Justifying the source of external comparators in single-arm oncology health technology submissions: a review of NICE and PBAC assessments.

Background: The drive to expedite patient access for diseases with high unmet treatment needs has come with an increasing use of single-arm trials (SATs), especially in oncology. However, the lack of control arms in such trials creates challenges to assess and demonstrate comparative efficacy. External control (EC) arms can be used to bridge this gap, with various types of sources available to obtain relevant data. Objective: To examine the source of ECs in single-arm oncology health technology assessment (HTA) submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and how this selection was justified by manufacturers and assessed by the respective HTA body. Methods: Single-arm oncology HTA submission reports published by NICE (England) and PBAC (Australia) from January 2011 to August 2021 were reviewed, with data qualitatively synthesized to identify themes. Results: Forty-eight oncology submissions using EC arms between 2011 and 2021 were identified, with most submissions encompassing blood and bone marrow cancers (52%). In HTA submissions to NICE and PBAC, the EC arm was typically constructed from a combination of data sources, with the company's justification in data source selection infrequently provided (PBAC [2 out of 19]; NICE [6 out of 29]), although this lack of justification was not heavily criticized by either HTA body. Conclusion: Although HTA bodies such as NICE and PBAC encourage that EC source justification should be provided in submissions, this review found that this is not typically implemented in practice. Guidance is needed to establish best practices as to how EC selection should be documented in HTA submissions.

Navigating the unknown: how to best 'reflect' standard of care in indications without a dedicated treatment pathway in health technology assessment submissions.

There is an urgent need for expedited approval and access for new health technologies targeting rare and very rare diseases, some of which are associated with high unmet treatment needs. Once a new technology achieves regulatory approval, the technology needs to be assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. This assessment quantitatively examines the clinical effectiveness, safety and/or economic impact of the new technology relative to standard of care (SoC) in a specific market. However, in rare and very rare diseases, the patient populations are small and there is often no established treatment pathway available to define 'SoC'. In these situations, several challenges arise to assess the added benefit of a new technology - both clinically and economically - due to lack of established SoC to guide an appropriate comparator selection. These challenges include: How should 'SoC' be defined and characterized in HTA submissions for new technologies aiming to establish new treatment standards? What is usual care without an established clinical pathway? How should the evidence for the comparator 'SoC' (i.e., usual care) arm be collected in situations with low patient representation and, sometimes, limited disease-specific clinical knowledge in certain geographies? This commentary outlines the evidence generation challenges in designing clinical comparative effectiveness for a new technology when there is a lack of established SoC. The commentary also proposes considerations to facilitate the reliable integration of real-world evidence into HTA and decision-making based on the collective experience of the authors.

Increasing transparency in indirect treatment comparisons: is selecting effect modifiers the missing part of the puzzle? A review of methodological approaches and critical considerations.

Failure to adjust for effect modifiers (EMs) in indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can produce biased and uncertain effect estimates. This is particularly important for health technology assessments (HTAs), where the availability of new treatments is based on comparative effectiveness results. Much emphasis has been placed on advancing ITC methods to adjust for EMs, yet whether EMs are appropriately identified for the conduct of ITCs in the first place is unclear. To understand the extent of guidance and requirements for the selection of EMs for ITCs currently available and if and how this guidance is applied in practice, a series of pragmatic reviews of guidance documents from HTA and non-payer organizations, primary published ITC analyses, and prior HTA submissions in two indications (non-small cell lung cancer and psoriasis) was conducted. The reviews showed that current ITC guidance mainly focused on developing analytical methods to adjust for EMs. Some organizations, such as HTA bodies in the UK, France and Germany, recommended the use of literature reviews, expert opinion and statistical methods to identify EMs. No detailed guidance on the selection process or the appropriate literature review approach was found. Similar trends were identified through the database search and review of prior HTA submissions; only few published ITCs and submissions included information on the EM selection process which was either based on findings from the literature, trial subgroup analyses, or clinical input. No reference to a systematic selection approach was found. There is an urgent need to fill the guidance gap identified across the reviews by including a step in ITC guidelines on how EMs should be identified through systematic reviews, formal expert elicitation, and a quantitative assessment of the EM distribution. Researchers and manufacturers are also encouraged to improve transparent reporting and justification of their selection of EMs to allow for an independent review of the set of factors being considered for adjustment. Both will contribute toward reducing bias in the ITC results and ultimately increase confidence in decision-making.

Prognostic Factors of COVID-19: An Umbrella Review Endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the urgency for updated evidence to inform public health and clinical care placed systematic literature reviews (SLRs) at the cornerstone of research. We aimed to summarize evidence on prognostic factors for COVID-19 outcomes through published SLRs and to critically assess quality elements in the findings' interpretation. An umbrella review was conducted via electronic databases from January 2020 to April 2022. All SLRs (and meta-analyses) in English were considered. Data screening and extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. AMSTAR 2 tool was used to assess SLR quality. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD4202232576). Out of 4,564 publications, 171 SLRs were included of which 3 were umbrella reviews. Our primary analysis included 35 SLRs published in 2022, which incorporated studies since the beginning of the pandemic. Consistent findings showed that, for adults, older age, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer were more strongly predictive of risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mortality due to COVID-19. Male sex was associated with higher risk of short-term adverse outcomes, but female sex was associated with higher risk of long COVID. For children, socioeconomic determinants that may unravel COVID-19 disparities were rarely reported. This review highlights key prognostic factors of COVID-19, which can help clinicians and health officers identify high-risk groups for optimal care. Findings can also help optimize confounding adjustment and patient phenotyping in comparative effectiveness research. A living SLR approach may facilitate dissemination of new findings. This paper is endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

Modeling Challenges in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line Immuno-Oncology Therapies in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of immuno-oncology (IO) therapies has changed the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Numerous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and technology appraisals (TAs) evaluating IO therapies have been recently published. OBJECTIVE: We reviewed economic models of first-line (1L) IO therapies for previously untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC to identify methodological challenges associated with modeling cost effectiveness from published literature and TAs and to make recommendations for future CEAs in this disease area. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted following Cochrane and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit (January 2009-January 2020), and select conferences (since 2016) for CEAs of 1L IO treatments in patients with recurrent or metastatic, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)/anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutation-negative NSCLC, published in English. TAs from England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, Germany, and France were also examined. Two reviewers screened the results and extracted the data. The quality of the CEAs was described using the Drummond checklist. RESULTS: In total, 46 records reporting on 38 unique models met protocol-defined criteria and were included. Five models adjusted for treatment switching or crossover in base-case analyses, and the remainder considered treatment switching or crossover to represent clinical practice and made no adjustment. Seven models used external real-world data for survival modeling or extrapolation validation. Six models that assumed long-term treatment benefit stopped at 3 or 5 years after initiation. Seven models used the observed time-on-treatment distribution from the trial, and eight used progression-free survival for treatment duration. All models compared one or more IO monotherapies or combination therapies with chemotherapy. Only one study directly compared different IO agents but did not consider the concordance issue across programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing methods. Utilities were modeled by health state in 12 models, four applied a time-to-death approach, and ten explored both. None applied cure models. CONCLUSION: Variations in methodological challenges were seen across studies. Previous models took approaches that were followed in subsequent models, such as a 2-year stopping rule of IO duration or treatment-effect waning. Challenges such as heterogeneity in PD-L1 testing and survival extrapolation and validation using real-world data should be further considered for future models in advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Short-Term Efficacy of Biologic Therapies in Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: A Systematic Literature Review and an Enhanced Multinomial Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Many targeted, systemic therapies have been developed for treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis (PsO). A network meta-analysis (NMA) allows for comparison between treatments not directly compared in randomized controlled trials (RCT). This study's objective was to compare the short-term (10-16 weeks) clinical efficacy according to the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) among approved biologic treatments for moderate-to-severe PsO using a novel (enhanced) NMA model. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) of RCTs for patients with moderate-to-severe PsO was conducted. English publications in MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library up to March 2019 were searched. An enhanced multinomial Bayesian NMA was performed to simultaneously adjust for baseline risk and utilize the conditional nature of the PASI (50, 75, 90, and 100) levels. The model relaxes typical constraints that all treatments must have the same ranks across PASI levels. RESULTS: The SLR resulted in 319 relevant publications, of which 72 publications from 73 RCTs reporting 10- to 16-week data for at least one PASI response level (30,314 total patients) were included. Interleukin (IL) inhibitors (risankizumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, secukinumab, and guselkumab) were the best performing treatments for achieving all PASI levels. Etanercept was outperformed by the other subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors. Application of an enhanced NMA model that allowed treatment rankings to differ by PASI level tested the robustness of results of previous NMAs in PsO. CONCLUSION: The results of this model confirmed that IL inhibitors are likely the best short-term treatment choices for improving all PASI levels.

DREAMM-2: Indirect Comparisons of Belantamab Mafodotin vs. Selinexor + Dexamethasone and Standard of Care Treatments in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Single-agent belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; BLENREP) demonstrated deep and durable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 antibody (DREAMM-2; NCT03525678). METHODS: At the time of this study, STORM Part 2, NCT02336815 (selinexor plus low-dose dexamethasone; sel + dex) was systematically identified as the only feasible comparator to the DREAMM-2 cohort. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) evaluated efficacy and safety of belamaf (2.5 mg/kg; n = 97) versus sel + dex (80 mg + 20 mg, respectively; n = 123). Populations were weighted for clinically validated effect modifiers and prognostic factors. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), overall response rate (ORR), time to response (TTR), and safety. The relative efficacy of belamaf versus standard of care (SoC) on OS was estimated by a Bucher indirect treatment comparison using the MAIC-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for OS of belamaf (DREAMM-2) versus sel + dex (STORM Part 2) and a HR adjusted for refractoriness to carfilzomib and high-risk cytogenetics of sel + dex (STORM) versus SoC (MAMMOTH). RESULTS: Belamaf demonstrated improved OS (HR 0.53; 95% confidence interval 0.34, 0.83; p = 0.005) and DoR (0.41; 0.21, 0.83; p = 0.013) versus sel + dex. There were no statistically significant differences in ORR, TTR, and PFS. Belamaf had a favorable safety profile for most evaluable hematologic (any-grade, Grade 3-4) and non-hematologic (any-grade) adverse events versus sel + dex. Significantly improved OS was observed with belamaf versus SoC (0.29; 0.16, 0.54; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Single-agent belamaf represents a new treatment option for triple-class refractory patients with RRMM.

Moderately severe and severe acute pancreatitis : a systematic review of the outcomes in the USA and European Union-5.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The global incidence of hospitalisation due to acute pancreatitis (AP) has been rising in the recent decades. In the USA alone, there was a 13.2% increase between 2009 and 2012 compared with 2002-2005. There remains a lack of approved treatments to prevent disease progression, leaving many liable to developing complications that include multisystem organ failure (OF) and death. This therapeutic deficit raises questions about the scale of the current burden of illness (BOI) associated with severe forms of AP. The aim of the systematic literature review (SLR) was to assess clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes associated with moderately severe AP (MSAP) and severe AP (SAP) in the USA and the European Union-5 (EU-5). METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE and Embase to identify studies published in English (between 2007 and 2017) that reported on the BOI of MSAP and/or SAP. Manual searches of 'grey' literature sources were also conducted. RESULTS: The SLR identified 19 studies which indicated that 15%-20% of patients with AP progress to more severe forms of the disease, up to 10.5% of those with SAP require surgery for complications, and up to 40% die during hospitalisation. By contrast, there appears to be a lack of data on the extent to which SAP affects patients' quality of life. CONCLUSION: The available evidence clearly demonstrates that the current management for MSAP and SAP in the USA and EU-5 does not adequately meet patients' needs. Early identification and intervention for AP is crucial, given the evidence of high rates of morbidity and an associated economic burden that is considerable. Since many patients with the condition present to hospitals at a point when multisystem OF or death is highly likely, there is a particularly urgent need for effective treatment options to prevent disease progression.