could not be achieved. Expert elicitation informed 8 effectiveness, utility, and cost parameters. Uncertainties were parameterized or explored in scenario analyses and with model averaging. Barriers included time and resource constraints, also of clinical experts, and lacking guidance regarding some aspects of expert elicitation, evidence aggregation, and handling of structural uncertainty. The team's multidisciplinary expertise and existing literature and tools were facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: While comprehensive uncertainty assessment may not be attainable, improvements in uncertainty assessment in general are no doubt desirable. This requires the development of detailed guidance and hands-on tutorials for methods of uncertainty assessment, in particular aspects of expert elicitation, evidence aggregation, and handling of structural uncertainty. The issue of benefits of uncertainty assessment versus time and resources needed remains unclear.

State of the ART? Two New Tools for Risk Communication in Health Technology Assessments.

PURPOSE: Outcomes of health technology assessments (HTA) are uncertain, and decision-making is associated with a risk. This risk, consisting of the probability of making a wrong decision and its impact, is rarely considered in HTA. This hampers transparent and consistent risk assessment and management. The aim of this study was to develop risk communication tools in the context of health technology decision-making under uncertainty. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of tools for uncertainty and risk communication within HTA using citation pearl-growing. We developed two tools, drawing on existing publications on risk and uncertainty communication for inspiration. Individual semi-structured interviews with HTA stakeholders were performed to identify potential improvements in usefulness, user-friendliness, and information adequacy. Tools were amended and further evaluated in a real-world HTA and workshop with HTA stakeholders. RESULTS: The identified risk communication tools did not include non-quantified uncertainties, and did not link to risk management strategies. We developed two tools: the Assessment of Risk Table (ART), for a summary of quantified and non-quantified uncertainties and the resulting risk assessment, and the Appraisal of Risk Chart (ARCH), for linking net benefit and risk outcomes to appropriate risk management strategies. Stakeholders appreciated the usefulness of the tools. They also highlighted that more information on local policy options was required for optimal risk management use, and HTA processes may need adapting. CONCLUSION: The risk communication tools presented here can help assess risk, facilitate communication between analysts and decision-makers, and guide the appropriate use of available risk management strategies.

Building a trusted framework for uncertainty assessment in rare diseases: suggestions for improvement (Response to "TRUST4RD: tool for reducing uncertainties in the evidence generation for specialised treatments for rare diseases").

The aim of this letter to the editor is to provide a comprehensive summary of uncertainty assessment in Health Technology Assessment, with a focus on transferability to the setting of rare diseases. The authors of "TRUST4RD: tool for reducing uncertainties in the evidence generation for specialised treatments for rare diseases" presented recommendations for reducing uncertainty in rare diseases. Their article is of great importance but unfortunately suffers from a lack of references to the wider uncertainty in Health Technology Assessment and research prioritisation literature and consequently fails to provide a trusted framework for decision-making in rare diseases. In this letter to the editor we critique the authors' tool and provide pointers as to how their proposal can be strengthened. We present references to the literature, including our own tool for uncertainty assessment (TRUST; unrelated to the authors' research), apply TRUST to two assessments of orphan drugs in rare diseases and provide a broader perspective on uncertainty and risk management in rare diseases, including a detailed research agenda.

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Population-based Breast Cancer Screening: A Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.

BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a promising screening test, but its outcomes and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain.PurposeTo determine if biennial DBT is cost-effective in a screening setting, when compared with digital mammography (DM) in the Netherlands, and to quantify the uncertainty.Materials and MethodsIn this study, performed from March 2018 to February 2019, the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis model was used to conduct a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), consisting of 10 000 model runs with 1 000 000 women simulated per run. The Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis package and the Sheffield Accelerated Value of Information tool were used to process PSA outcomes. Two simulated cohorts born in 1970 were invited to undergo biennial screening between ages 50 and 74 years-one cohort was assigned to DM screening, and one was assigned to DBT screening. DM input parameters were based on data from the Dutch breast cancer screening program. DBT parameters were based on literature and expert opinion. Willingness-to-pay thresholds of €20 000 ($22 000) and €35 000 ($38 500) per life-year gained (LYG) were considered. Effects and costs were discounted at 3.5% per year.ResultsDBT resulted in a gain of 13 additional life-years per 1000 women invited to screening (7% increase, 13 of 193), followed over lifetime, compared with DM and led to 2% (four of 159) fewer false-positive results. DBT screening led to incremental discounted lifetime effects of 5.09 LYGs (95% confidence interval: -0.80, 9.70) and an increase in lifetime costs of €137 555 ($151 311) per 1000 women (95% confidence interval: €31 093 [$34 202], €263 537 [$289 891]) compared with DM, resulting in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €27 023 ($29 725) per LYG. The probability of DBT being more cost-effective was 0.36 at €20 000 and 0.66 at €35 000 per LYG.ConclusionSwitching from digital mammography to biennial digital breast tomosynthesis is not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000 per life-year gained, but digital breast tomosynthesis has a higher probability of being more cost-effective than digital mammography at a threshold of €35 000 per life-year gained.© RSNA, 2020Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the editorial by Slanetz in this issue.

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

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

Development and Validation of the TRansparent Uncertainty ASsessmenT (TRUST) Tool for Assessing Uncertainties in Health Economic Decision Models.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of technologies are obtaining marketing authorisation based on sparse evidence, which causes growing uncertainty and risk within health technology reimbursement decision making. To ensure that uncertainty is considered and addressed within health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations, uncertainties need to be identified, included in health economic models, and reported. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop the TRansparent Uncertainty ASsessmenT (TRUST) tool for systematically identifying, assessing, and reporting uncertainties in decision models, with the aim of making uncertainties and their impact on cost effectiveness more explicit and transparent. METHODS: TRUST was developed by drawing on the uncertainty and risk assessment literature. To develop and validate this tool, we conducted HTA stakeholder discussion meetings and interviews and applied it in six real-world HTA case studies in the Netherlands and the UK. RESULTS: The TRUST tool enables the identification and categorisation of uncertainty according to its source (transparency issues, methodology issues, and issues with evidence: imprecision, bias and indirectness, and unavailability) in each model aspect. The source of uncertainty determines the appropriate analysis. The impact of uncertainties on cost effectiveness is also assessed. Stakeholders found using the tool to be feasible and of value for transparent uncertainty assessment. TRUST can be used during model development and/or model review. CONCLUSION: The TRUST tool enables systematic identification, assessment, and reporting of uncertainties in health economic models and may contribute to more informed and transparent decision making in the face of uncertainty.

Pembrolizumab for Treating Relapsed or Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Merck Sharp & Dohme; MSD) of pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (RRcHL) who did not respond to treatment with brentuximab vedotin. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission to NICE. According to the NICE scope, pembrolizumab was compared with single or combination chemotherapy. Comparisons were undertaken in two populations: patients who did and did not receive prior autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT; populations 1 and 2, respectively). Despite it having been recommended by NICE in population 1 at the time the ERG received the company submission, nivolumab was not included as a comparator. No studies directly comparing pembrolizumab and its comparators were identified. One ongoing, single-arm study of the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-087) and one comparative observational study (Cheah et al., 2016) were used to inform the comparative effectiveness of pembrolizumab and standard of care (SoC), using indirect comparisons in both populations. Almost all analyses showed significant PFS and overall response rate benefits for pembrolizumab versus SoC, but due to being based on indirect comparison, were likely to contain systematic error. The economic evaluation therefore suffered from substantial uncertainty in any estimates of cost effectiveness. Furthermore, there was a lack of evidence on the uptake and timing of allogeneic stem cell transplant, and alternative assumptions had a significant impact on cost effectiveness. Immature survival data from KEYNOTE-087 exacerbated this issue and necessitated the use of alternative data sources for longer-term extrapolation of survival. Some issues identified in the company's analyses were amended by the ERG. The revised ERG deterministic base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on the company's second Appraisal Consultation Document response for pembrolizumab versus SoC (with a commercial access agreement) for populations 1 and 2 were £54,325 and £62,527 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. There was substantial uncertainty around these ICERs, especially in population 2. NICE did not recommend pembrolizumab as an option for treating RRcHL in population 1, but recommended pembrolizumab for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund in population 2.

Nivolumab for Treating Metastatic or Unresectable Urothelial Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Bristol-Myers Squibb) of nivolumab (Opdivo®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for metastatic or unresectable urothelial cancer. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG), which produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission to NICE. Nivolumab was compared with docetaxel, paclitaxel, best supportive care and retreatment with platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin plus gemcitabine, but only for patients whose disease has had an adequate response in first-line treatment). Two ongoing, phase I/II, single-arm studies for nivolumab were identified, but no studies directly compared nivolumab with any specified comparator. Evidence from directly examining the single arms of the trial data indicated little difference between the outcomes measured from the nivolumab and comparator studies. A simulated treatment comparison (STC) analysis was used in an attempt to reduce the bias induced by naïve comparison, but there was no clear evidence that risk of bias was reduced. Multiple limitations in the STC were identified and remained. The effect of an analysis based on different combinations of covariates in the prediction model remains unknown. The ERG's concerns regarding the economic analysis included the use of a non-established response-based survival analysis method, which introduced additional uncertainty. The use of time-dependent hazard ratios produced overfitting and was not represented in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The use of a treatment stopping rule to cap treatment cost left treatment effectiveness unaltered. A relevant comparator was excluded from the base-case analysis. The revised ERG deterministic base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on the company's Appraisal Consultation Document response were £58,791, £78,869 and £62,352 per quality-adjusted life-year gained versus paclitaxel, docetaxel and best supportive care, respectively. Nivolumab was dominated by cisplatin plus gemcitabine in the ERG base case. Substantial uncertainties about the relative treatment effectiveness comparing nivolumab against all comparators remained. NICE did not recommend nivolumab, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults who have had platinum-containing therapy, and considered that nivolumab was not suitable for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund.