Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of MRI-based technologies for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies are non-invasive diagnostic tests that can be used to assess non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Objectives: The study objectives were to assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of two magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies (LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography) for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for whom advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis had not been diagnosed and who had indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, or for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse was unsuitable, or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing. Data sources: The data sources searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using established methods. Diagnostic test accuracy estimates were calculated using bivariate models and a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated using a hierarchical model. A simple decision-tree model was developed to generate cost-effectiveness results. Results: The diagnostic test accuracy review (13 studies) and the clinical impact review (11 studies) only included one study that provided evidence for patients who had indeterminate or discordant results from fibrosis testing. No studies of patients for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse were unsuitable were identified. Depending on fibrosis level, relevant published LiverMultiScan diagnostic test accuracy results ranged from 50% to 88% (sensitivity) and from 42% to 75% (specificity). No magnetic resonance elastography diagnostic test accuracy data were available for the specific population of interest. Results from the clinical impact review suggested that acceptability of LiverMultiScan was generally positive. To explore how the decision to proceed to biopsy is influenced by magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies, the External Assessment Group presented cost-effectiveness analyses for LiverMultiScan plus biopsy versus biopsy only. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained results for seven of the eight diagnostic test strategies considered showed that LiverMultiScan plus biopsy was dominated by biopsy only; for the remaining strategy (Brunt grade ≥2), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained was £1,266,511. Results from threshold and scenario analyses demonstrated that External Assessment Group base-case results were robust to plausible variations in the magnitude of key parameters. Limitations: Diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness data for magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies for the population that is the focus of this assessment were limited. Conclusions: Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies may be useful to identify patients who may benefit from additional testing in the form of liver biopsy and those for whom this additional testing may not be necessary. However, there is a paucity of diagnostic test accuracy and clinical impact data for patients who have indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse are unsuitable or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing. Given the External Assessment Group cost-effectiveness analyses assumptions, the use of LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography for assessing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for patients with inconclusive results from previous fibrosis testing is unlikely to be a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources compared with liver biopsy only. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021286891. Funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Evidence Synthesis Programme of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease includes a range of conditions that are caused by a build-up of fat in the liver, and not by alcohol consumption. This build-up of fat can cause inflammation. Persistent inflammation can cause scar tissue (fibrosis) to develop. It is important to identify patients with fibrosis because severe fibrosis can cause permanent liver damage (cirrhosis), which can lead to liver failure and liver cancer. In the National Health Service, patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease undergo tests to determine whether they have fibrosis. The test results are not always accurate and multiple tests can give conflicting results. Some of the tests may not be suitable for patients who have a very high body mass index. In the National Health Service, a liver biopsy may be offered to patients with inconclusive or conflicting test results or to those patients for whom other tests are unsuitable. However, liver biopsy is expensive, and is associated with side-effects such as pain and bleeding. Magnetic resonance imaging-based testing could be used as an extra test to help clinicians assess non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and identify patients who may need a liver biopsy. We assessed two magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnostic tests, LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography. LiverMultiScan is imaging software that is used alongside magnetic resonance imaging to measure markers of liver disease. Magnetic resonance elastography is used in some National Health Service centres to assess liver fibrosis; however, magnetic resonance elastography requires more equipment than just an magnetic resonance imaging scanner. We reviewed all studies examining how well LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography assess patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. We also built an economic model to estimate the costs and benefits of using LiverMultiScan to identify patients who should be sent for a biopsy. Results from the model showed that LiverMultiScan may not provide good value for money to the National Health Service.

Onasemnogene Abeparvovec for Treating Pre-symptomatic Spinal Muscular Atrophy: An External Assessment Group Perspective of the Partial Review of NICE Highly Specialised Technology Evaluation 15.

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) highly specialised technology (HST) evaluation programme, Novartis submitted evidence to support the use of onasemnogene abeparvovec as a treatment option for patients with pre-symptomatic 5q spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with a bi-allelic mutation in the survival of motor neuron (SMN) 1 gene and up to three copies of the SMN2 gene. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the External Assessment Group (EAG). This article summarises the EAG's review of the evidence submitted by the company and provides an overview of the NICE Evaluation Committee's final decision, published in April 2023. The primary source of evidence for this evaluation was the SPR1NT trial, a single-arm trial including 29 babies. The EAG and committee considered that the SPR1NT trial results suggested that onasemnogene abeparvovec is effective in treating pre-symptomatic SMA; however, long-term efficacy data were unavailable and efficacy in babies aged over 6 weeks remained uncertain. Cost-effectiveness analyses conducted by the company and the EAG (using a discounted price for onasemnogene abeparvovec) explored various assumptions; all analyses generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) that were less than £100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The committee recommended onasemnogene abeparvovec as an option for treating pre-symptomatic 5q SMA with a bi-allelic mutation in the SMN1 gene and up to three copies of the SMN2 gene in babies aged ≤ 12 months only if the company provides it according to the commercial arrangement (i.e. simple discount patient access scheme).

A systematic review of cost-utility analyses of screening methods in latent tuberculosis infection in high-risk populations.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that testing and treatment for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) should be undertaken in high-risk groups using either interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) or a tuberculin skin test (TST). As IGRAs are more expensive than TST, an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of IGRAs can guide decision makers on the most appropriate choice of test for different high-risk populations. This current review aimed to provide the most up to date evidence on the cost-effectiveness evidence on LTBI testing in high-risk groups-specifically evidence reporting the costs per QALY of different testing strategies. METHODS: A comprehensive search of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS-EED was undertaken from 2011 up to March 2021. Studies were screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. The study quality was assessed using the Bias in Economic Evaluation Checklist (ECOBIAS). A narrative synthesis of the included studies was undertaken. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies reported in thirty-three documents were included in this review. Quality of included studies was generally high, although there was a weakness across all studies referencing sources correctly and/or justifying choices of parameter values chosen or assumptions where parameter values were not available. Inclusions of IGRAs in testing strategies was consistently found across studies to be cost-effective but this result was sensitive to underlying LTBI prevalence rates. CONCLUSION: While some concerns remain about uncertainty in parameter values used across included studies, the evidence base since 2010 has grown with modelling approaches addressing the weakness pointed out in previous reviews but still reaching the same conclusion that IGRAs are likely to be cost-effective in high-income countries for high-risk populations. Evidence is also required on the cost-effectiveness of different strategies in low to middle income countries and countries with high TB burden.

Prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment options for people with impacted third molars are removal or retention with standard care. If there are pathological changes, the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that the impacted third molar should be removed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars compared with retention of, and standard care for, impacted third molars. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched (1999 to 29 April 2016) to identify relevant evidence [The Cochrane Library (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), MEDLINE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EMBASE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EconLit (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (searched 4 April 2016)]. Studies that compared the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care or studies that assessed the outcomes from either approach were included. The clinical outcomes considered were pathology associated with retention, post-operative complications following extraction and adverse effects of treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included UK costs and health-related quality-of-life measures. In addition, the assessment group constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic removal strategy with that of retention and standard care. RESULTS: The clinical review identified four cohort studies and nine systematic reviews. In the two studies that reported on surgical complications, no serious complications were reported. Pathological changes due to retention of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were reported by three studies. In these studies, the extraction rate for retained impacted mandibular third molars varied from 5.5% to 31.4%; this variation can be explained by the differing follow-up periods (i.e. 1 and 5 years). The findings from this review are consistent with the findings from previous systematic reviews. Two published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. The authors of both studies concluded that, to their knowledge, there is currently no economic evidence to support the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The results generated by the assessment group's lifetime economic model indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the comparison of a prophylactic removal strategy with a retention and standard care strategy is £11,741 for people aged 20 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. The incremental cost per person associated with prophylactic extraction is £55.71, with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.005 per person. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained was found to be robust when a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the study included that no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care were identified with the assessment group model that was built on observational data. Utility data on impacted mandibular third molars and their symptoms are lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence comparing the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care is very limited. However, the results from an exploratory assessment group model, which uses available evidence on symptom development and extraction rates of retained impacted mandibular third molars, suggest that prophylactic removal may be the more cost-effective strategy. FUTURE WORK: Effectiveness evidence is lacking. Head-to-head trials comparing the prophylactic removal of trouble-free impacted mandibular third molars with retention and watchful waiting are required. If this is not possible, routine clinical data, using common definitions and outcome reporting methods, should be collected. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037776. 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. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Third molars, commonly known as wisdom teeth, may come through the gum (erupt) without any problems, usually during young adulthood (aged 18­24 years). However, in some cases they are unable to erupt because they are poorly aligned or obstructed by other teeth, gums or bone. They are then referred to as 'impacted'. Historically, dentists often recommended that these teeth be removed, so as not to cause problems later in life. This is referred to as 'prophylactic' removal. In 2000, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reviewed this practice and recommended that these teeth should not be removed if they are not bothersome to the person. Many dentists and oral surgeons have disagreed with this decision, believing that it is more difficult to remove these teeth later in life, and that there are more complications for the patient if they are removed later in life. Our review group carried out a systematic review of the available clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence of the prophylactic removal of impacted third molars. The review identified four clinical studies, none of which provided strong evidence for or against the prophylactic removal of these teeth. These findings are similar to those of nine previous reviews. There is also very little research reported that relates to the cost-effectiveness of the procedure, with only three studies identified. With the available evidence on the rates of extraction and the symptoms experienced by people who keep their impacted mandibular third molar, we built an exploratory economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of recommending prophylactic removal compared with that of recommending watchful waiting. Results from the model suggested that a prophylactic removal strategy costs more than a watchful waiting strategy, but leads to improvements in quality of life. When the costs and quality-of-life measures that are associated with the two strategies are compared, the resulting statistic is £11,741 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, which would probably be good value for money for the NHS.

Lenvatinib and sorafenib for differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid cancer is a rare cancer, accounting for only 1% of all malignancies in England and Wales. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) accounts for ≈94% of all thyroid cancers. Patients with DTC often require treatment with radioactive iodine. Treatment for DTC that is refractory to radioactive iodine [radioactive iodine-refractory DTC (RR-DTC)] is often limited to best supportive care (BSC). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany) for the treatment of patients with RR-DTC. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched (date range 1999 to 10 January 2017; searched on 10 January 2017). The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. REVIEW METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, prospective observational studies and economic evaluations of lenvatinib or sorafenib. In the absence of relevant economic evaluations, we constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib with that of BSC. RESULTS: Two RCTs were identified: SELECT (Study of [E7080] LEnvatinib in 131I-refractory differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid) and DECISION (StuDy of sorafEnib in loCally advanced or metastatIc patientS with radioactive Iodine-refractory thyrOid caNcer). Lenvatinib and sorafenib were both reported to improve median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo: 18.3 months (lenvatinib) vs. 3.6 months (placebo) and 10.8 months (sorafenib) vs. 5.8 months (placebo). Patient crossover was high (≥ 75%) in both trials, confounding estimates of overall survival (OS). Using OS data adjusted for crossover, trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with lenvatinib compared with those given placebo (SELECT) but not for patients treated with sorafenib compared with those given placebo (DECISION). Both lenvatinib and sorafenib increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and dose reductions were required (for > 60% of patients). The results from nine prospective observational studies and 13 systematic reviews of lenvatinib or sorafenib were broadly comparable to those from the RCTs. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected only in DECISION. We considered the feasibility of comparing lenvatinib with sorafenib via an indirect comparison but concluded that this would not be appropriate because of differences in trial and participant characteristics, risk profiles of the participants in the placebo arms and because the proportional hazard assumption was violated for five of the six survival outcomes available from the trials. In the base-case economic analysis, using list prices only, the cost-effectiveness comparison of lenvatinib versus BSC yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £65,872, and the comparison of sorafenib versus BSC yields an ICER of £85,644 per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analyses show that none of the variations lowered the base-case ICERs to < £50,000 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: We consider that it is not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo/BSC, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib results in an improvement in PFS, objective tumour response rate and possibly OS, but dose modifications were required to treat AEs. Both treatments exhibit estimated ICERs of > £50,000 per QALY gained. Further research should include examination of the effects of lenvatinib, sorafenib and BSC (including HRQoL) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and the positioning of treatments in the treatment pathway. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055516. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM?: Differentiated thyroid cancer is a common type of thyroid cancer. For many patients, radioactive iodine is an effective treatment; however, for some patients, the treatment stops working or becomes unsafe. Two new drugs, lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany), may be new treatment options. WHAT DID WE DO?: We reviewed the clinical evidence of lenvatinib and sorafenib. We also estimated the costs and benefits of treatment. WHAT DID WE FIND?: Compared with no treatment, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib may increase the time that people live with thyroid cancer before their disease gets worse; however, both drugs are expensive and may have unpleasant side effects. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: At their published (undiscounted) prices, lenvatinib or sorafenib may not be considered to provide good value for money to the NHS.

Cladribine Tablets for the First-Line Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited Merck to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cladribine tablets (cladribine) for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Rapidly evolving severe (RES) and sub-optimally treated (SOT) RRMS were specified by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as subgroups of interest. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group. This article summarises the Evidence Review Group's review of the company's evidence submission for cladribine and the Appraisal Committee's final decision. The final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence listed the following disease-modifying treatments as comparators: alemtuzumab, daclizumab, fingolimod and natalizumab. At the time of the company submission, a licence was anticipated for low-dose cladribine. The main clinical evidence (the CLARITY trial) in the company submission focused on the efficacy of low-dose cladribine vs. placebo. The CLARITY trial showed a statistically significant reduction in relapse rate for cladribine in the RES-RRMS subgroup (n = 50) but not in the SOT-RRMS subgroup (n = 19). Cladribine showed a numerical, but not a statistically significant, advantage in delaying disability progression at 6 months in the RES-RRMS subgroup. Disability progression benefits could not be estimated for those in the SOT-RRMS subgroup because of few events. The Evidence Review Group's main concern regarding the clinical evidence was the small sample size of the subgroups. To compare the effectiveness of cladribine to other disease-modifying treatments, the company conducted network meta-analyses, which showed cladribine and its comparators to be equally effective. The Evidence Review Group considered the results of the disease-modifying treatments to be unreliable because few trials were in the network. The company's cost-effectiveness evidence showed cladribine to be cheaper and more effective than other disease-modifying treatments in the RES-RRMS arm and the SOT-RRMS arm. The results were most sensitive to treatment effect on disability progression at 6 months. The Evidence Review Group was concerned that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that cladribine was superior to placebo in delaying disability progression. The Evidence Review Group amended the company's economic model to allow alternative estimates for the treatment effect of cladribine and its comparators on relapse rate and disability progression at 6 months. The Evidence Review Group made other changes to the company model. After implementing all the amendments, cladribine remained cost effective in the RES-RRMS and SOT-RRMS subgroups. The Appraisal Committee recognised the uncertainty in the available data but concluded that cladribine could be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources.

Exploring the Effects of Early Censoring and Analysis of Clinical Trial Survival Data on Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness Estimation through a Case Study in Advanced Breast Cancer.

Interim analyses of clinical trial data are frequently used to provide evidence to obtain marketing authorization for new drugs. However, results from such analyses may not reflect true estimates of relative effectiveness when trial follow-up is complete. Survival results, available at 2 time points from a breast cancer clinical trial, were compared to test the hypothesis that using immature data and a widely used right-censoring rule leads to biased survival estimates. Kaplan-Meier progression-free and overall survival data from 2 published CLEOPATRA trial reports (2012 and 2014) were digitized. Overlaying these results highlighted divergent trends. Parametric functions were fitted to both data sets but did not indicate consistent patterns that could be used as a basis for long-term extrapolation. Heavy censoring of patients in the early data cut coincides with sudden changes in hazard trends and survival patterns, supporting the hypothesis of censoring bias. This challenges the validity of estimates of clinical benefit (progression-free survival and overall survival) based on extrapolation of results from interim analyses of trial data, using a commonly employed censoring rule.

Paclitaxel as Albumin-Bound Nanoparticles with Gemcitabine for Untreated Metastatic Pancreatic 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 Celgene Ltd to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles (Nab-Pac) in combination with gemcitabine (Nab-Pac + Gem) for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The STA was a review of NICE's 2015 guidance (TA360) in which Nab-Pac + Gem was not recommended for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The review was prompted by a proposed Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount on the price of Nab-Pac and new evidence that might lead to a change in the guidance. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission for Nab-Pac + Gem, and the Appraisal Committee (AC) decision. The final scope issued by NICE listed three comparators: gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem), gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine (Gem + Cap), and a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX). Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was from the phase III CA046 randomized controlled trial. Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) showed statistically significant improvement for patients treated with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus FOLFIRINOX and versus Gem + Cap was derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results of the NMA did not indicate a statistically significant difference in OS or PFS for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus either Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The ERG's main concerns with the clinical effectiveness evidence were difficulties in identifying the patient population for whom treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem is most appropriate, and violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption in the CA046 trial. The ERG highlighted methodological issues in the cost-effectiveness analysis pertaining to the modelling of survival outcomes, estimation of drug costs and double counting of adverse-event disutilities. The AC accepted all the ERG's amendments to the company's cost-effectiveness model; however, these did not make important differences to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The company's base-case ICER was £46,932 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem was dominated both by treatment with Gem + Cap and with FOLFIRINOX in the company's base case. The AC concluded that the most plausible ICER for treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was in the range of £41,000-£46,000 per QALY gained. The AC concluded that Nab-Pac + Gem was not cost effective compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX, and accepted that treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem met the end-of-life criteria versus Gem but did not consider Nab-Pac + Gem to meet the end-of-life criteria compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The AC also concluded that although patients who would receive Nab-Pac + Gem rather than FOLFIRINOX or Gem + Cap were difficult to distinguish, they were identifiable in clinical practice. The AC recommended treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer for whom other combination chemotherapies were unsuitable and who would otherwise receive Gem.

Pegylated Liposomal Irinotecan Hydrochloride Trihydrate for Treating Pancreatic Cancer After Gemcitabine: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Shire Pharmaceuticals) of pegylated liposomal irinotecan hydrochloride trihydrate (liposomal irinotecan) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for its use in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and folic acid/leucovorin (LV) for treating patients with pancreatic cancer following prior treatment with gemcitabine as part of the institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the company's evidence, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance (TA440), issued on 26 April 2017. Clinical evidence for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus 5-FU/LV was derived from 236 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the multinational, open-label, randomised controlled NAPOLI-1 trial. Results from analyses of progression-free survival and overall survival showed statistically significant improvements for patients treated with liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV compared with those treated with 5-FU/LV. However, 5-FU/LV alone is rarely used in National Health Service clinical practice for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine. The company, ERG and Appraisal Committee (AC) all agreed that oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV is the most commonly used treatment. Oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV was compared with 5-FU/LV in two trials identified by the company. However, the company and the ERG both considered attempts to compare the efficacy of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV with oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV to be methodologically flawed; not only was there heterogeneity between trials and their populations but also the proportional hazards assumption required to conduct a robust indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was violated. Nonetheless, data derived from an ITC were used to inform the company's economic model. Using the discounted patient access scheme price for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV, the company reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £54,412 for the comparison with oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV. The ERG considered that the company's base-case cost-effectiveness results for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV were underestimates and should be interpreted with extreme caution. Following implementation of a number of model amendments, the ERG's modified exploratory ICER for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV was £106,898 per QALY gained. The AC accepted the majority of the ERG's amendments to the model, and also highlighted that the total QALYs for oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV were lower than for 5-FU/LV in the company's model, which the AC considered to be clinically implausible. The AC therefore considered results from exploratory analyses, undertaken by the ERG, which included altering the QALY difference between liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV by ± 10%. These analyses resulted in ICERs for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV of between £201,019 per QALY gained to liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV being dominated by oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV. Therefore, despite uncertainty around the clinical-effectiveness evidence and cost-effectiveness results, the AC was confident that the ICER was in excess of £50,000 per QALY gained. The final guidance issued by NICE is that liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV is not recommended within its marketing authorisation for treating metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas in adults whose disease has progressed after gemcitabine-based therapy.

Assessing the performance of methodological search filters to improve the efficiency of evidence information retrieval: five literature reviews and a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Effective study identification is essential for conducting health research, developing clinical guidance and health policy and supporting health-care decision-making. Methodological search filters (combinations of search terms to capture a specific study design) can assist in searching to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: This project investigated the methods used to assess the performance of methodological search filters, the information that searchers require when choosing search filters and how that information could be better provided. METHODS: Five literature reviews were undertaken in 2010/11: search filter development and testing; comparison of search filters; decision-making in choosing search filters; diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) study methods; and decision-making in choosing diagnostic tests. We conducted interviews and a questionnaire with experienced searchers to learn what information assists in the choice of search filters and how filters are used. These investigations informed the development of various approaches to gathering and reporting search filter performance data. We acknowledge that there has been a regrettable delay between carrying out the project, including the searches, and the publication of this report, because of serious illness of the principal investigator. RESULTS: The development of filters most frequently involved using a reference standard derived from hand-searching journals. Most filters were validated internally only. Reporting of methods was generally poor. Sensitivity, precision and specificity were the most commonly reported performance measures and were presented in tables. Aspects of DTA study methods are applicable to search filters, particularly in the development of the reference standard. There is limited evidence on how clinicians choose between diagnostic tests. No published literature was found on how searchers select filters. Interviewing and questioning searchers via a questionnaire found that filters were not appropriate for all tasks but were predominantly used to reduce large numbers of retrieved records and to introduce focus. The Inter Technology Appraisal Support Collaboration (InterTASC) Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG) Search Filters Resource was most frequently mentioned by both groups as the resource consulted to select a filter. Randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review filters, in particular the Cochrane RCT and the McMaster Hedges filters, were most frequently mentioned. The majority indicated that they used different filters depending on the requirement for sensitivity or precision. Over half of the respondents used the filters available in databases. Interviewees used various approaches when using and adapting search filters. Respondents suggested that the main factors that would make choosing a filter easier were the availability of critical appraisals and more detailed performance information. Provenance and having the filter available in a central storage location were also important. LIMITATIONS: The questionnaire could have been shorter and could have included more multiple choice questions, and the reviews of filter performance focused on only four study designs. CONCLUSIONS: Search filter studies should use a representative reference standard and explicitly report methods and results. Performance measures should be presented systematically and clearly. Searchers find filters useful in certain circumstances but expressed a need for more user-friendly performance information to aid filter choice. We suggest approaches to use, adapt and report search filter performance. Future work could include research around search filters and performance measures for study designs not addressed here, exploration of alternative methods of displaying performance results and numerical synthesis of performance comparison results. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and Medical Research Council-NIHR Methodology Research Programme (grant number G0901496).

Talimogene Laherparepvec for Treating Metastatic Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Amgen) of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for previously untreated advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the company's submission of T-VEC, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance (TA410), issued in September 2016. T-VEC is an oncolytic virus therapy granted a marketing authorisation by the European Commission for the treatment of adults with unresectable melanoma that is regionally or distantly metastatic (stage IIIB, IIIC and IVM1a) with no bone, brain, lung or other visceral disease. Clinical evidence for T-VEC versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) was derived from the multinational, open-label randomised controlled OPTiM trial [Oncovex (GM-CSF) Pivotal Trial in Melanoma]. In accordance with T-VEC's marketing authorisation, the company's submission focused primarily on 249 patients with stage IIIB to stage IV/M1a disease who constituted 57% of the overall trial population (T-VEC, n = 163 and GM-CSF, n = 86). Results from analyses of durable response rate, objective response rate, time to treatment failure and overall survival all showed marked and statistically significant improvements for patients treated with T-VEC compared with those treated with GM-CSF. However, GM-CSF is not used to treat melanoma in clinical practice. It was not possible to compare treatment with T-VEC with an appropriate comparator using conventionally accepted methods due to the absence of comparative head-to-head data or trials with sufficient common comparators. Therefore, the company compared T-VEC with ipilimumab using what it described as modified Korn and two-step Korn methods. Results from these analyses suggested that treatment with T-VEC was at least as effective as treatment with ipilimumab. Using the discounted patient access scheme (PAS) price for T-VEC and list price for ipilimumab, the company reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For the comparison of treatment with T-VEC versus ipilimumab, the ICER per QALY gained was -£16,367 using the modified Korn method and -£60,271 using the two-step Korn method. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) agreed with the ERG that the company's methods for estimating clinical effectiveness of T-VEC versus ipilimumab were flawed and therefore produced unreliable results for modelling progression in stage IIIB to stage IVM1a melanoma. The AC concluded that the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatment with T-VEC compared with ipilimumab is unknown in patients with stage IIIB to stage IV/M1a disease. However, the AC considered that T-VEC may be a reasonable option for treating patients who are unsuitable for treatment with systemically administered immunotherapies (such as ipilimumab). T-VEC was therefore recommended by NICE as a treatment option for adults with unresectable, regionally or distantly metastatic (stage IIIB to stage IVM1a) melanoma that has not spread to bone, brain, lung or other internal organs, only if treatment with systemically administered immunotherapies is not suitable and the company provides T-VEC at the agreed discounted PAS price.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PROGENSA® prostate cancer antigen 3 assay and the Prostate Health Index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: There is no single definitive test to identify prostate cancer in men. Biopsies are commonly used to obtain samples of prostate tissue for histopathological examination. However, this approach frequently misses cases of cancer, meaning that repeat biopsies may be necessary to obtain a diagnosis. The PROGENSA(®) prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) assay (Hologic Gen-Probe, Marlborough, MA, USA) and the Prostate Health Index (phi; Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA, USA) are two new tests (a urine test and a blood test, respectively) that are designed to be used to help clinicians decide whether or not to recommend a repeat biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PCA3 assay and the phi in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. DATA SOURCES: Multiple publication databases and trial registers were searched in May 2014 (from 2000 to May 2014), including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Medion, Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility database, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. REVIEW METHODS: The assessment of clinical effectiveness involved three separate systematic reviews, namely reviews of the analytical validity, the clinical validity of these tests and the clinical utility of these tests. The assessment of cost-effectiveness comprised a systematic review of full economic evaluations and the development of a de novo economic model. SETTING: The perspective of the evaluation was the NHS in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Men suspected of having prostate cancer for whom the results of an initial prostate biopsy were negative or equivocal. INTERVENTIONS: The use of the PCA3 score or phi in combination with existing tests (including histopathology results, prostate-specific antigen level and digital rectal examination), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical judgement. RESULTS: In addition to documents published by the manufacturers, six studies were identified for inclusion in the analytical validity review. The review identified issues concerning the precision of the PCA3 assay measurements. It also highlighted issues relating to the storage requirements and stability of samples intended for analysis using the phi assay. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria for the clinical validity review. These studies reported results for 10 different clinical comparisons. There was insufficient evidence to enable the identification of appropriate test threshold values for use in a clinical setting. In addition, the implications of adding either the PCA3 assay or the phi to clinical assessment were not clear. Furthermore, the addition of the PCA3 assay or the phi to clinical assessment plus magnetic resonance imaging was not found to improve discrimination. No published papers met the inclusion criteria for either the clinical utility review or the cost-effectiveness review. The results from the cost-effectiveness analyses indicated that using either the PCA3 assay or the phi in the NHS was not cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations of the systematic review of clinical validity are that the review conclusions are over-reliant on findings from one study, the descriptions of clinical assessment vary widely within reviewed studies and many of the reported results for the clinical validity outcomes do not include either standard errors or confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical benefit of using the PCA3 assay or the phi in combination with existing tests, scans and clinical judgement has not yet been confirmed. The results from the cost-effectiveness analyses indicate that the use of these tests in the NHS would not be cost-effective. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014009595. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A scoping study to explore the cost-effectiveness of next-generation sequencing compared with traditional genetic testing for the diagnosis of learning disabilities in children.

BACKGROUND: Learning disability (LD) is a serious and lifelong condition characterised by the impairment of cognitive and adaptive skills. Some cases of LD with unidentified causes may be linked to genetic factors. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques are new approaches to genetic testing that are expected to increase diagnostic yield. OBJECTIVES: This scoping study focused on the diagnosis of LD in children and the objectives were to describe current pathways that involve the use of genetic testing; collect stakeholder views on the changes in service provision that would need to be put in place before NGS could be used in clinical practice; describe the new systems and safeguards that would need to be put in place before NGS could be used in clinical practice; and explore the cost-effectiveness of using NGS compared with conventional genetic testing. METHODS: A research advisory group was established. This group provided ongoing support by e-mail and telephone through the lifetime of the study and also contributed face-to-face through a workshop. A detailed review of published studies and reports was undertaken. In addition, information was collected through 33 semistructured interviews with key stakeholders. RESULTS: NGS techniques consist of targeted gene sequencing, whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Targeted gene panels, which are the least complex, are in their infancy in clinical settings. Some interviewees thought that during the next 3-5 years targeted gene panels would be superseded by WES. If NGS technologies were to be fully introduced into clinical practice in the future a number of factors would need to be overcome. The main resource-related issues pertaining to service provision are the need for additional computing capacity, more bioinformaticians, more genetic counsellors and also genetics-related training for the public and a wide range of staff. It is also considered that, as the number of children undergoing genetic testing increases, there will be an increase in demand for information and support for families. The main issues relating to systems and safeguards are giving informed consent, sharing unanticipated findings, developing ethical and other frameworks, equity of access, data protection, data storage and data sharing. There is little published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of NGS technologies. The major barriers to determining cost-effectiveness are the uncertainty around diagnostic yield, the heterogeneity of diagnostic pathways and the lack of information on the impact of a diagnosis on health care, social care, educational support needs and the wider family. Furthermore, as NGS techniques are currently being used only in research, costs and benefits to the NHS are unclear. CONCLUSIONS: NGS technologies are at an early stage of development and it is too soon to say whether they can offer value for money to the NHS as part of the LD diagnostic process. Substantial organisational changes, as well as new systems and safeguards, would be required if NGS technologies were to be introduced into NHS clinical practice. Considerable further research is required to establish whether using NGS technologies to diagnose learning disabilities is clinically effective and cost-effective. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Erlotinib and gefitinib for treating non-small cell lung cancer that has progressed following prior chemotherapy (review of NICE technology appraisals 162 and 175): a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer in the UK. Over 70% of lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC may be offered treatment to improve survival, disease control and quality of life. One-third of these patients receive further treatment following disease progression; these treatments are the focus of this systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib [Tarceva(®), Roche (UK) Ltd] and gefitinib (IRESSA(®), AstraZeneca) compared with each other, docetaxel or best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of NSCLC after disease progression following prior chemotherapy. The effectiveness of treatment with gefitinib was considered only for patients with epidermal growth factor mutation-positive (EGFR M+) disease. DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations. Manufacturers' evidence submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were also considered. REVIEW METHODS: Outcomes for three distinct patient groups based on EGFR mutation status [EGFR M+, epidermal growth factor mutation negative (EGFR M-) and epidermal growth factor mutation status unknown (EGFR unknown)] were considered. Heterogeneity of the data precluded statistical analysis. A de novo economic model was developed to compare treatments (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained). RESULTS: Twelve trials were included in the review. The use of gefitinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 6) or BSC (n = 1), and the use of erlotinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 3) or BSC (n = 1). One trial compared the use of gefitinib with the use of erlotinib. No trials included solely EGFR M+ patients; all data were derived from retrospective subgroup analyses from six RCTs [Kim ST, Uhm JE, Lee J, Sun JM, Sohn I, Kim SW, et al. Randomized phase II study of gefitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who failed previous chemotherapy. Lung Cancer 2012;75:82-8, V-15-32, Tarceva In Treatment of Advanced NSCLC (TITAN), BR.21, IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung cancer (ISEL) and IRESSA NSCLC Trial Evaluating REsponse and Survival versus Taxotere (INTEREST)]. These limited data precluded conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of any treatment for EGFR M+ patients. For EGFR M- patients, data were derived from the TArceva Italian Lung Optimization tRial (TAILOR) trial and Docetaxel and Erlotinib Lung Cancer Trial (DELTA). Retrospective data were also derived from subgroup analyses of BR.21, Kim et al., TITAN, INTEREST and ISEL. The only statistically significant reported results were for progression-free survival (PFS) for TAILOR and DELTA, and favoured docetaxel over erlotinib [TAILOR hazard ratio (HR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.82; DELTA HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.92]. In EGFR unknown patients, nine trials (INTEREST, IRESSA as Second-line Therapy in Advanced NSCLC - KoreA, Li, Second-line Indication of Gefitinib in NSCLC, V-15-32, ISEL, DELTA, TITAN and BR.21) reported overall survival data and only one (BR.21) reported a statistically significant result favouring the use of erlotinib over BSC (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85). For PFS, BR.21 favoured the use of erlotinib when compared with BSC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.74) and the use of gefitinib was favoured when compared with BSC (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92) in ISEL. Limitations in the clinical data precluded assessment of cost-effectiveness of treatments for an EGFR M+ population by the Assessment Group (AG). The AG's economic model suggested that for the EGFR M- population, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective compared with the use of docetaxel and compared with BSC. For EGFR unknown patients, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective when compared with BSC. CONCLUSIONS/FUTURE WORK: The lack of clinical data available for distinct patient populations limited the conclusions of the assessment. Future trials should distinguish between patients with EGFR M+ and EGFR M- disease. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Dabrafenib for Treating Unresectable, Advanced or Metastatic BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of dabrafenib, to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of dabrafenib for the treatment of unresectable, advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma in accordance with the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarizes the ERG's review of the evidence submitted by the company and provides a summary of the Appraisal Committee's (AC) final decision in October 2014. The clinical evidence for dabrafenib was derived from an ongoing phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicentre clinical trial (BREAK-3) involving 230 patients randomized 2:1 to receive either dabrafenib or dacarbazine. A significant improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS) but not overall survival (OS) was reported in the dabrafenib arm compared with dacarbazine. Vemurafenib is considered a more appropriate comparator than is dacarbazine. The clinical evidence for vemurafenib was derived from a completed phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicentre clinical trial (BRIM-3) involving 675 patients randomized 1:1 to receive either vemurafenib or dacarbazine. A significant improvement in median PFS and OS was reported in the vemurafenib arm compared with dacarbazine. As there is no direct evidence comparing dabrafenib versus vemurafenib, the company presented an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) that demonstrated no statistical differences between dabrafenib and vemurafenib for PFS or OS. The ERG expressed concerns with the ITC, mainly in relation to the validity of the assumptions underpinning the methodology; the ERG concluded this resulted in findings that are unlikely to be robust or reliable. Dabrafenib and vemurafenib are both available to patients treated by the National Health Service (NHS) in England via a Patient Access Scheme (PAS) in which the costs of the drugs are discounted. Using these discounted costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) generated by the company were £60,980 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for dabrafenib versus dacarbazine and £11,046 per QALY gained for dabrafenib versus vemurafenib. The ERG considered the economic model structure developed by the company to derive the ICERs to be overly complex and based on unsubstantiated assumptions, most importantly in relation to the projection of OS. Applying the latest OS data from BREAK-3 to a less complex model structure increased the estimated ICER for dabrafenib compared with dacarbazine from £60,980 to £112,727 per QALY gained. Since the results from the ITC were considered by the ERG to be neither reliable nor robust, the ERG also considered a cost-effectiveness comparison to be inappropriate due to a lack of meaningful or reliable data. In spite of limitations in the data, the AC took the view that dabrafenib and vemurafenib were "likely" of similar clinical effectiveness. Since the overall costs of these two drugs were similar, the AC recommended the use of dabrafenib in patients with unresectable, advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma.

Prasugrel (Efient®) with percutaneous coronary intervention for treating acute coronary syndromes (review of TA182): systematic review and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) are life-threatening conditions associated with acute myocardial ischaemia. There are three main types of ACS: ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina (UA). One treatment for ACS is percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus adjunctive treatment with antiplatelet drugs. Dual therapy antiplatelet treatment [aspirin plus either prasugrel (Efient(®), Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd UK/Eli Lilly and Company Ltd), clopidogrel or ticagrelor (Brilique(®), AstraZeneca)] is standard in UK clinical practice. Prasugrel is the focus of this review. OBJECTIVES: The remit is to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prasugrel within its licensed indication for the treatment of ACS with PCI and is a review of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence technology appraisal TA182. DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed) were searched from database inception to June 2013 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to August 2013 for economic evaluations comparing prasugrel with clopidogrel or ticagrelor in ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: Clinical outcomes included non-fatal and fatal cardiovascular (CV) events, adverse effects of treatment and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Cost-effectiveness outcomes included incremental cost per life-year gained and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. An independent economic model assessed four mutually exclusive subgroups: ACS patients treated with PCI for STEMI and with and without diabetes mellitus and ACS patients treated with PCI for UA or NSTEMI and with and without diabetes mellitus. RESULTS: No new RCTs were identified beyond that reported in TA182. TRITON-TIMI 38 (Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition with Prasugrel Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38) compared prasugrel with clopidogrel in ACS patients scheduled for PCI. No relevant economic evaluations were identified. Our analyses focused on a key subgroup of patients: those aged < 75 years who weighed > 60 kg (no previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack). For the primary composite end point (death from CV causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke) statistically significantly fewer events occurred in the prasugrel arm (8.3%) than in the clopidogrel arm (11%). No statistically significant difference in major bleeding events was noted. However, there was a significant difference in favour of clopidogrel when major and minor bleeding events were combined (3.0 vs. 3.9%). No conclusions could be drawn regarding HRQoL. The results of sensitivity analyses confirmed that it is likely that, for all four ACS subgroups, within 5-10 years prasugrel is a cost-effective treatment option compared with clopidogrel at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained. At the full 40-year time horizon, all estimates are < £10,000 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: Lack of data precluded a clinical comparison of prasugrel with ticagrelor; the comparative effectiveness of prasugrel compared with ticagrelor therefore remains unknown. The long-term modelling exercise is vulnerable to major assumptions about the continuation of early health outcome gains. CONCLUSION: A key strength of the review is that it demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel using the generic price of clopidogrel. Although the report demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel at a threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained, the long-term modelling is vulnerable to major assumptions regarding long-term gains. Lack of data precluded a clinical comparison of prasugrel with ticagrelor; the comparative effectiveness of prasugrel compared with ticagrelor therefore remains unknown. Well-audited data are needed from a long-term UK clinical registry on defined ACS patient groups treated with PCI who receive prasugrel, ticagrelor and clopidogrel. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005047. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Pertuzumab in combination with trastuzumab and docetaxel for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic or locally recurrent unresectable breast cancer.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of pertuzumab (Roche) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of pertuzumab + trastuzumab + docetaxel for the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic or locally recurrent unresectable breast cancer in accordance with the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the evidence submitted by the manufacturer and provides a summary of the Appraisal Committee's (AC) initial decision. At the time of writing, final guidance had not been published by NICE. The clinical evidence was mainly derived from an ongoing phase III randomised double-blind placebo-controlled international multicentre clinical trial (CLEOPATRA), designed to evaluate efficacy and safety in 808 patients, which compared pertuzumab + trastuzumab + docetaxel (pertuzumab arm) with placebo + trastuzumab + docetaxel (control arm). Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed at two data cut-off points-May 2011 (median follow-up of 18 months) and May 2012 (median follow-up of 30 months). At both time points, PFS was significantly longer in the pertuzumab arm (18.5 months compared with 12.4 months in the control arm at the first data cut-off point and 18.7 versus 12.4 months at the second data cut-off point). Assessment of OS benefit suggested an improvement for patients in the pertuzumab arm with a strong trend towards an OS benefit at the second data cut-off point; however, due to the immaturity of the OS data, the magnitude of the OS benefit was uncertain. Importantly, cardiotoxicity was not increased in patients treated with a combination of pertuzumab + trastuzumab + docetaxel. The ERG's main concern with the clinical effectiveness data was the lack of mature OS data. An additional concern of the AC was that the majority of patients in the randomised controlled trial were trastuzumab naïve, which does not reflect current clinical practice. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) generated by the manufacturer's model are considered to be commercial in confidence data and therefore cannot be published. Nevertheless, the results of the manufacturer's probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest that pertuzumab + trastuzumab + docetaxel has a 0 % probability of being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained when compared with trastuzumab + docetaxel. The ERG believes that more realistic estimates of the ICERs are considerably higher, almost double those presented by the manufacturer. This is because the ERG believes that due to the manner in which the economic model is constructed, the additional survival benefit following disease progression that is generated for patients treated with pemetrexed + trastuzumab + docetaxel is unrealistic. At the time of writing, NICE had not made a final decision regarding this technology but had instead referred the issue of the assessment of technologies that are not effective at a zero price to their Decision Support Unit for advice.

Eribulin for the treatment of advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of eribulin (Eisai Ltd) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of eribulin as treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LABC/MBC) pre-treated with at least two chemotherapy regimens. This article summarizes the review of evidence by the Evidence Review Group (ERG) and provides a summary of the NICE Appraisal Committee's (AC's) decision. The clinical evidence was derived from a multi-centred, open-label, randomized, phase III study comparing eribulin with treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in 762 patients with LABC/MBC. Clinical effectiveness results were submitted for two populations: the overall intention-to-treat (ITT) population and a subset (n = 488) that included only patients from North America, Western Europe and Australia (Region 1). For the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS), a primary analysis (after 55 % of patients had died) and an updated analysis (after 77 % of patients had died) were conducted. In the ITT population, treatment with eribulin was associated with a significant improvement in median OS compared with TPC in both primary [difference in median OS 2.5 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.99] and updated analyses (2.7 months; HR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.67-0.96). A statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) was reported for eribulin compared with TPC when assessed by the investigator (difference in median PFS 1.48 months; HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.64-0.90), but not when assessed by the ERG (1.44 months; HR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.71-1.05). Gains in OS were greater for Region 1 patients than for the ITT population (3.1 vs. 2.7 months). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data suggested a benefit for eribulin responders, but was based on phase II studies. In the eribulin arm, serious adverse events included febrile neutropenia (4.2 %) and neutropenia (1.8 %), with peripheral neuropathy being the most common reason for treatment discontinuation. The manufacturer's economic evaluation using Patient Access Scheme costs reported a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for eribulin versus TPC (Region 1) of £46,050 per quality-adjusted life year gained (corrected to £45,106 when an erroneous data entry was removed). The ERG's revised ICERs were £61,804 for Region 1 and £76,110 for the overall population. The AC concluded that the evidence had not demonstrated sufficient benefit in OS, cost effectiveness or HRQoL and that eribulin was not recommended for use in this patient group.

Survival analysis and extrapolation modeling of time-to-event clinical trial data for economic evaluation: an alternative approach.

A recent publication includes a review of survival extrapolation methods used in technology appraisals of treatments for advanced cancers. The author of the article also noted shortcomings and inconsistencies in the analytical methods used in appraisals. He then proposed a survival model selection process algorithm to guide modelers' choice of projective models for use in future appraisals. This article examines the proposed algorithm and highlights various shortcomings that involve questionable assumptions, including researchers' access to patient-level data, the relevance of proportional hazards modeling, and the appropriateness of standard probability functions for characterizing risk, which may mislead practitioners into employing biased structures for projecting limited data in decision models. An alternative paradigm is outlined. This paradigm is based on the primacy of the experimental data and adherence to the scientific method through hypothesis formulation and validation. Drawing on extensive experience of survival modeling and extrapolation in the United Kingdom, practical advice is presented on issues of importance when using data from clinical trials terminated without complete follow-up as a basis for survival extrapolation.