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.

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.

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.

Rituximab for the first-line maintenance treatment of follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma : a NICE single technology appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of rituximab (RTX) [Roche] to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of RTX as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (fNHL) whose disease has responded to induction therapy with RTX plus cytotoxic chemotherapy (R-CTX) 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 manufacturer and provides a summary of the Appraisal Committee's (AC) decision. The clinical evidence was derived from a multi-centred, open-label, randomized phase III study (PRIMA) comparing first-line maintenance treatment with RTX with observation only in 1,018 patients with previously untreated advanced fNHL. Median time to event (MTE) for the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) in the RTX arm was not estimable due to data immaturity; median PFS in the observation arm was 48.36 months. A statistically significant benefit of RTX maintenance therapy for PFS was reported (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95 % CI 0.44-0.68; p < 0.0001). Statistically significant differences in favour of RTX were also reported for a range of secondary endpoints. Assessment of overall survival benefit could be not made due to insufficient events. The ERG's main concern with the clinical-effectiveness data presented was their lack of maturity. The submitted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was within the NICE threshold. The ERG questioned the model on a number of grounds, particularly the use of Markov methodology rather than patient simulations, the impact of patient age on the outcome and the projective PFS modelling. The ERG considered it impossible to draw firm conclusions regarding the clinical or cost effectiveness of the intervention as the dataset was as yet too immature. At a third meeting, the AC concluded that RTX could be recommended as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with fNHL whose disease has responded to induction R-CTX.

Venom immunotherapy for preventing allergic reactions to insect stings.

BACKGROUND: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is commonly used for preventing further allergic reactions to insect stings in people who have had a sting reaction. The efficacy and safety of this treatment has not previously been assessed by a high-quality systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of immunotherapy using extracted insect venom for preventing further allergic reactions to insect stings in people who have had an allergic reaction to a sting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to February 2012: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1806), AMED (from 1985), LILACS (from 1982), the Armed Forces Pest Management Board Literature Retrieval System, and OpenGrey. There were no language or publication status restrictions to our searches. We searched trials databases, abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings, and the references of identified review articles in order to identify further relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of venom immunotherapy using standardised venom extract in insect sting allergy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias. We identified adverse events from included controlled trials and from a separate analysis of observational studies identified as part of a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Health Technology Assessment. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 6 randomised controlled trials and 1 quasi-randomised controlled trial for inclusion in the review; the total number of participants was 392. The trials had some risk of bias because five of the trials did not blind outcome assessors to treatment allocation. The interventions included ant, bee, and wasp immunotherapy in children or adults with previous systemic or large local reactions to a sting, using sublingual (one trial) or subcutaneous (six trials) VIT. We found that VIT is effective for preventing systemic allergic reaction to an insect sting, which was our primary outcome measure. This applies whether the sting occurs accidentally or is given intentionally as part of a trial procedure.In the trials, 3/113 (2.7%) participants treated with VIT had a subsequent systemic allergic reaction to a sting, compared with 37/93 (39.8%) untreated participants (risk ratio [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03 to 0.28). The efficacy of VIT was similar across studies; we were unable to identify a patient group or mode of treatment with different efficacy, although these analyses were limited by small numbers. We were unable to confirm whether VIT prevents fatal reactions to insect stings, because of the rarity of this outcome.Venom immunotherapy was also effective for preventing large local reactions to a sting (5 studies; 112 follow-up stings; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.69) and for improving quality of life (mean difference [MD] in favour of VIT 1.21 points on a 7-point scale, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.67).We found a significant risk of systemic adverse reaction to VIT treatment: 6 trials reported this outcome, in which 14 of 150 (9.3%) participants treated with VIT and 1 of 135 (0.7%) participants treated with placebo or no treatment suffered a systemic reaction to treatment (RR 8.16, 95% CI 1.53 to 43.46; 2 studies contributed to the effect estimate). Our analysis of 11 observational studies found systemic adverse reactions occurred in 131/921 (14.2%) participants treated with bee venom VIT and 8/289 (2.8%) treated with wasp venom VIT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found venom immunotherapy using extracted insect venom to be an effective therapy for preventing further allergic reactions to insect stings, which can improve quality of life. The treatment carries a small but significant risk of systemic adverse reaction.

Erlotinib monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of non-small cell lung cancer after previous platinum-containing chemotherapy: a NICE single technology appraisal.

The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of erlotinib (Roche) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of erlotinib as monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and stable disease following previous treatment with four cycles of platinum-containing therapy. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) for this appraisal. The ERG reviewed the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in two stages and in accordance with the decision problem defined by NICE. The analysis of the submitted models assessed the appropriateness of the approach taken by the manufacturer in modelling the decision problem. Analysis also included 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 have substantial impact on the base-case cost-effectiveness results. Clinical evidence was derived from a multi-centre, double-blind, randomized, phase III study designed to address the overall population of NSCLC patients. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The recruited population was mainly from outside of Western Europe and no patients in the pivotal trial had received pemetrexed as a first-line therapy, which is now accepted clinical practice in the UK. The evidence considered in this article includes only the population for whom marketing authorizations has been received--that is, patients with stable disease following first-line therapy. The trial reported a small but statistically significant increase in both PFS and OS in patients with stable disease receiving erlotinib compared with placebo. However, no significant difference was identified in OS when patients with non-squamous disease and stable disease were considered as a subgroup. The economic evidence was focussed on the ERG's assessment of three economic models that related to patients with stable disease and compared erlotinib with placebo in the squamous and non-squamous populations and erlotinib with pemetrexed in the non-squamous population. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported by the manufacturer were £39,936 per QALY gained (stable disease, all); £35,491 per QALY gained (stable disease, squamous); and £40,020 per QALY gained (stable disease, non-squamous). In comparison with pemetrexed, in the cases where erlotinib was considered to be superior or equivalent, erlotinib dominated. In the cases where erlotinib was considered to be slightly inferior, then the ICERs ranged between £91,789 and £511,351 per QALY gained; these ICERs appear in the south-west corner of a cost-effectiveness plane, i.e. erlotinib is cheaper but less effective than pemetrexed. The ERG recalculated the base-case cost-effectiveness results in the manufacturer's submission, considering nine key areas where corrections and/or adjustments were required, related to time horizon, discounting logic, costs of erlotinib and pemetrexed, cost of second-line chemotherapy, unit costs, utility values, PFS and OS. This resulted in ERG-revised ICERs for the stable disease squamous population of £44,812 per QALY gained, in the stable disease non-squamous population of £68,120 per QALY gained, and, when erlotinib was compared with pemetrexed, the result was £84,029 per QALY gained. All values were above NICE's perceived willingness-to-pay threshold. After the second Appraisal Committee meeting, the Committee did not recommend the use of erlotinib in this patient population.