Fulvestrant for Untreated Hormone-Receptor Positive Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence on fulvestrant for untreated hormone-receptor positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer was submitted to the single technology appraisal process of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence by the manufacturer of fulvestrant. The Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre was commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as an independent Evidence Review Group to critique the company's submitted evidence. Fulvestrant was compared directly with anastrozole in two randomised controlled trials and was compared indirectly by means of a network meta-analysis with anastrozole, letrozole and tamoxifen. This article summarises the Evidence Review Group's review of the company's submission and summarises the guidance the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Appraisal Committee issued in January 2018. The Evidence Review Group had several concerns, the most important of which related to the degree to which fulvestrant might confer a benefit in overall survival. This was because mature data were not available from the key phase III trial FALCON. The economic model was sensitive to changes in overall survival and the Evidence Review Group considered the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was uncertain and likely to increase once mature results from FALCON become available. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Appraisal Committee concluded that fulvestrant could not be recommended for treating locally advanced or metastatic estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women who have not received previous endocrine therapy.

Etelcalcetide for Treating Secondary Hyperparathyroidism: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The manufacturer of the calcimimetic drug etelcalcetide was invited to make an evidence submission as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) programme. Within this submission, they reported evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of etelcalcetide for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on haemodialysis. The Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), part of the Wessex Institute at the University of Southampton, was the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG) commissioned to appraise the company's submission. This article describes the ERG's review and critique of the company's submission and summarises the NICE Appraisal Committee's subsequent guidance (issued in June 2017). The clinical-effectiveness evidence submitted by the company consisted of two double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing etelcalcetide with placebo, one RCT comparing etelcalcetide with cinacalcet, two single-arm extension studies of the above trials, and one single-arm study evaluating the effect of switching from cinacalcet to etelcalcetide. No study specifically examined the population specified in the NICE appraisal scope: patients refractory to standard therapy with phosphate binders and vitamin D (PBVD). None of these trials were designed to collect long-term efficacy data for outcomes such as mortality, bone fractures, cardiovascular events, or parathyroidectomies. Instead, biomarker data from the trials were mapped to long-term outcomes by an assumed linear relationship between the trial outcome, reduction of parathyroid hormone (PTH) by > 30%, and the log-hazard ratios for the occurrence of clinical events derived from a large, long-term RCT of cinacalcet (the EVOLVE trial). After submission of a confidential Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount reducing etelcalcetide drug costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for etelcalcetide versus cinacalcet was £14,778 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in the company's base case. While this value is lower than the NICE threshold range of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, it was the opinion of the ERG that the ICER was highly uncertain due to efficacy data limitations for etelcalcetide, inadequate synthesis of clinical-effectiveness evidence, and strong assumptions connecting short-term biomarker data with long-term clinical outcomes. The ERG produced an alternative base case for etelcalcetide versus cinacalcet, with an ICER of £22,400 per QALY gained, also subject to uncertainty. The NICE Appraisal Committee recommended etelcalcetide as an option for the treatment of SHPT in adults with CKD only if treatment with a calcimimetic is indicated and cinacalcet is not suitable, subject to the company's provision of the agreed PAS discount.

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

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

Virtual chromoendoscopy for the real-time assessment of colorectal polyps in vivo: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical practice is to remove a colorectal polyp detected during colonoscopy and determine whether it is an adenoma or hyperplastic by histopathology. Identifying adenomas is important because they may eventually become cancerous if untreated, whereas hyperplastic polyps do not usually develop into cancer, and a surveillance interval is set based on the number and size of adenomas found. Virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) (an electronic endoscopic imaging technique) could be used by the endoscopist under strictly controlled conditions for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps to replace histopathological diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the VCE technologies narrow-band imaging (NBI), flexible spectral imaging colour enhancement (FICE) and i-scan for the characterisation and management of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps using high-definition (HD) systems without magnification. DESIGN: Systematic review and economic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: People undergoing colonoscopy for screening or surveillance or to investigate symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer. INTERVENTIONS: NBI, FICE and i-scan. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy, recommended surveillance intervals, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse effects, incidence of colorectal cancer, mortality and cost-effectiveness of VCE compared with histopathology. DATA SOURCES: Electronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for published English-language studies from inception to June 2016. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company information were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of test accuracy and economic evaluations were undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were conducted, where possible, to inform the independent economic model. A cost-utility decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of VCE compared with histopathology. The model used a decision tree for patients undergoing endoscopy, combined with estimates of long-term outcomes (e.g. incidence of colorectal cancer and subsequent morbidity and mortality) derived from University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research's bowel cancer screening model. The model took a NHS perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5% over a lifetime horizon. There were limitations in the data on the distribution of adenomas across risk categories and recurrence rates post polypectomy. RESULTS: Thirty test accuracy studies were included: 24 for NBI, five for i-scan and three for FICE (two studies assessed two interventions). Polyp assessments made with high confidence were associated with higher sensitivity and endoscopists experienced in VCE achieved better results than those without experience. Two economic evaluations were included. NBI, i-scan and FICE are cost-saving strategies compared with histopathology and the number of quality-adjusted life-years gained was similar for histopathology and VCE. The correct surveillance interval would be given to 95% of patients with NBI, 94% of patients with FICE and 97% of patients with i-scan. LIMITATIONS: Limited evidence was available for i-scan and FICE and there was heterogeneity among the NBI studies. There is a lack of data on longer-term health outcomes of patients undergoing VCE for assessment of diminutive colorectal polyps. CONCLUSIONS: VCE technologies, using HD systems without magnification, could potentially be used for the real-time assessment of diminutive colorectal polyps, if endoscopists have adequate experience and training. FUTURE WORK: Future research priorities include head-to-head randomised controlled trials of all three VCE technologies; more research on the diagnostic accuracy of FICE and i-scan (when used without magnification); further studies evaluating the impact of endoscopist experience and training on outcomes; studies measuring adverse effects, HRQoL and anxiety; and longitudinal data on colorectal cancer incidence, HRQoL and mortality. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037767. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is characterised by joint pain, swelling and a limitation of movement caused by inflammation. Subsequent joint damage can lead to disability and growth restriction. Treatment commonly includes disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate. Clinical practice now favours newer drugs termed biologic DMARDs where indicated. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four biologic DMARDs [etanercept (Enbrel(®), Pfizer), abatacept (Orencia(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), adalimumab (Humira(®), AbbVie) and tocilizumab (RoActemra(®), Roche) - with or without methotrexate where indicated] for the treatment of JIA (systemic or oligoarticular JIA are excluded). DATA SOURCES: Electronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for published studies from inception to May 2015 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company submissions were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A cost-utility decision-analytic model was developed to compare the estimated cost-effectiveness of biologic DMARDs versus methotrexate. The base-case time horizon was 30 years and the model took a NHS perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Four placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness review (one RCT evaluating each biologic DMARD). Only one RCT included UK participants. Participants had to achieve an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric (ACR Pedi)-30 response to open-label lead-in treatment in order to be randomised. An exploratory adjusted indirect comparison suggests that the four biologic DMARDs are similar, with fewer disease flares and greater proportions of ACR Pedi-50 and -70 responses among participants randomised to continued biologic DMARDs. However, confidence intervals were wide, the number of trials was low and there was clinical heterogeneity between trials. Open-label extensions of the trials showed that, generally, ACR responses remained constant or even increased after the double-blind phase. The proportions of adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Four economic evaluations of biologic DMARDs for patients with JIA were identified but all had limitations. Two quality-of-life studies were included, one of which informed the cost-utility model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab versus methotrexate were £38,127, £32,526 and £38,656 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively. The ICER for abatacept versus methotrexate as a second-line biologic was £39,536 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: The model does not incorporate the natural history of JIA in terms of long-term disease progression, as the current evidence is limited. There are no head-to-head trials of biologic DMARDs, and clinical evidence for specific JIA subtypes is limited. CONCLUSIONS: Biologic DMARDs are superior to placebo (with methotrexate where permitted) in children with (predominantly) polyarticular course JIA who have had an insufficient response to previous treatment. Randomised comparisons of biologic DMARDs with long-term efficacy and safety follow-up are needed to establish comparative effectiveness. RCTs for JIA subtypes for which evidence is lacking are also required. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016459. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The cost-effectiveness of second-eye cataract surgery in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Elective cataract surgery is the most commonly performed surgical procedure in developed countries. However, it is unclear whether cataract surgery on the second eye provides enough incremental benefit to be considered cost-effective. This study conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of second-eye cataract surgery in the U.K. DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: A decision-analytical model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of second-eye cataract surgery, based on a comprehensive epidemiological and economic review to develop the parameters for the model. The model followed the clinical pathway of cohorts of patients receiving second-eye cataract surgery and included costs and health benefits associated with post-surgical complications. RESULTS: In the model, second-eye surgery generated 0.68 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALY) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,964 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, model results were most sensitive to changes in the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) gain associated with second-eye surgery, but otherwise robust to changes in parameter values. The probability that second-eye surgery is cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds of £10,000 and £20,000 was 100%. CONCLUSION: Second-eye cataract surgery is generally cost-effective based on the best available data and under most assumptions. However, there are only a small number of clinical trials for second-eye cataract surgery, and these have not been conducted in recent years.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of second-eye cataract surgery: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Elective cataract surgery is the most commonly performed surgical procedure in the NHS. In bilateral cataracts, the eye with greatest vision impairment from cataract is operated on first. First-eye surgery can improve vision and quality of life. However, it is unclear whether or not cataract surgery on the second eye provides enough incremental benefit to be considered clinically effective and cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and analysis of cost-effectiveness of second-eye cataract surgery in England and Wales, based on an economic model informed by systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness and quality of life. DATA SOURCES: Twelve electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases were searched from database inception to April 2013, with searches updated in July 2013. Reference lists of relevant publications were also checked and experts consulted. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened references, extracted and checked data from the included studies and appraised their risk of bias. Based on the review of cost-effectiveness, a de novo economic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of second-eye surgery in bilateral cataract patients. The model is based on changes in quality of life following second-eye surgery and includes post-surgical complications. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of clinical effectiveness, three studies of cost-effectiveness and 10 studies of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) met the inclusion criteria for the systematic reviews and, where possible, were used to inform the economic analysis. Heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analyses, and instead data were synthesised narratively. The RCTs assessed visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, stereopsis and several measures of HRQoL. Improvements in binocular visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were small and unlikely to be of clinical significance, but stereopsis was improved to a clinically meaningful extent following second-eye surgery. Studies did not provide evidence that second-eye surgery significantly affected HRQoL, apart from an improvement in the mental health component of HRQoL in one RCT. In the model, second-eye surgery generated 0.68 incremental quality-adjusted life-years with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1964. Model results were most sensitive to changes in the utility gain associated with second-eye surgery, but otherwise robust to changes in parameter values. The probability that second-eye surgery is cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £10,000 and £20,000 is 100%. LIMITATIONS: Clinical effectiveness studies were all conducted more than 9 years ago. Patients had good vision pre surgery which may not represent all patients eligible for second-eye surgery. For some vision-related patient-reported outcomes and HRQoL measures, thresholds for determining important clinical effects are either unclear or have not been determined. CONCLUSIONS: Second-eye cataract surgery is generally cost-effective based on the best available data and under most assumptions. However, more up-to-date data are needed. A well-conducted RCT that reflects current populations and enables the estimation of health state utility values would be appropriate. Guidance is required on which vision-related, patient-reported outcomes are suitable for assessing effects of cataract surgery in the NHS and how these measures should be interpreted clinically. STUDY REGISTRATION: This project is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004211. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for the treatment of arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy for the treatment of heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: This assessment updates and expands on two previous technology assessments that evaluated implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) for heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICDs in addition to optimal pharmacological therapy (OPT) for people at increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) as a result of ventricular arrhythmias despite receiving OPT; to assess CRT with or without a defibrillator (CRT-D or CRT-P) in addition to OPT for people with HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and cardiac dyssynchrony despite receiving OPT; and to assess CRT-D in addition to OPT for people with both conditions. DATA SOURCES: Electronic resources including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2012. Additional studies were sought from reference lists, clinical experts and manufacturers' submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Data were synthesised through narrative review and meta-analyses. For the three populations above, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing (1) ICD with standard therapy, (2) CRT-P or CRT-D with each other or with OPT and (3) CRT-D with OPT, CRT-P or ICD were eligible. Outcomes included mortality, adverse events and quality of life. A previously developed Markov model was adapted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of OPT, ICDs, CRT-P and CRT-D in the three populations by simulating disease progression calculated at 4-weekly cycles over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: A total of 4556 references were identified, of which 26 RCTs were included in the review: 13 compared ICD with medical therapy, four compared CRT-P/CRT-D with OPT and nine compared CRT-D with ICD. ICDs reduced all-cause mortality in people at increased risk of SCD, defined in trials as those with previous ventricular arrhythmias/cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction (MI) > 3 weeks previously, non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (depending on data included) or ischaemic/non-ischaemic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%. There was no benefit in people scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft. A reduction in SCD but not all-cause mortality was found in people with recent MI. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £14,231 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) to £29,756 per QALY for the scenarios modelled. CRT-P and CRT-D reduced mortality and HF hospitalisations, and improved other outcomes, in people with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony when compared with OPT. The rate of SCD was lower with CRT-D than with CRT-P but other outcomes were similar. CRT-P and CRT-D compared with OPT produced ICERs of £27,584 per QALY and £27,899 per QALY respectively. The ICER for CRT-D compared with CRT-P was £28,420 per QALY. In people with both conditions, CRT-D reduced the risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalisation, and improved other outcomes, compared with ICDs. Complications were more common with CRT-D. Initial management with OPT alone was most cost-effective (ICER £2824 per QALY compared with ICD) when health-related quality of life was kept constant over time. Costs and QALYs for CRT-D and CRT-P were similar. The ICER for CRT-D compared with ICD was £27,195 per QALY and that for CRT-D compared with OPT was £35,193 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the model include the structural assumptions made about disease progression and treatment provision, the extrapolation of trial survival estimates over time and the assumptions made around parameter values when evidence was not available for specific patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: In people at risk of SCD as a result of ventricular arrhythmias and in those with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony, the interventions modelled produced ICERs of < £30,000 per QALY gained. In people with both conditions, the ICER for CRT-D compared with ICD, but not CRT-D compared with OPT, was < £30,000 per QALY, and the costs and QALYs for CRT-D and CRT-P were similar. A RCT comparing CRT-D and CRT-P in people with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony is required, for both those with and those without an ICD indication. A RCT is also needed into the benefits of ICD in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy in the absence of dyssynchrony. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO number CRD42012002062. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Educational interventions for preventing vascular catheter bloodstream infections in critical care: evidence map, systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infections resulting from intravascular catheters (catheter-BSI) in critical care increase patients' length of stay, morbidity and mortality, and the management of these infections and their complications has been estimated to cost the NHS annually £19.1-36.2M. Catheter-BSI are thought to be largely preventable using educational interventions, but guidance as to which types of intervention might be most clinically effective is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of educational interventions for preventing catheter-BSI in critical care units in England. DATA SOURCES: Sixteen electronic bibliographic databases - including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases - were searched from database inception to February 2011, with searches updated in March 2012. Bibliographies of systematic reviews and related papers were screened and experts contacted to identify any additional references. REVIEW METHODS: References were screened independently by two reviewers using a priori selection criteria. A descriptive map was created to summarise the characteristics of relevant studies. Further selection criteria developed in consultation with the project Advisory Group were used to prioritise a subset of studies relevant to NHS practice and policy for systematic review. A decision-analytic economic model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of educational interventions for preventing catheter-BSI. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies were included in the descriptive map, of which 24 were prioritised for systematic review. Studies have predominantly been conducted in the USA, using single-cohort before-and-after study designs. Diverse types of educational intervention appear effective at reducing the incidence density of catheter-BSI (risk ratios statistically significantly < 1.0), but single lectures were not effective. The economic model showed that implementing an educational intervention in critical care units in England would be cost-effective and potentially cost-saving, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios under worst-case sensitivity analyses of < £5000/quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: Low-quality primary studies cannot definitively prove that the planned interventions were responsible for observed changes in catheter-BSI incidence. Poor reporting gave unclear estimates of risk of bias. Some model parameters were sourced from other locations owing to a lack of UK data. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that it would be cost-effective and may be cost-saving for the NHS to implement educational interventions in critical care units. However, more robust primary studies are needed to exclude the possible influence of secular trends on observed reductions in catheter-BSI. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered with PROSPERO as CRD42012001840. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Topotecan for relapsed small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Topotecan is a relatively new drug for use as a second-line treatment in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We performed a systematic review and economic evaluation of topotecan, and consider it here in relation to the NICE end of life criteria. METHODS: Seventeen bibliographic databases (including Cochrane library, Medline and Embase) were searched from 1990 to February 2009, and experts and manufacturers were consulted, to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which were selected according to prospectively defined criteria. An economic evaluation was undertaken to assess cost effectiveness compared with best supportive care (BSC) in the UK. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included. The clinical evidence indicates a statistically significant benefit of oral topotecan plus BSC compared to BSC alone for overall survival. Intravenous topotecan was similar in efficacy to both oral topotecan and CAV (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and vincristine). In the survival model, oral topotecan plus BSC was associated with an average gain in life expectancy of approximately 4 months, resulting in a gain of 0.183 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). At an incremental cost of approximately £6200 the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) is £33,851 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BSC alone, oral topotecan for patients with relapsed SCLC was associated with improved health outcomes but at increased cost. The ICER is at the upper extreme of the range conventionally regarded as cost effective from an NHS decision making perspective. However, this treatment may fall under supplementary guidance for life extending, end of life treatments.