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 health state utility values for thyroid cancer.

PURPOSE: Health state utility values are commonly used to inform economic evaluations and determine the cost-effectiveness of an intervention. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the utility values available to represent the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with thyroid cancer. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched from January 1999 to April 2019 for studies which included assessment of HRQoL for patients with thyroid cancer. Utility estimates derived from multiple sources (EuroQol questionnaire 5-dimension (EQ-5D), time trade-off [TTO] and standard gamble [SG] methods) were extracted. In addition, utility estimates were generated by mapping from SF-36 and EORTC QLQ-30 to the EQ-5D-3L UK value set using published mapping algorithms. RESULTS: Searches identified 33 eligible studies. Twenty-six studies reported HRQoL for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer and seven studies for patients with general thyroid cancer. We identified studies which used different methods and tools to quantify the HRQoL in patients with thyroid cancer, such as the EQ-5D-3L, SF-36, EORTC QLQ-30 and SG and TTO techniques to estimate utility values. Utility estimates range from 0.205 (patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer) to utility values approximate to the average UK population (following successful thyroidectomy surgery and radioiodine treatment). Utility estimates for different health states, across thyroid cancer sub-types and interventions are presented. CONCLUSION: A catalogue of utility values is provided for use when carrying out economic modelling of thyroid cancer; by including mapped values, this approach broadens the scope of health states that can be considered within cost-effectiveness modelling.

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.

Care delivery and self-management strategies for children with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: In response to criticism that epilepsy care for children has little impact, healthcare professionals and administrators have developed various service models and strategies to address perceived inadequacies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention for epilepsy versus usual care in children with epilepsy and in their families. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (27 September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to 27 September 2016), Embase (1974 to 27 September 2016), PsycINFO (1887 to 27 September 2016) and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 27 September 2016). In addition, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing or recently completed trials, contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or other prospective studies with a (matched or unmatched) control group (controlled before-and-after studies), or time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Our review included six interventions reported through seven studies (of which five studies were designed as RCTs). They reported on different education and counselling programmes for children and parents; teenagers and parents; or children, adolescents and their parents. Each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy, but all had methodological flaws (e.g. in one of the studies designed as an RCT, randomisation failed), no single programme was independently evaluated with different study samples and no interventions were sufficiently homogeneous enough to be included in a meta-analysis,. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While each of the programmes in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impacts were extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes, and all studies had major methodological problems. At present there is insufficient evidence in favour of any single programme.

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.

An assessment of the impact of pharmacogenomics on health disparities: a systematic literature review.

This review assessed evidence of disparities in benefits of pharmacogenomics related to 'model performance' in subgroups of patients and studies which reported impact on health inequalities. 'Model performance' refers to the ability of algorithms including clinical, environmental and genetic information to guide treatment. A total of 4978 abstracts were screened by one reviewer and 30% (1494) were double screened by a second independent reviewer, after which data extraction was performed. Additional forward and backward citation searching of reference lists was conducted. Investigators independently double rated study quality and applicability of included studies. Only five individual studies were identified which met our inclusion criteria, but were contradictory in their conclusions. While three studies of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin reported that ethnic disparities in healthcare may widen, two other studies (one reporting on warfarin and reporting on clopidogrel) suggested that disparities in healthcare may reduce. There is a paucity of studies which evaluates the impact of pharmacogenomics on health disparities. Further work is required not only to evaluate health disparities between ethnic groups and countries but also within ethnic groups in the same country and solutions need to be identified to overcome these disparities.

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 heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory problems are one of the most common causes of morbidity in preterm infants and may be treated with several modalities for respiratory support such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. The heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To address the clinical effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care for preterm infants we systematically reviewed the evidence of HHHFNC with usual care following ventilation (the primary analysis) and with no prior ventilation (the secondary analysis). The primary outcome was treatment failure defined as the need for reintubation (primary analysis) or intubation (secondary analysis). We also aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care if evidence permitted. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (2000 to 12 January 2015), EMBASE (2000 to 12 January 2015), The Cochrane Library (issue 1, 2015), ISI Web of Science (2000 to 12 January 2015), PubMed (1 March 2014 to 12 January 2015) and seven trial and research registers. Bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Full-text copies were assessed independently. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias. Summary statistics were extracted for each outcome and, when possible, data were pooled. A meta-analysis was only conducted for the primary analysis, using fixed-effects models. An economic evaluation was planned. RESULTS: Clinical evidence was derived from seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs): four RCTs for the primary analysis and three RCTs for the secondary analysis. Meta-analysis found that only for nasal trauma leading to a change of treatment was there a statistically significant difference, favouring HHHFNC over NCPAP [risk ratio (RR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.42]. For the following outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between arms: treatment failure (reintubation < 7 days; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.09), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.17), death (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.44), pneumothorax (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.12), intraventricular haemorrhage (grade ≥ 3; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.15), necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.14), apnoea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57) and acidosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.58). With no evidence to support the superiority of HHHFNC over NCPAP, a cost-minimisation analysis was undertaken, the results suggesting HHHFNC to be less costly than NCPAP. However, this finding is sensitive to the lifespan of equipment and the cost differential of consumables. LIMITATIONS: There is a lack of published RCTs of relatively large-sized populations comparing HHHFNC with usual care; this is particularly true for preterm infants who had received no prior ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of convincing evidence suggesting that HHHFNC is superior or inferior to usual care, in particular NCPAP. There is also uncertainty regarding whether or not HHHFNC can be considered cost-effective. Further evidence comparing HHHFNC with usual care is required. STUDY REGISTRATION: This review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015015978. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Care delivery and self management strategies for adults with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have criticised epilepsy care for adults for its lack of impact, stimulating the development of various service models and strategies to respond to perceived inadequacies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention beyond that of usual care in adults with epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to June 2013), EMBASE (1988 to June 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to December 2013) and CINAHL (1937 to December 2013). In addition, we contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, controlled or matched trials, cohort studies or other prospective studies with a control group, and time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted all data, and assessed the quality of all included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Our review included 18 different studies of 16 separate interventions, which we classified into seven distinct groups. Most of the studies have methodological weaknesses, and many results from other analyses within studies need to be interpreted with caution because of study limitations. Consequently, there is currently limited evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and quality of life in people with epilepsy. It was not possible to combine study results in a meta-analysis because of the heterogeneity of outcomes, study populations, interventions and time scales across the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Two intervention types, the specialist epilepsy nurse and self management education, have some evidence of benefit. However, we did not find clear evidence that other service models substantially improve outcomes for adults with epilepsy. It is also possible that benefits are situation specific and may not apply to other settings. These studies included only a small number of service providers whose individual competence or expertise may have had a significant impact on outcomes. At present it is not possible to advocate any single model of service provision.

Care delivery and self management strategies for children with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy care for children has been criticised for its lack of impact. Various service models and strategies have been developed in response to perceived inadequacies in care provision for children and their families. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of any specialised or dedicated intervention for the care of children with epilepsy and their families to the effectiveness of usual care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2013,Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to June week 2, 2013), EMBASE (1988 to week 25, 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to 11 December 2013) and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 11 December 2013). In addition, we contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled or matched trials, cohort studies or other prospective studies with a control group (controlled before-and-after studies), or time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Each review author independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included five interventions reported in seven study reports (of which only four studies of three interventions were designed as RCTs) in this review. They reported on different education and counselling programmes for children, children and parents, teenagers and parents, or children, adolescents and their parents. Each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy, but each study had methodological flaws (e.g. in one of the studies designed as an RCT, randomisation failed) and no single programme was independently evaluated by more than one study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While each of the programmes in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impacts were extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes. No study appeared to have demonstrated any detrimental effects but the evidence in favour of any single programme was insufficient to make it possible to recommend one programme rather than another. More studies, carried out by independent research teams, are needed.

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.

Economic evaluations of personalized medicine: existing challenges and current developments.

Personalized medicine, with the aim of safely, effectively, and cost-effectively targeting treatment to a prespecified patient population, has always been a long-time goal within health care. It is often argued that personalizing treatment will inevitably improve clinical outcomes for patients and help achieve more effective use of health care resources. Demand is increasing for demonstrable evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness to support the use of personalized medicine in health care. This paper begins with an overview of the existing challenges in conducting economic evaluations of genetics- and genomics-targeted technologies, as an example of personalized medicine. Our paper illustrates the complexity of the challenges faced by these technologies by highlighting the variations in the issues faced by diagnostic tests for somatic variations, generally referring to genetic variation in a tumor, and germline variations, generally referring to inherited genetic variation in enzymes involved in drug metabolic pathways. These tests are typically aimed at stratifying patient populations into subgroups on the basis of clinical effectiveness (response) or safety (avoidance of adverse events). The paper summarizes the data requirements for economic evaluations of genetics and genomics-based technologies while outlining that the main challenges relating to data requirements revolve around the availability and quality of existing data. We conclude by discussing current developments aimed to address the challenges of assessing the cost-effectiveness of genetics and genomics-based technologies, which revolve around two central issues that are interlinked: the need to adapt available evaluation methods and identifying who is responsible for generating evidence for these technologies.

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.

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.

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.

Allopurinol for the treatment of chronic kidney disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The term chronic kidney disease (CKD) is used to describe abnormal kidney function (or structure). People with CKD have an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Evidence is emerging that allopurinol may have a role to play in slowing down the progression of CKD and reducing the risk of CVD. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review addresses the research question: does allopurinol reduce mortality, the progression of chronic kidney disease or cardiovascular risk in people with CKD? DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched on 7 January 2013: MEDLINE (1946 to 7 January 2013), EMBASE (1974 to 28 December 2012), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2013) and ClinicalTrials.gov. Bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined and two manufacturers of allopurinol were approached for data. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Full-text copies were assessed independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias by one reviewer and independently checked for accuracy by a second. Summary statistics were extracted for each outcome and, where possible, data were pooled. Meta-analysis was carried out using fixed-effects models. RESULTS: Efficacy evidence was derived solely from four randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Adverse event (AE) data were derived from the RCTs and 21 observational studies. Progression of CKD was measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in three trials and by changes in serum creatinine in the other. No significant differences in eGFR over time were reported. The only significant difference between groups was reported in one trial at 24 months favouring allopurinol [eGFR: 42.2 ml/minute/1.73 m(2), standard deviation (SD) 13.2 vs. 35.9 ml/minute/1.73 m(2), SD 12.3 ml/minute/1.73 m(2); p < 0.001]. In this same trial, there were twice as many cardiovascular events in the control arm (27%) as in the allopurinol arm (12%). Another trial reported an improvement in CKD progression as measured by serum creatinine in the allopurinol arm. No significant differences were reported in blood pressure between treatment groups in the meta-analyses. The incidence of AEs was estimated to be around 9% from all studies. The incidence of severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), which typically occurred within the first 2 months after allopurinol commencement, was reported to be 2% in two studies. Evidence for whether or not AEs and SCARs were dose related was conflicting. Not all patients had CKD in these studies. LIMITATIONS: None of the included studies reported concealment of allocation, one of the greatest risks to study validity. Relatively few (< 115) patients were enrolled in any RCT. For studies reporting AEs, the main limitation is the heterogeneity across studies. No studies examining quality-of-life measures were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence that allopurinol reduces CKD progression or cardiovascular events. It appears that AEs and in particular serious adverse events attributable to allopurinol are rare. However, the exact incidence of AEs in patients with CKD is unknown. Direct evidence for the impact of allopurinol on quality of life is lacking. Given the uncertainties in the evidence base, additional RCT evidence comparing allopurinol with usual care is required, accompanied by supporting data from observational studies of patients with CKD and using allopurinol. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003642. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Are health technology assessments of pharmacogenetic tests feasible? A case study of CYP2D6 testing in the treatment of breast cancer with tamoxifen.

This paper reports the process and experience of the design and conduct of a UK-based health technology assessment (HTA) of CYP2D6 pharmacogenetic testing to inform the targeted use of tamoxifen for the treatment of breast cancer. Examples of particular challenges for conducting a HTA are highlighted. It is clear from the HTA process described here that a common finding of similar future HTAs will have gaps in the evidence base, particularly in relation to evidence to inform cost-effectiveness. The lack of evidence is likely to be sufficiently large to result in extreme uncertainty and possibly decisions not to recommend a pharmacogenetic test for use in clinical practice. This has clear negative implications, which may hamper moving pharmacogenetic tests from the research environment into clinical practice and requires attention from both manufacturers of pharmacogenetic tests and key decision-makers responsible for market authorization and reimbursement.

Cetuximab for recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a NICE single technology appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of cetuximab (Merck Serono) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cetuximab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy (CTX) for the treatment of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (SCCHN) according to the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group 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 manufacturer. A summary of the Appraisal Committee (AC) decision is provided. The ERG reviewed the clinical evidence in accordance with the decision problem defined by NICE. The analysis of the submitted model assessed the appropriateness of the manufacturer's approach to modelling the decision problem, the reliability of model implementation and the extent of conformity to published standards and prevailing norms of practice within the health economics modelling community. Particular attention was paid to issues likely to impact substantially on the base-case cost-effectiveness results. Clinical-effectiveness evidence was derived from a single randomized controlled trial (RCT). Results presented for clinical outcomes were strongly supportive of benefits resulting from the use of cetuximab. Cetuximab + platinum-based CTX with 5 fluorouracil (5-FU) extended median overall survival (OS) from 7.4 months in the CTX group to 10.1 months in the cetuximab + CTX group. Median progression-free survival rose from 3.3 months to 5.6 months, best overall response to therapy increased from 19.5% to 35.6%, disease control rate rose from 60% to 81.1% and median time to treatment failure was 4.8 months compared with 3.0 months. Exploratory subgroup analyses indicated significant OS benefits in 11 of 16 pre-planned analyses. The ERG identified a number of issues relating to the clinical-effectiveness results: consideration was limited to first-line use of cetuximab; patients in the trial were younger and fitter than those presenting in UK clinical practice; there was no evidence of survival advantage for patients with metastatic disease; there was no evidence of effectiveness in patients not cetuximab-naive; and the quality-of-life data were poor. The submitted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was considerably above the NICE threshold. The ERG questioned the submitted economic model on a number of grounds: the rationale for creating an economic model rather than direct analysis of trial data; the use of Weibull functions for survival models; inaccurate CTX costs; selection of health state utilities; inaccurate unit costs; and lack of mid-cycle correction. After amending the model, the ERG considered the use of cetuximab to be not cost effective for NICE at any price. The AC concluded that cetuximab in combination with platinum-based CTX should not be recommended for the treatment of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN. Patients already receiving this treatment for this indication should have the option to continue treatment until they and their clinician consider it appropriate to stop. This was the first appraisal to consider the end-of-life medicines criteria introduced by NICE in January 2009.