Evidence for the impact of interventions and medicines reconciliation on problematic polypharmacy in the UK: A rapid review of systematic reviews.

This was a rapid review of systematic reviews (SRs) on problematic polypharmacy (PP) in the UK. The commissioner-defined topics were burden of PP, interventions to reduce PP, implementation activities to increase uptake of interventions, and efficient handover between primary and secondary care to reduce PP. Databases including Medline were searched to June 2019, SR quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) and a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Except for burden of PP (SRs had to include UK studies), there were no restrictions on country, location of care or outcomes. Nine SRs were included. On burden, three SRs (including six UK studies) found a high prevalence of polypharmacy in long term care. PP was associated with mortality, although unclear if causal, with no information on costs or health consequences. On interventions, six reviews (27 UK studies) found that interventions can reduce PP, but no effects on health outcomes. On handover between primary and secondary care, one review (two UK studies) found medicine reconciliation activities to reduce medication discrepancies at care transitions reduce PP, although the evidence is low quality. No SRs on implementation activities to increase uptake of interventions were found. SR quality was variable, with some concerns regarding meta-analysis methods. Evidence of the extent of PP in the UK, and what interventions to address it are effective in the UK, is limited. Future UK research is needed on the prevalence and consequences of PP, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce PP, and barriers and activities to ensure uptake.

Interventions to reduce the risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: a cost-effective modelling review.

BACKGROUND: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is a fatal neurological disease caused by abnormal infectious proteins called prions. Prions that are present on surgical instruments cannot be completely deactivated; therefore, patients who are subsequently operated on using these instruments may become infected. This can result in surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. OBJECTIVE: To update literature reviews, consultation with experts and economic modelling published in 2006, and to provide the cost-effectiveness of strategies to reduce the risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. METHODS: Eight systematic reviews were undertaken for clinical parameters. One review of cost-effectiveness was undertaken. Electronic databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2005 to 2017. Expert elicitation sessions were undertaken. An advisory committee, convened by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to produce guidance, provided an additional source of information. A mathematical model was updated focusing on brain and posterior eye surgery and neuroendoscopy. The model simulated both patients and instrument sets. Assuming that there were potentially 15 cases of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease between 2005 and 2018, approximate Bayesian computation was used to obtain samples from the posterior distribution of the model parameters to generate results. Heuristics were used to improve computational efficiency. The modelling conformed to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case. The strategies evaluated included neither keeping instruments moist nor prohibiting set migration; ensuring that instruments were kept moist; prohibiting instrument migration between sets; and employing single-use instruments. Threshold analyses were undertaken to establish prices at which single-use sets or completely effective decontamination solutions would be cost-effective. RESULTS: A total of 169 papers were identified for the clinical review. The evidence from published literature was not deemed sufficiently strong to take precedence over the distributions obtained from expert elicitation. Forty-eight papers were identified in the review of cost-effectiveness. The previous modelling structure was revised to add the possibility of misclassifying surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease as another neurodegenerative disease, and assuming that all patients were susceptible to infection. Keeping instruments moist was estimated to reduce the risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases and associated costs. Based on probabilistic sensitivity analyses, keeping instruments moist was estimated to on average result in 2.36 (range 0-47) surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases (across England) caused by infection occurring between 2019 and 2023. Prohibiting set migration or employing single-use instruments reduced the estimated risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases further, but at considerable cost. The estimated costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained of these strategies in addition to keeping instruments moist were in excess of £1M. It was estimated that single-use instrument sets (currently £350-500) or completely effective cleaning solutions would need to cost approximately £12 per patient to be cost-effective using a £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained value. LIMITATIONS: As no direct published evidence to implicate surgery as a cause of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease has been found since 2005, the estimations of potential cases from elicitation are still speculative. A particular source of uncertainty was in the number of potential surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases that may have occurred between 2005 and 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Keeping instruments moist is estimated to reduce the risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases and associated costs. Further surgical management strategies can reduce the risks of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease but have considerable associated costs. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017071807. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The aims of this report were to summarise evidence relating to surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease and to explore the value for money of strategies to reduce the chance of any future surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease cases. Current recommendations include keeping sets of surgical instruments together for high-risk operations and using separate instruments for people born after 1996. The project involved reviewing published papers, speaking with experts and building a computer model. The literature reviews found that Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease occurs in around 1­2 per million people and that no definite cases of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease have been observed since the 1970s. The reviews also looked for information on the possibility of patients being infected with Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease after having surgery on high-risk tissues, such as the brain and the back of the eye. They found that there was a great deal of uncertainty regarding who might have Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease, but not yet have symptoms, as well as the risk of transmission and the ability of strategies to reduce this risk. The computer model aimed to estimate value for money of different strategies to reduce the risks of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease. However, the reviews found that some of the numbers needed for the model were not known, so experts were asked to estimate this information instead along with the range of possible values. This information included the effectiveness of different cleaning practices and the chances of infected tissue being transmitted between patients undergoing high-risk surgery. The model found that keeping surgical instruments moist prior to cleaning was likely to save money and reduce the chance of future surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease cases. However, additional measures, such as using only sets of single-use instruments, ensuring that instruments were kept together in their sets or using separate instruments for those born after 1996, appeared to be poor value for money.

British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines.

These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped? two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG's guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise either:two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps This cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years.

Tumour profiling tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer and its treatment can have an impact on health-related quality of life and survival. Tumour profiling tests aim to identify whether or not women need chemotherapy owing to their risk of relapse. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the tumour profiling tests oncotype DX® (Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA), MammaPrint® (Agendia, Inc., Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Prosigna® (NanoString Technologies, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), EndoPredict® (Myriad Genetics Ltd, London, UK) and immunohistochemistry 4 (IHC4). To develop a health economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of these tests compared with clinical tools to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. DESIGN: A systematic review and health economic analysis were conducted. REVIEW METHODS: The systematic review was partially an update of a 2013 review. Nine databases were searched in February 2017. The review included studies assessing clinical effectiveness in people with oestrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, stage I or II cancer with zero to three positive lymph nodes. The economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a de novo model. RESULTS: A total of 153 studies were identified. Only one completed randomised controlled trial (RCT) using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice was identified: Microarray In Node-negative Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy (MINDACT) for MammaPrint. Other studies suggest that all the tests can provide information on the risk of relapse; however, results were more varied in lymph node-positive (LN+) patients than in lymph node-negative (LN0) patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint can predict benefit from chemotherapy. The net change in the percentage of patients with a chemotherapy recommendation or decision pre/post test ranged from an increase of 1% to a decrease of 23% among UK studies and a decrease of 0% to 64% across European studies. The health economic analysis suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the tests versus current practice are broadly favourable for the following scenarios: (1) oncotype DX, for the LN0 subgroup with a Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) of > 3.4 and the one to three positive lymph nodes (LN1-3) subgroup (if a predictive benefit is assumed); (2) IHC4 plus clinical factors (IHC4+C), for all patient subgroups; (3) Prosigna, for the LN0 subgroup with a NPI of > 3.4 and the LN1-3 subgroup; (4) EndoPredict Clinical, for the LN1-3 subgroup only; and (5) MammaPrint, for no subgroups. LIMITATIONS: There was only one completed RCT using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice. Except for oncotype DX in the LN0 group with a NPI score of > 3.4 (clinical intermediate risk), evidence surrounding pre- and post-test chemotherapy probabilities is subject to considerable uncertainty. There is uncertainty regarding whether or not oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. The MammaPrint analysis uses a different data source to the other four tests. The Translational substudy of the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (TransATAC) study (used in the economic modelling) has a number of limitations. CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that all the tests can provide prognostic information on the risk of relapse; results were more varied in LN+ patients than in LN0 patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. Health economic analyses indicate that some tests may have a favourable cost-effectiveness profile for certain patient subgroups; all estimates are subject to uncertainty. More evidence is needed on the prediction of chemotherapy benefit, long-term impacts and changes in UK pre-/post-chemotherapy decisions. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017059561. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in England and Wales. Breast cancer, and its treatment, can have an impact on a person's health-related quality of life and survival. Tumour profiling tests are used before chemotherapy. They test small samples of a patient's tumour (removed during surgery) to find out whether the genes in it mean that a person has a high or low risk of the disease returning (relapse). If the risk is low, the patient may be able to avoid having chemotherapy and, therefore, avoid its side effects. Some tests might also be able to identify which patients will respond to chemotherapy. This study looked at the evidence for five tumour profiling tests. A total of 153 studies were identified. This study considered the results and the quality of the studies to find out if the tests are helpful. Most studies had design flaws (e.g. some patients had already had chemotherapy) that meant that the studies were of low quality overall. The results suggest that all of the tests can give information on the risk of relapse; however, some tests may be less useful in patients whose disease has spread to the lymph nodes (lymph node-positive disease). There was limited and varying evidence about whether or not two of these tests can also predict which patients will respond to chemotherapy. This study also looked at whether or not these tests represent good value for money for the NHS through cost-effectiveness analyses. The analyses showed that some of the tests may represent a good use of NHS resources for some patient groups; however, there was still a lot of uncertainty about this.

Cabozantinib and vandetanib for unresectable locally advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer: a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) is a rare form of cancer that affects patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and survival. Cabozantinib (Cometriq®; Ipsen, Paris, France) and vandetanib (Caprelsa®; Sanofi Genzyme, Cambridge, MA, USA) are currently the treatment modality of choice for treating unresectable progressive and symptomatic MTC. OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of cabozantinib and vandetanib. (2) To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib and vandetanib versus each other and best supportive care. (3) To identify key areas for primary research. (4) To estimate the overall cost of these treatments in England. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed publications (searched from inception to November 2016), European Public Assessment Reports and manufacturers' submissions. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review [including a network meta-analysis (NMA)] was conducted to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of cabozantinib and vandetanib. The economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a de novo model. RESULTS: The systematic review identified two placebo-controlled trials. The Efficacy of XL184 (Cabozantinib) in Advanced Medullary Thyroid Cancer (EXAM) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients with unresectable locally advanced, metastatic and progressive MTC. The ZETA trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of vandetanib in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic MTC. Both drugs significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) more than the placebo (p < 0.001). The NMA suggested that, within the symptomatic and progressive MTC population, the effects on PFS were similar (vandetanib vs. cabozantinib: hazard ratio 1.14, 95% credible interval 0.41 to 3.09). Neither trial demonstrated a significant overall survival benefit for cabozantinib or vandetanib versus placebo, although data from ZETA were subject to potential confounding. Both cabozantinib and vandetanib demonstrated significantly better objective response rates and calcitonin (CTN) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) response rates than placebo. Both cabozantinib and vandetanib produced frequent adverse events, often leading to dose interruption or reduction. The assessment group model indicates that, within the EU-label population (symptomatic and progressive MTC), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for cabozantinib and vandetanib are > £138,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Within the restricted EU-label population (symptomatic and progressive MTC with CEA/CTN doubling times of ≤ 24 months), the ICER for vandetanib is expected to be > £66,000 per QALY gained. The maximum annual budget impact within the symptomatic and progressive population is estimated to be ≈£2.35M for cabozantinib and ≈£5.53M for vandetanib. The costs of vandetanib in the restricted EU-label population are expected to be lower. LIMITATIONS: The intention-to-treat populations of the EXAM and ZETA trials are notably different. The analyses of ZETA subgroups may be subject to confounding as a result of differences in baseline characteristics and open-label vandetanib use. Attempts to statistically adjust for treatment switching were unsuccessful. No HRQoL evidence was identified for the MTC population. CONCLUSIONS: The identified trials suggest that cabozantinib and vandetanib improve PFS more than the placebo; however, significant OS benefits were not demonstrated. The economic analyses indicate that within the EU-label population, the ICERs for cabozantinib and vandetanib are > £138,000 per QALY gained. Within the restricted EU-label population, the ICER for vandetanib is expected to be > £66,000 per QALY gained. FUTURE RESEARCH PRIORITIES: (1) Primary research assessing the long-term effectiveness of cabozantinib and vandetanib within relevant subgroups. (2) Reanalyses of the ZETA trial to investigate the impact of adjusting for open-label vandetanib use using appropriate statistical methods. (3) Studies assessing the impact of MTC on HRQoL. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016050403. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) is a rare form of cancer that presents as a mass of tumours in the thyroid gland of the neck. MTC affects both patients' health-related quality of life and survival. Targeted therapies (cabozantinib and vandetanib) are currently used to treat unresectable progressive and symptomatic MTC. The evidence for the use of cabozantinib and vandetanib in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic MTC was reviewed, and two clinical trials were identified. The trials suggest that both drugs improve progression-free survival. Neither trial demonstrated significant survival benefits for cabozantinib or vandetanib. Both drugs produced frequent adverse events, often leading to dose interruption or reduction. Whether or not these therapies represent good value for money for the NHS was also assessed. Analyses indicate that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (a measure of cost-effectiveness) for cabozantinib and vandetanib versus best supportive care (BSC) in patients with symptomatic and progressive MTC are > £138,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Within a subgroup of patients with symptomatic and progressive MTC and carcinoembryonic antigen and/or calcitonin doubling times of ≤ 24 months, the ICER for vandetanib versus BSC remains > £66,000 per QALY gained.

Ibrutinib for Treating Waldenström's Macroglobulinaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ibrutinib (Janssen) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib for treating Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia (WM). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Assessment Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib based on the company's submission to NICE. The clinical evidence was derived from one phase II, single-arm, open-label study of ibrutinib in adult patients with WM who had received at least one prior therapy (Study 1118E) and an indirect comparison using a matched cohort from a retrospective European chart review of patients receiving various treatments for WM. The indirect comparison suggested a hazard ratio for progression-free survival (PFS) of 0.25 (95% confidence interval 0.11-0.57). The ERG had concerns regarding the high risk of bias in Study 1118E, the limited generalisability of the study, and the absence of randomised controlled trial evidence. The company's Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) WM from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) over a lifetime horizon. Based on the company's original Patient Access Scheme (PAS), the company's probabilistic model generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy of £58,905 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG's preferred analysis, which corrected cost errors and used the observed mortality rate from Study 1118E, generated a probabilistic ICER of £61,219 per QALY gained. Based on this amended model, additional exploratory analyses produced ICERs for ibrutinib that were > £60,000 per QALY gained. Subsequently, the company offered to provide ibrutinib at a price that resulted in ibrutinib being cost effective within the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF). The Committee recommended ibrutinib for use in the CDF as an option for treating WM in adults who have had at least one prior therapy, only if the conditions in the managed access agreement for ibrutinib are followed.

Baricitinib for Previously Treated Moderate or Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) of baricitinib (BARI; Olumiant®; a Janus kinase inhibitor that is taken orally) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield 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 (CS) to NICE. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the CS for BARI was based predominantly on three randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of BARI against adalimumab or placebo, as well as one long-term extension study. The clinical-effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of BARI against all the comparators within the scope. Therefore, the company performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) in two different populations: one in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs (cDMARD-IR), and the other in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). The company's NMAs concluded BARI had comparable efficacy as the majority of its comparators in both populations. The company submitted a de novo discrete event simulation model that analysed the incremental cost-effectiveness of BARI versus its comparators for the treatment of RA from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in four different populations: (1) cDMARD-IR patients with moderate RA, defined as a 28-Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) > 3.2 and no more than 5.1; (2) cDMARD-IR patients with severe RA (defined as a DAS28 > 5.1); (3) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom rituximab (RTX) was eligible; and (4) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with methotrexate (MTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated. In the cDMARD-IR population with moderate RA, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for BARI in combination with MTX compared with intensive cDMARDs was estimated to be £37,420 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In the cDMARD-IR population with severe RA, BARI in combination with MTX dominated all comparators except for certolizumab pegol (CTZ) in combination with MTX, with the ICER of CTZ in combination with MTX compared with BARI in combination with MTX estimated to be £18,400 per QALY gained. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA, when RTX in combination with MTX was an option, BARI in combination with MTX was dominated by RTX in combination with MTX. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated, BARI in combination with MTX dominated golimumab in combination with MTX and was less effective and less expensive than the remaining comparators. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses after applying corrections to the methods used in the NMAs and two programming errors in the economic model that affected the company's probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) results. The ERG's NMA results were broadly comparable with the company's results. The programming error that affected the PSA of the severe cDMARD-IR population had only a minimal impact on the results, while the error affecting the severe TNFi-IR RTX-ineligible population resulted in markedly higher costs and QALYs gained for the affected comparators but did not substantially modify the conclusions of the analysis. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that BARI in combination with MTX or as monotherapy is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in patients with severe RA, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX-eligible.

Ponatinib for Treating Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Incyte Corporation) of ponatinib (Inclusig®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL) and chronic myeloid leukaemia. This paper focusses on Ph+ ALL. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was derived from a phase II, single-arm, open-label, non-comparative study. Given the lack of comparative evidence, a naïve indirect comparison was performed against re-induction chemotherapy comparing major cytogenetic response and complete remission. Best supportive care (BSC) was assumed to produce no disease response. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment for patients with Ph+ ALL. The company submitted a state transition model that analysed the incremental cost effectiveness of ponatinib versus re-induction therapy and BSC for the treatment of Ph+ ALL in patients whose disease is resistant to dasatinib, who are intolerant to dasatinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate or who have the threonine-315-isoleucine mutation. This population was further subdivided into those who were suitable for allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) and those who were not. The company's revised economic evaluation, following the clarification process, estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in those suitable for allo-SCT of £31,123 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ponatinib compared with re-induction chemotherapy and £26,624 per QALY gained compared with BSC. For those for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, the company-estimated ICER compared with BSC was £33,954 per QALY gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that, when combined, produced a range in ICERs (due to uncertainty of the most appropriate overall survival function) of dominant (being less expensive and providing more QALYs) to £11,727 per QALY gained compared with re-induction chemotherapy and between £7892 and £31,696 per QALY gained compared with BSC for those in whom allo-SCT was suitable. For those in whom allo-SCT was not suitable, the ERG estimated that ponatinib was dominant. During the consultation period, the company agreed a revised patient access scheme (PAS) that reduced the ICER ranges to £7156 to £29,995 per QALY gained versus BSC and to less than £5000 per QALY gained versus re-induction chemotherapy. In people for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, ponatinib dominated BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of UK NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.

Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ponatinib (Inclusig®; Incyte Corporation) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL). This paper focusses on the three phases of CML: the chronic phase (CP), the accelerated phase (AP) and the blast crisis phase (BP). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. Clinical evidence for ponatinib was derived from a phase II, industry-sponsored, single-arm, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative study. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment (in terms of major cytogenetic response and major haematological response) with an acceptable safety profile for patients with CML. Given the absence of any head-to-head studies comparing ponatinib with other relevant comparators, the company undertook a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of ponatinib with bosutinib. The approach was only used for patients with CP-CML because comprehensive data were not available for the AP- or BP-CML groups to allow the matching technique to be used. Despite the uncertainty about the MAIC approach, ponatinib was considered likely to offer advantages over bosutinib in the third-line setting, particularly for complete cytogenetic response. The company developed two health economic models to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for the treatment of patients in CP-CML or in advanced CML (AP- or BP-CML, which were modelled separately). The company did not adequately explore the uncertainty in the survivor functions. As a result, the ERG believed the uncertainty in the decision problem was underestimated. Exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG produced the following results for ponatinib. In CP-CML, from £18,246 to £27,667 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with best supportive care (BSC), from £19,680 to £37,381 per QALY gained compared with bosutinib and from £18,279 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT). In AP-CML, the cost per QALY gained for ponatinib ranged from £7123 to £17,625 compared with BSC, and from dominating to £61,896 per QALY gained compared with allo-SCT. In BP-CML, the cost effectiveness of ponatinib ranged from £5033 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allo-SCT, although it was likely to be at the more favourable end of this range, and dominant in all scenarios compared with BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the Patient Access Scheme.

Olaparib for Maintenance Treatment of BRCA 1 or 2 Mutated, Relapsed, Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian, Fallopian Tube and Peritoneal Cancer in People Whose Relapsed Disease has Responded to Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of olaparib (AstraZeneca) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of olaparib for the maintenance treatment of BRCA1/2 mutated (BRCAm), platinum-sensitive relapsed (PSR) ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer in people whose relapsed disease has responded to platinum-based chemotherapy. The Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission (CS) to NICE. The clinical evidence related to one phase II, double-blind randomised controlled trial that recruited 265 patients with PSR serous ovarian cancer (OC) regardless of BRCAm status. Patients received olaparib 400 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) or matched placebo. In the whole population, the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) was met (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.49, p < 0.01) for olaparib versus placebo. The BRCAm subgroup analysis (added after the study commenced but 1 month before the primary analysis was undertaken) reported an HR for PFS of 0.18 (95 % CI 0.10-0.31, p < 0.0001) for olaparib versus placebo, though interaction tests appeared inconclusive. Overall survival was not statistically significant in the whole group (HR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.64-1.21; p = 0.44) or the BRCAm subgroup (0.73; 95 % CI 0.45-1.17; p = 0.19), though treatment switching may have confounded results. The exclusion of data from sites allowing crossover resulted in an HR for overall survival (OS) of 0.52 (95 % CI 0.28-0.97, p = 0.039) in the BRCAm group. Health-related quality-of-life measures were not significantly different between groups. All post hoc exploratory outcomes (time to treatment discontinuation/death, time to first subsequent therapy/death, and time to second subsequent therapy/death) were statistically significantly better in the olaparib arm in the whole population and the BRCAm subgroup analyses. Adverse events were more frequent for olaparib but were largely minor or manageable. The company's semi-Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of olaparib versus routine surveillance in patients with BRCAm PSR OC from a National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. The model suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for olaparib versus routine surveillance is expected to be approximately £49,146 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ERG did not consider the company's cost-effectiveness estimates to be credible. Additional ERG analyses suggested that the ICER is likely to be more than £92,214 per QALY gained. Additional analyses provided by the company in patients who received three or more lines of chemotherapy suggested a more favourable cost-effectiveness profile for olaparib. The NICE Appraisal Committee recommended olaparib for this subgroup provided the cost of olaparib for people who continue to receive treatment after 15 months will be met by the company.

Degarelix for Treating Advanced Hormone-Dependent Prostate Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal Process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of degarelix (Ferring Pharmaceuticals) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of degarelix for the treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission to NICE. The evidence, which included a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of degarelix versus leuprorelin, found that degarelix was non-inferior to leuprorelin for reduction of testosterone levels and that degarelix achieved a more rapid suppression of prostate-specific antigen levels and subsequently decreased incidences of testosterone flare associated with luteinising hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists. However, protection against testosterone flare for the comparators in the clinical trials was not employed in line with UK clinical practice. Further claims surrounding overall survival, cardiovascular adverse events and clinical equivalence of the comparator drugs from six RCTs of degarelix should be regarded with caution because of flaws and inconsistencies in the pooling of trial data to draw conclusions. The cost-effectiveness evidence included a de novo economic model. Based on the ERG's preferred base case, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (ICER) for degarelix versus 3-monthly triptorelin was £14,798 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Additional scenario analyses undertaken by the ERG resulted in ICERs for degarelix versus 3-monthly triptorelin ranging from £17,067 to £35,589 per QALY gained. Subgroup analyses undertaken using the Appraisal Committee's preferred assumptions suggested that degarelix was not cost effective for the subgroup with metastatic disease but could be cost effective for the subgroup with spinal metastases. The company submitted further evidence to NICE following an initial negative Appraisal Committee decision. Further analyses from the Decision Support Unit found that that, whilst some evidence indicated that degarelix could be cost effective for a small subgroup of people with spinal cord compression (SCC), data on the potential size of this subgroup and the rate of SCC were insufficient to estimate an ICER based on the evidence submitted by the company and a separately commissioned systematic review. NICE recommended degarelix as an option for treating advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer in people with spinal metastases, only if the commissioner can achieve at least the same discounted drug cost as that available to the UK NHS in June 2016.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates [alendronic acid (Fosamax® and Fosamax® Once Weekly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), risedronic acid (Actonel® and Actonel Once a Week®, Warner Chilcott UK Ltd), ibandronic acid (Bonviva®, Roche Products Ltd) and zoledronic acid (Aclasta®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)] for the prevention of fragility fracture and to assess their cost-effectiveness at varying levels of fracture risk. DATA SOURCES: For the clinical effectiveness review, six electronic databases and two trial registries were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were limited by date from 2008 until September 2014. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each bisphosphonate treatment strategy and a strategy of no treatment for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and NMA. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net benefit (INB) was estimated using non-parametric regression. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: Forty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review, with 27 RCTs providing data for the fracture NMA and 35 RCTs providing data for the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) NMA. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo, with hazard ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.92 depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and percentage change in BMD were statistically significant for all treatments. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on fractures between bisphosphonates. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of influenza-like symptoms was identified from the RCTs for zoledronic acid compared with placebo. Reviews of observational studies suggest that upper gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported in the first month of oral bisphosphonate treatment, but pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials found no statistically significant difference. A strategy of no treatment was estimated to have the maximum INB for patients with a 10-year QFracture risk under 1.5%, whereas oral bisphosphonates provided maximum INB at higher levels of risk. However, the PSA suggested that there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or not no treatment is the optimal strategy until the QFracture score is around 5.5%. In the model using FRAX, the mean INBs were positive for all oral bisphosphonate treatments across all risk categories. Intravenous bisphosphonates were estimated to have lower INBs than oral bisphosphonates across all levels of fracture risk when estimated using either QFracture or FRAX. LIMITATIONS: We assumed that all treatment strategies are viable alternatives across the whole population. CONCLUSIONS: Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, the benefit-to-risk ratio in the lowest-risk patients may be debatable given the low absolute QALY gains and the potential for adverse events. We plan to extend the analysis to include non-bisphosphonate therapies. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Vedolizumab for the Treatment of Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis: 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 of vedolizumab (Takeda UK) to submit evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of vedolizumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC). The Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from GEMINI 1, a Phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of the induction and maintenance of clinical response and remission by vedolizumab (MLN0002) in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC with an inadequate response to, loss of response to or intolerance of conventional therapy or anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α. The clinical evidence showed that vedolizumab performed significantly better than placebo in both the induction and maintenance phases. In the post hoc subgroup analyses in patients with or without prior anti-TNF-α therapy, vedolizumab performed better then placebo (p value not reported). In addition, a greater improvement in health-related quality of life was observed in patients treated with vedolizumab, and the frequency and types of adverse events were similar in the vedolizumab and placebo groups, but the evidence was limited to short-term follow-up. There were a number of limitations and uncertainties in the clinical evidence base, which warrants caution in its interpretation--in particular, the post hoc subgroup analyses and high dropout rates in the maintenance phase of GEMINI 1. The company also presented a network meta-analysis of vedolizumab versus other biologic therapies indicated for moderate-to-severe UC. However, the ERG considered that the results presented may have underestimated the uncertainty in treatment effects, since fixed-effects models were used, despite clear evidence of heterogeneity among the trials included in the network. Results from the company's economic evaluation (which included price reductions to reflect the proposed patient access scheme for vedolizumab) suggested that vedolizumab is the most effective option compared with surgery and conventional therapy in the following three populations: (1) a mixed intention-to-treat population, including patients who have previously received anti-TNF-α therapy and those who are anti-TNF-α naïve; (2) patients who are anti-TNF-α naïve only; and (3) patients who have previously failed anti-TNF-α therapy only. The ERG concluded that the results of the company's economic evaluation could not be considered robust, because of errors in model implementation, omission of relevant comparators, deviations from the NICE reference case and questionable model assumptions. The ERG amended the company's model and demonstrated that vedolizumab is expected to be dominated by surgery in all three populations.

Ras Signaling Is a Key Determinant for Metastatic Dissemination and Poor Survival of Luminal Breast Cancer Patients.

Breast cancer is associated with alterations in a number of growth factor and hormone-regulated signaling pathways. Mouse models of metastatic breast cancer typically feature mutated oncoproteins that activate PI3K, Stat3, and Ras signaling, but the individual and combined roles of these pathways in breast cancer progression are poorly understood. In this study, we examined the relationship between oncogenic pathway activation and breast cancer subtype by analyzing mouse mammary tumor formation in which each pathway was activated singly or pairwise. All three oncogenes showed cooperation during primary tumor formation, but efficient dissemination was only dependent on Ras. In addition, transcriptional profiling demonstrated that Ras induced adenocarcinomas with molecular characteristics related to human basal-like and HER2(+) tumors. In contrast, Ras combined with PIK3CA(H1047R), an oncogenic mutant linked to ERα(+)/luminal breast cancer in humans, induced metastatic luminal B-like tumors. Consistent with these data, elevated Ras signaling was associated with basal-like and HER2(+) subtype tumors in humans and showed a statistically significant negative association with estrogen receptor (ER) signaling across all breast cancer. Despite this, there are luminal tumors with elevated Ras signaling. Importantly, when considered as a continuous variable, Ras pathway activation was strongly linked to reduced survival of patients with ERα(+) disease independent of PI3K or Stat3 activation. Therefore, our studies suggest that Ras activation is a key determinant for dissemination and poor prognosis of ERα(+)/luminal breast cancer in humans, and hormone therapy supplemented with Ras-targeting agents may be beneficial for treating this aggressive subtype.

Sipuleucel-T for the Treatment of Metastatic Hormone-Relapsed Prostate Cancer: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal; An Evidence Review Group Perspective.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Dendreon, the company manufacturing sipuleucel-T, to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of sipuleucel-T for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic, non-visceral hormone-relapsed prostate cancer patients in whom chemotherapy is not yet clinically indicated, as part of NICE's single technology appraisal process. The comparator was abiraterone acetate (AA) or best supportive care (BSC). The School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company submission (CS), ERG review, and subsequent decision of the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence of sipuleucel-T based upon the CS. Clinical-effectiveness data relevant to the decision problem were taken from three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of sipuleucel-T and a placebo (PBO) comparator of antigen-presenting cells (APC) being re-infused (APC-PBO) (D9901, D9902A and D9902B), and one RCT (COU-AA-302) of AA plus prednisone vs. PBO plus prednisone. Two trials reported a significant advantage for sipuleucel-T in median overall survival compared with APC-PBO: for trial D9901, an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.47; (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.29, 0.76) p < 0.002; for D9902B, adjusted HR 0.78 (95 % CI 0.61, 0.98) p = 0.03. There was no significant difference between groups in D9902A, unadjusted HR 0.79 (95 % CI 0.48, 1.28) p = 0.331. Sipuleucel-T and APC-PBO groups did not differ significantly in time to disease progression, in any of the three RCTs. Most adverse events developed within 1 day of the infusion, and resolved within 2 days. The CS included an indirect comparison of sipuleucel-T (D9902B) and AA plus prednisone (COU-AA-302). As trials differed in prior use of chemotherapy, an analysis of only chemotherapy-naïve patients was included, in which the overall survival for sipuleucel-T and AA was not significantly different, HR 0.94 (95 % CI 0.69, 1.28) p = 0.699. The ERG had several concerns regarding the data and assumptions incorporated within the company's cost-effectiveness analyses and conducted exploratory analyses to quantify the impact of making alternative assumptions or using alternative data inputs. The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sipuleucel-T vs. BSC when using the ERG's preferred data and assumptions was £ 108,585 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the whole licensed population and £ 61,204/QALY in the subgroup with low prostate-specific antigen at baseline. The ERG also conducted an incremental analysis comparing sipuleucel-T with both AA and BSC in the chemotherapy-naïve subgroup. Sipuleucel-T had a deterministic ICER of £ 111,682/QALY in this subgroup, when using the ERG's preferred assumptions, and AA was extendedly dominated. The ERG also concluded that estimates of costs and benefits for AA should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the indirect comparison. The AC noted that the ICER for sipuleucel-T was well above the range usually considered cost effective, and did not recommend sipuleucel-T for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic, non-visceral hormone-relapsed prostate cancer.

Cooperation between Pik3ca and p53 mutations in mouse mammary tumor formation.

PIK3CA, which codes for the p110α catalytic subunit of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, is one of the most frequently mutated genes in human breast cancer. Here, we describe a mouse model for PIK3CA-induced breast cancer by using the ROSA26 (R26) knock-in system, in which targeted Pik3ca alleles can be activated through transgenic expression of Cre recombinase. We mated Pik3ca(H1047R) and Pik3ca(wt) knock-in lines with MMTV-Cre transgenics, which express Cre in mammary epithelium. Starting at approximately 5 months of age, female R26-Pik3ca(H1047R);MMTV-Cre mice, but not control R26-Pik3ca(wt);MMTV-Cre mice, developed mammary tumors, as well as lymphoid and skin malignancies. R26-Pik3ca(H1047R);MMTV-Cre mammary tumors were typically either adenosquamous carcinoma or adenomyoepithelioma. As p53 is the most commonly mutated gene in breast cancer, we tested for genetic interaction between Pik3ca(H1047R) and p53 loss-of-function mutations in R26-Pik3ca(H1047R);p53(loxP/+);MMTV-Cre mice. This led to decreased survival of double-mutant animals, which developed lymphoma and mammary tumors with rapid kinetics. Mammary tumors that formed in p53(loxP/+);MMTV-Cre conditional mutants were either poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma or spindle cell/EMT, whereas R26-Pik3ca(H1047R);p53(loxP/+);MMTV-Cre mammary tumors were mostly adenosquamous carcinoma or spindle cell/EMT indicating that double-mutant mice develop a distinct spectrum of mammary tumors. Thus, an oncogenic variant of PIK3CA implicated in multiple human breast cancer subtypes can induce a very diverse spectrum of mammary tumors in mice. Furthermore, Pik3ca(H1047R) shows cooperation with p53, which altered the specific tumors that formed. Thus, the two most frequently mutated genes in human breast cancer show cooperation in mammary tumor formation.