Reslizumab for Treating Asthma with Elevated Blood Eosinophils Inadequately Controlled by Inhaled Corticosteroids: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the manufacturer of reslizumab (Teva) submitted evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of eosinophilic asthma inadequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroids. NICE commissioned Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC) as an independent Evidence Review Group (ERG) to provide a critique of the manufacturer's submitted evidence. Reslizumab is compared with best standard of care and omalizumab, for a small 'overlap' population of patients who have both eosinophilic and IgE-mediated severe asthma. This paper provides a summary of the ERG's review of the manufacturer's submission, and summarises the NICE Appraisal Committee's subsequent guidance (issued in August 2017). The ERG considered that there were limitations in the approach proposed by the manufacturer for the exacerbation rate and the utility for severe exacerbation. The company amended their initial analysis, following comments from the ERG and the NICE committee, whereby the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was £29,870 per QALY gained for reslizumab compared with best standard care. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) concluded that reslizumab was recommended as an option for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma that is inadequately controlled in adults despite maintenance therapy with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus another drug, only if (1) the blood eosinophil count has been recorded as 400 cells per microlitre or more and (2) the patient has had three or more asthma exacerbations in the past 12 months, and (3) the company provides reslizumab with the discount agreed in the patient access scheme.

Mepolizumab for Treating Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: 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 company (GlaxoSmithKline) that manufactures mepolizumab (Nucala®) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of mepolizumab for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group (ScHARR-TAG) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). The ERG produced a review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of mepolizumab as add-on to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC and omalizumab, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was based predominantly on three randomised controlled trials (DREAM, MENSA and SIRIUS) comparing add-on mepolizumab with placebo plus SoC. The relevant population was defined in terms of degree of asthma severity (four or more exacerbations in the previous year and/or dependency on maintenance oral corticosteroids [mOCS]) and degree of eosinophilia (a blood eosinophil count of ≥ 300 cells/µl in the previous year) based on post hoc subgroup analyses of the pivotal trials. Other subpopulations were considered throughout the appraisal, defined by different eosinophil measurements, number of exacerbations and dependency (or lack thereof) on mOCS. Statistically significant reductions in clinically significant exacerbations were observed in patients receiving mepolizumab compared with SoC meta-analysed across MENSA and DREAM in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (rate ratio [RR] 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.62) as well as in the relevant population (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.36-0.62). In terms of quality of life, differences on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire in MENSA for add-on subcutaneous mepolizumab 100 mg vs. placebo were 7 and 7.5 units in the modified ITT and relevant populations, respectively. A number of issues in the clinical evidence base warrant caution in its interpretation. The ERG noted that the definition of SoC used in the trials differed from that in clinical practice, where patients with severe uncontrolled asthma start treatment with a mOCS. The company's economic post-consultation analysis incorporating a confidential patient access scheme (PAS) estimated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for add-on mepolizumab compared with SoC was £27,418 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in the relevant population if patients stopped mepolizumab after 1 year unless (1) the number of exacerbations decreased at least 50% or (2) a reduction in corticosteroids dose was achieved whilst maintaining asthma control. The ERG applied an age adjustment to all utilities and corrected the post-continuation assessment utilities, which resulted in an ICER for add-on mepolizumab compared with SoC of £29,163 per QALY gained. The ERG noted that this ICER was not robust for patients who continued treatment due to a corticosteroid dose reduction where exacerbations had decreased by less than 50%, because corticosteroid dose reduction was not allowed in the main trial in which the evidence was gathered (MENSA). The NICE appraisal committee (AC) concluded that add-on mepolizumab could be recommended as an option for treating severe refractory eosinophilic asthma in adults for the relevant population when the stopping rule suggested by the company was applied. The AC also concluded that the comparison between mepolizumab and omalizumab was not clinically relevant or methodologically robust.

Economic analysis of the phase III MENSA study evaluating mepolizumab for severe asthma with eosinophilic phenotype.

BACKGROUND: Severe eosinophilic asthma patients are at risk of exacerbations, which are associated with substantial costs. Mepolizumab lowers eosinophil levels and reduces exacerbation risk in severe eosinophilic asthma. We evaluated asthma-related exacerbation costs in mepolizumab-treated patients (versus placebo). METHODS: A within-trial economic analysis of the Mepolizumab as Adjunctive Therapy in Patients with Severe Asthma (MENSA) trial. Objectives were to quantify the incremental: (1) medical costs of asthma-related exacerbation; (2) asthma-related exacerbation emergency department visit/hospitalization costs; and (3) asthma-related total healthcare resource utilization. RESULTS: Mean medical costs of asthma-related exacerbations at 8 months were $969, $852, and $1692 in the mepolizumab 75 mg intravenous (IV), mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneous (SC), and placebo groups, respectively (p = 0.16). Mean medical costs from emergency department visits or hospitalizations due to asthma-related exacerbations were $901, $795, and $1557 in the mepolizumab 75 mg IV, mepolizumab 100 mg SC, and placebo groups (p = 0.020). Asthma-related healthcare resource utilization (all services) was lower for the mepolizumab groups versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Adding mepolizumab to standard-of-care treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma lowered asthma exacerbation-related medical costs/healthcare resource utilization; although the cost savings ranged from $723-$840 per patient, differences were not statistically significant.