Use of Minimal Residual Disease Status to Reduce Uncertainty in Estimating Long-term Survival Outcomes for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients.

Background: Demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of new treatments for multiple myeloma (MM) often relies on the extrapolation of overall survival (OS) trial data. This method can introduce uncertainty in long-term survival estimates if OS data are immature, as is often the case in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). We explore the use of the relationship between minimal residual disease (MRD) status and OS to reduce uncertainty of long-term survival outcomes. Objectives: To evaluate if uncertainty in long-term modeled outcomes in NDMM is reduced using a response-based partitioned survival model (PSM), whereby patients were categorized as MRD-positive or -negative, relative to a standard PSM, when OS data are immature. Methods: Standard and response-based PSMs, estimating patient life-years (LYs) over a lifetime horizon, were developed for NDMM patients treated with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (BTd) with or without daratumumab as induction and consolidation therapy. In the standard PSM, LYs were determined by extrapolations from individual patient data from CASSIOPEIA. In the response-based PSM, survival was dependent on MRD status at the time of the response assessment via a landmark analysis. Cox-proportional hazard ratios from external sources and CASSIOPEIA informed the relationship for OS between MRD-positive and MRD-negative, and between patients receiving BTd and daratumumab plus BTd, respectively. Uncertainty was assessed by comparing LYs and OS extrapolations from deterministic and probabilistic analyses. Results: This response-based PSM demonstrated reduced uncertainty in long-term survival outcomes compared with the standard PSM (range across extrapolations of 3.4 and 7.7 LYs for daratumumab plus BTd and BTd, respectively, vs 14.8 and 11.8 LYs for the standard PSM). It also estimated a narrower interquartile range of LYs in the probabilistic analyses for the majority of parametric extrapolations. Discussion: Alternative methods to estimate long-term survival outcomes, such as a response-based PSM, can reduce uncertainty in modeling predictions around cost-effectiveness estimates for health technology assessment bodies and payers, thereby supporting faster market access for novel therapies with immature survival data. Conclusions: Use of MRD status in a response-based PSM reduces uncertainty in modeling long-term survival in patients with NDMM and provides a greater number of clinically plausible extrapolations compared with a standard PSM.

Dual-chamber pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia due to sick sinus syndrome without atrioventricular block: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Bradycardia [resting heart rate below 60 beats per minute (b.p.m.)] can be caused by conditions affecting the natural pacemakers of the heart, such as sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and atrioventricular (AV) blocks. People suffering from bradycardia may present with palpitations, exercise intolerance and fainting. The only effective treatment for patients suffering from symptomatic bradycardia is implantation of a permanent pacemaker. OBJECTIVE: To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers for treating symptomatic bradycardia in people with SSS and no evidence of AV block. DATA SOURCES: All databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) were searched from inception to June 2014. METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out in accordance with the general principles published by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating dual-chamber and single-chamber atrial pacemakers and economic evaluations were included. Pairwise meta-analysis was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed. RESULTS: Of 493 references, six RCTs were included in the review. The results were predominantly influenced by the largest trial DANPACE. Dual-chamber pacing was associated with a statistically significant reduction in reoperation [odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.63] compared with single-chamber atrial pacing. The difference is primarily because of the development of AV block requiring upgrade to a dual-chamber device. The risk of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was also reduced with dual-chamber pacing compared with single-chamber atrial pacing (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96). No statistically significant difference was found between the pacing modes for mortality, heart failure, stroke, chronic atrial fibrillation or quality of life. However, the risk of developing heart failure may vary with age and device. The de novo economic model shows that dual-chamber pacemakers are more expensive and more effective than single-chamber atrial devices, resulting in a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6506. The ICER remains below £20,000 in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, structural sensitivity analysis and most scenario analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses. The risk of heart failure may have an impact on the decision to use dual-chamber or single-chamber atrial pacemakers. Results from an analysis based on age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years) and risk of heart failure indicate that dual-chamber pacemakers dominate single-chamber atrial pacemakers (i.e. are less expensive and more effective) in older patients, whereas dual-chamber pacemakers are dominated by (i.e. more expensive and less effective) single-chamber atrial pacemakers in younger patients. However, these results are based on a subgroup analysis and should be treated with caution. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with SSS without evidence of impaired AV conduction, dual-chamber pacemakers appear to be cost-effective compared with single-chamber atrial pacemakers. The risk of developing a complete AV block and the lack of tools to identify patients at high risk of developing the condition argue for the implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker programmed to minimise unnecessary ventricular pacing. However, considerations have to be made around the risk of developing heart failure, which may depend on age and device. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006708. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine for advanced recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Of those people successfully treated with first-line chemotherapy, 55-75% will relapse within 2 years. At this time, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrent, advanced ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan (Hycamtin(®), GlaxoSmithKline), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride (PLDH; Caelyx(®), Schering-Plough), paclitaxel (Taxol(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), trabectedin (Yondelis(®), PharmaMar) and gemcitabine (Gemzar(®), Eli Lilly and Company) for the treatment of advanced, recurrent ovarian cancer. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE(®), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) and trial registries were searched, and company submissions were reviewed. Databases were searched from inception to May 2013. METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out following standard methodological principles. Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials, evaluating topotecan, PLDH, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine, and economic evaluations were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed. RESULTS: For most outcomes measuring clinical response, two networks were constructed: one evaluating platinum-based regimens and one evaluating non-platinum-based regimens. In people with platinum-sensitive disease, NMA found statistically significant benefits for PLDH plus platinum, and paclitaxel plus platinum for overall survival (OS) compared with platinum monotherapy. PLDH plus platinum significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with paclitaxel plus platinum. Of the non-platinum-based treatments, PLDH monotherapy and trabectedin plus PLDH were found to significantly increase OS, but not PFS, compared with topotecan monotherapy. In people with platinum-resistant/-refractory (PRR) disease, NMA found no statistically significant differences for any treatment compared with alternative regimens in OS and PFS. Economic modelling indicated that, for people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving platinum-based therapy, the estimated probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER; incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] for paclitaxel plus platinum compared with platinum was £24,539. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin was extendedly dominated, and PLDH plus platinum was strictly dominated. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving non-platinum-based therapy, the probabilistic ICERs associated with PLDH compared with paclitaxel, and trabectedin plus PLDH compared with PLDH, were estimated to be £25,931 and £81,353, respectively. Topotecan was strictly dominated. For people with PRR disease, the probabilistic ICER associated with topotecan compared with PLDH was estimated to be £324,188. Paclitaxel was strictly dominated. LIMITATIONS: As platinum- and non-platinum-based treatments were evaluated separately, the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these regimens is uncertain in patients with platinum-sensitive disease. CONCLUSIONS: For platinum-sensitive disease, it was not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of platinum-based therapies with non-platinum-based therapies. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with platinum-based therapies, paclitaxel plus platinum could be considered cost-effective compared with platinum at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with non-platinum-based therapies, it is unclear whether PLDH would be considered cost-effective compared with paclitaxel at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY; trabectedin plus PLDH is unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. For patients with PRR disease, it is unlikely that topotecan would be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. Randomised controlled trials comparing platinum with non-platinum-based treatments might help to verify the comparative effectiveness of these regimens. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003555. 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.