Living Health Technology Assessment: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities.

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are typically performed as one-off evaluations and can potentially become out-of-date due to the availability of new data, new comparators, or other factors. Recently, living approaches have been applied to systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to enable evidence syntheses to be updated more easily. In this paper, we provide a definition for 'Living HTA' where such a living approach could be applied to the entire HTA process. Living HTA could involve performing regular or scheduled updates using a traditional manual approach, or indeed in a semi-automated manner leveraging recent technological innovations that automate parts of the HTA process. The practical implementation of living HTA using both approaches (i.e., manual approach and using semi-automation) is described along with the likely issues and challenges with planning and implementing a living HTA process. The time, resources and additional considerations outlined may prohibit living HTA from becoming the norm for every evaluation; however, scenarios where living HTA would be particularly beneficial are discussed.

The QALY at 50: One story many voices.

Research on quality adjusted life year (QALY) has been underway for just over 50 years, which seems like a suitable milestone to review its history. The purpose of this study is to provide a historical overview of why the QALY was developed, the key theoretical work undertaken by Torrance, Bush and Fanshel and how two seminal papers shaped its subsequent development. Moving the QALY forward - there are several historical and reflective exercises. The historical interplay between politics, policy and the challenges facing the National Health Service (NHS) in formulating the QALY concept in the UK has been explored in some depth already, whilst the conceptualization and development of the methodological framework is relatively underexplored. We address this gap by viewing the QALY through the lens of the methodological debates, reflecting upon two key papers underpinning the QALY methodology and how these methods have been developed over time. In part the changes in technology e.g. Google Scholar, and the availability of tools to search for early uses of the QALY allow us to better understand the historical context in which the theoretical development of the QALY has taken place. Here we celebrate two seminal papers that shaped early QALY development. The first section provides a history of these papers, summaries their contributions and explores the uptake of these papers over time. The second section reviews the methodological debates that have surrounded the QALY over the last 50 years and looks at how the QALY has moved to address these challenges. The third section presents the voices of diverse commentators representing the field of health economics who have contributed to the subsequent development of the QALY in both theoretical and empirical capacities and captures their thoughts about future research and policy use of QALYS.

Jointly Modelling Economics and Epidemiology to Support Public Policy Decisions for the COVID-19 Response: A Review of UK Studies.

COVID-19 in the UK has had a profound impact on population health and other socially important outcomes, including on education and the economy. Although a range of evidence has guided policy, epidemiological models have been central. It is less clear whether models to support decision making have sought to integrate COVID-19 epidemiology with a consideration of broader health, wellbeing and economic implications. We report on a rapid review of studies seeking to integrate epidemiological and economic modelling to assess the impacts of alternative policies. Overall, our results suggest that few studies have explored broader impacts of different COVID-19 policies in the UK. Three studies looked only at health, capturing impacts on individuals with and without COVID-19, with various methods used to model the latter. Four models considered health and wider impacts on individuals' economic outcomes, such as wages. However, these models made no attempt to consider the dynamic impacts on economic outcomes of others and the wider economy. The most complex analyses sought to link epidemiological and dynamic economic models. Studies compared a wide range of policies, although most were defined in general terms with minimal consideration of their granular specifications. There was minimal exploration of uncertainty, with no consideration in half the studies. Selecting appropriate models to inform decisions requires careful thought of factors relevant to the decision options under consideration such as the outcomes of interest, sectors likely to be impacted and causal pathways. In summary, better linking epidemiological and economic modelling would help to inform COVID-19 policy.

Evidence for the impact of interventions and medicines reconciliation on problematic polypharmacy in the UK: A rapid review of systematic reviews.

This was a rapid review of systematic reviews (SRs) on problematic polypharmacy (PP) in the UK. The commissioner-defined topics were burden of PP, interventions to reduce PP, implementation activities to increase uptake of interventions, and efficient handover between primary and secondary care to reduce PP. Databases including Medline were searched to June 2019, SR quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) and a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Except for burden of PP (SRs had to include UK studies), there were no restrictions on country, location of care or outcomes. Nine SRs were included. On burden, three SRs (including six UK studies) found a high prevalence of polypharmacy in long term care. PP was associated with mortality, although unclear if causal, with no information on costs or health consequences. On interventions, six reviews (27 UK studies) found that interventions can reduce PP, but no effects on health outcomes. On handover between primary and secondary care, one review (two UK studies) found medicine reconciliation activities to reduce medication discrepancies at care transitions reduce PP, although the evidence is low quality. No SRs on implementation activities to increase uptake of interventions were found. SR quality was variable, with some concerns regarding meta-analysis methods. Evidence of the extent of PP in the UK, and what interventions to address it are effective in the UK, is limited. Future UK research is needed on the prevalence and consequences of PP, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce PP, and barriers and activities to ensure uptake.

A Review of the Methods Used to Generate Utility Values in NICE Technology Assessments for Children and Adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: This review summarizes and critically examines methods used to generate utilities for child and adolescent health states in previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology assessments (TA) and highly specialized technology (HST) evaluations. METHODS: We identified all NICE TA and HST evaluations in which the licensed indication for the technology included people younger than 18 and included in the review all evaluations using a cost-utility analysis. RESULTS: The review includes 40 TA and HST evaluations. Most assessments generated utility values with the EQ-5D scored using the adult version of the EQ-5D either exclusively (n = 16) or alongside other utility measures and direct elicitation methods of patient own utility (n = 17), although 7 did not use the EQ-5D. Eight assessments used both the EQ-5D child- and adolescent-specific preference-based measures: Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (n = 6), child- and adolescent-specific preference-based measure for atopic dermatitis (n = 1), and youth version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-Y) valued using the adult EQ-5D value set (n = 1) or generated using mapping and valued using the adult EQ-5D value set (n = 2). Some cost-utility analyses used age adjustment (utility subtractions, weights, and published mapping formulae) from the adult EQ-5D UK population norms to reflect the general population or disease-free health for children and adolescents (n = 9), and 1 assessment assumed full health (utility value of 1). CONCLUSION: The review found limited use of child and adolescent population-specific measures to generate health state utility values for children and adolescents in NICE technology assessments. Often assessments involve the use of an adult-specific measure to reflect the health of children.

Denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab and teriparatide to prevent osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture. DATA SOURCES: For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0-33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories. LIMITATIONS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture, known as low-level (or 'low-energy') trauma. Some people are at particularly high risk of fragility fractures. The first treatment used is often a bisphosphonate, but non-bisphosphonate treatments are alternatives. AIMS: We aimed to determine how effective non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]} are at preventing fractures, whether or not treatment has any risks for patients and whether or not the clinical benefits are achieved at a reasonable cost. METHODS: We have systematically identified and examined trials that assessed the clinical effects of non-bisphosphonates. For each clinical outcome, we have combined data from multiple trials to estimate the clinical effectiveness of each non-bisphosphonate treatment. We combined data from published sources in an economic model to estimate lifetime costs and clinical benefits for each non-bisphosphonate and compared these with the estimated costs and clinical outcomes for untreated patients and patients treated with bisphosphonates. RESULTS: All non-bisphosphonates reduced the risk of vertebral fractures compared with no treatment. For fractures at the hip or at any non-vertebral site, all of the non-bisphosphonates reduced the average number of fractures, but, for some non-bisphosphonates, we could not exclude the possibility that this was a chance finding. The chance of patients experiencing serious side effects was generally similar regardless of whether patients took non-bisphosphonates, bisphosphonates or placebo (a dummy pill). Blood clots were more common in patients taking raloxifene than in those taking placebo, but these were still a rare outcome (fewer than 1 in 100). The benefits of denosumab, teriparatide and romosozumab are few compared with their costs. For raloxifene, the risks generally outweigh the benefits. Treatment with bisphosphonates is likely to represent better value for money than treatment with non-bisphosphonates.

Interventions to reduce the risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: a cost-effective modelling review.

BACKGROUND: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is a fatal neurological disease caused by abnormal infectious proteins called prions. Prions that are present on surgical instruments cannot be completely deactivated; therefore, patients who are subsequently operated on using these instruments may become infected. This can result in surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. OBJECTIVE: To update literature reviews, consultation with experts and economic modelling published in 2006, and to provide the cost-effectiveness of strategies to reduce the risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. METHODS: Eight systematic reviews were undertaken for clinical parameters. One review of cost-effectiveness was undertaken. Electronic databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2005 to 2017. Expert elicitation sessions were undertaken. An advisory committee, convened by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to produce guidance, provided an additional source of information. A mathematical model was updated focusing on brain and posterior eye surgery and neuroendoscopy. The model simulated both patients and instrument sets. Assuming that there were potentially 15 cases of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease between 2005 and 2018, approximate Bayesian computation was used to obtain samples from the posterior distribution of the model parameters to generate results. Heuristics were used to improve computational efficiency. The modelling conformed to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case. The strategies evaluated included neither keeping instruments moist nor prohibiting set migration; ensuring that instruments were kept moist; prohibiting instrument migration between sets; and employing single-use instruments. Threshold analyses were undertaken to establish prices at which single-use sets or completely effective decontamination solutions would be cost-effective. RESULTS: A total of 169 papers were identified for the clinical review. The evidence from published literature was not deemed sufficiently strong to take precedence over the distributions obtained from expert elicitation. Forty-eight papers were identified in the review of cost-effectiveness. The previous modelling structure was revised to add the possibility of misclassifying surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease as another neurodegenerative disease, and assuming that all patients were susceptible to infection. Keeping instruments moist was estimated to reduce the risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases and associated costs. Based on probabilistic sensitivity analyses, keeping instruments moist was estimated to on average result in 2.36 (range 0-47) surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases (across England) caused by infection occurring between 2019 and 2023. Prohibiting set migration or employing single-use instruments reduced the estimated risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases further, but at considerable cost. The estimated costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained of these strategies in addition to keeping instruments moist were in excess of £1M. It was estimated that single-use instrument sets (currently £350-500) or completely effective cleaning solutions would need to cost approximately £12 per patient to be cost-effective using a £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained value. LIMITATIONS: As no direct published evidence to implicate surgery as a cause of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease has been found since 2005, the estimations of potential cases from elicitation are still speculative. A particular source of uncertainty was in the number of potential surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases that may have occurred between 2005 and 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Keeping instruments moist is estimated to reduce the risk of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases and associated costs. Further surgical management strategies can reduce the risks of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease but have considerable associated costs. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017071807. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The aims of this report were to summarise evidence relating to surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease and to explore the value for money of strategies to reduce the chance of any future surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease cases. Current recommendations include keeping sets of surgical instruments together for high-risk operations and using separate instruments for people born after 1996. The project involved reviewing published papers, speaking with experts and building a computer model. The literature reviews found that Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease occurs in around 1­2 per million people and that no definite cases of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease have been observed since the 1970s. The reviews also looked for information on the possibility of patients being infected with Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease after having surgery on high-risk tissues, such as the brain and the back of the eye. They found that there was a great deal of uncertainty regarding who might have Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease, but not yet have symptoms, as well as the risk of transmission and the ability of strategies to reduce this risk. The computer model aimed to estimate value for money of different strategies to reduce the risks of surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease. However, the reviews found that some of the numbers needed for the model were not known, so experts were asked to estimate this information instead along with the range of possible values. This information included the effectiveness of different cleaning practices and the chances of infected tissue being transmitted between patients undergoing high-risk surgery. The model found that keeping surgical instruments moist prior to cleaning was likely to save money and reduce the chance of future surgically transmitted Creutzfeldt­Jakob disease cases. However, additional measures, such as using only sets of single-use instruments, ensuring that instruments were kept together in their sets or using separate instruments for those born after 1996, appeared to be poor value for money.

Statistical Methods for Adjusting Estimates of Treatment Effectiveness for Patient Nonadherence in the Context of Time-to-Event Outcomes and Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review of Methodological Papers.

Introduction. Medication nonadherence can have a significant negative impact on treatment effectiveness. Standard intention-to-treat analyses conducted alongside clinical trials do not make adjustments for nonadherence. Several methods have been developed that attempt to estimate what treatment effectiveness would have been in the absence of nonadherence. However, health technology assessment (HTA) needs to consider effectiveness under real-world conditions, where nonadherence levels typically differ from those observed in trials. With this analytical requirement in mind, we conducted a review to identify methods for adjusting estimates of treatment effectiveness in the presence of patient nonadherence to assess their suitability for use in HTA. Methods. A "Comprehensive Pearl Growing" technique, with citation searching and reference checking, was applied across 7 electronic databases to identify methodological papers for adjusting time-to-event outcomes for nonadherence using individual patient data. A narrative synthesis of identified methods was conducted. Methods were assessed in terms of their ability to reestimate effectiveness based on alternative, suboptimal adherence levels. Results. Twenty relevant methodological papers covering 12 methods and 8 extensions to those methods were identified. Methods are broadly classified into 4 groups: 1) simple methods, 2) principal stratification methods, 3) generalized methods (g-methods), and 4) pharmacometrics-based methods using pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PKPD) analysis. Each method makes specific assumptions and has associated limitations. Five of the 12 methods are capable of adjusting for real-world nonadherence, with only g-methods and PKPD considered appropriate for HTA. Conclusion. A range of statistical methods is available for adjusting estimates of treatment effectiveness for nonadherence, but most are not suitable for use in HTA. G-methods and PKPD appear to be more appropriate to estimate effectiveness in the presence of real-world adherence.

Tumour profiling tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer and its treatment can have an impact on health-related quality of life and survival. Tumour profiling tests aim to identify whether or not women need chemotherapy owing to their risk of relapse. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the tumour profiling tests oncotype DX® (Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA), MammaPrint® (Agendia, Inc., Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Prosigna® (NanoString Technologies, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), EndoPredict® (Myriad Genetics Ltd, London, UK) and immunohistochemistry 4 (IHC4). To develop a health economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of these tests compared with clinical tools to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. DESIGN: A systematic review and health economic analysis were conducted. REVIEW METHODS: The systematic review was partially an update of a 2013 review. Nine databases were searched in February 2017. The review included studies assessing clinical effectiveness in people with oestrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, stage I or II cancer with zero to three positive lymph nodes. The economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a de novo model. RESULTS: A total of 153 studies were identified. Only one completed randomised controlled trial (RCT) using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice was identified: Microarray In Node-negative Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy (MINDACT) for MammaPrint. Other studies suggest that all the tests can provide information on the risk of relapse; however, results were more varied in lymph node-positive (LN+) patients than in lymph node-negative (LN0) patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint can predict benefit from chemotherapy. The net change in the percentage of patients with a chemotherapy recommendation or decision pre/post test ranged from an increase of 1% to a decrease of 23% among UK studies and a decrease of 0% to 64% across European studies. The health economic analysis suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the tests versus current practice are broadly favourable for the following scenarios: (1) oncotype DX, for the LN0 subgroup with a Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) of > 3.4 and the one to three positive lymph nodes (LN1-3) subgroup (if a predictive benefit is assumed); (2) IHC4 plus clinical factors (IHC4+C), for all patient subgroups; (3) Prosigna, for the LN0 subgroup with a NPI of > 3.4 and the LN1-3 subgroup; (4) EndoPredict Clinical, for the LN1-3 subgroup only; and (5) MammaPrint, for no subgroups. LIMITATIONS: There was only one completed RCT using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice. Except for oncotype DX in the LN0 group with a NPI score of > 3.4 (clinical intermediate risk), evidence surrounding pre- and post-test chemotherapy probabilities is subject to considerable uncertainty. There is uncertainty regarding whether or not oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. The MammaPrint analysis uses a different data source to the other four tests. The Translational substudy of the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (TransATAC) study (used in the economic modelling) has a number of limitations. CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that all the tests can provide prognostic information on the risk of relapse; results were more varied in LN+ patients than in LN0 patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. Health economic analyses indicate that some tests may have a favourable cost-effectiveness profile for certain patient subgroups; all estimates are subject to uncertainty. More evidence is needed on the prediction of chemotherapy benefit, long-term impacts and changes in UK pre-/post-chemotherapy decisions. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017059561. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in England and Wales. Breast cancer, and its treatment, can have an impact on a person's health-related quality of life and survival. Tumour profiling tests are used before chemotherapy. They test small samples of a patient's tumour (removed during surgery) to find out whether the genes in it mean that a person has a high or low risk of the disease returning (relapse). If the risk is low, the patient may be able to avoid having chemotherapy and, therefore, avoid its side effects. Some tests might also be able to identify which patients will respond to chemotherapy. This study looked at the evidence for five tumour profiling tests. A total of 153 studies were identified. This study considered the results and the quality of the studies to find out if the tests are helpful. Most studies had design flaws (e.g. some patients had already had chemotherapy) that meant that the studies were of low quality overall. The results suggest that all of the tests can give information on the risk of relapse; however, some tests may be less useful in patients whose disease has spread to the lymph nodes (lymph node-positive disease). There was limited and varying evidence about whether or not two of these tests can also predict which patients will respond to chemotherapy. This study also looked at whether or not these tests represent good value for money for the NHS through cost-effectiveness analyses. The analyses showed that some of the tests may represent a good use of NHS resources for some patient groups; however, there was still a lot of uncertainty about this.

Cabozantinib and vandetanib for unresectable locally advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer: a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) is a rare form of cancer that affects patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and survival. Cabozantinib (Cometriq®; Ipsen, Paris, France) and vandetanib (Caprelsa®; Sanofi Genzyme, Cambridge, MA, USA) are currently the treatment modality of choice for treating unresectable progressive and symptomatic MTC. OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of cabozantinib and vandetanib. (2) To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib and vandetanib versus each other and best supportive care. (3) To identify key areas for primary research. (4) To estimate the overall cost of these treatments in England. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed publications (searched from inception to November 2016), European Public Assessment Reports and manufacturers' submissions. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review [including a network meta-analysis (NMA)] was conducted to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of cabozantinib and vandetanib. The economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a de novo model. RESULTS: The systematic review identified two placebo-controlled trials. The Efficacy of XL184 (Cabozantinib) in Advanced Medullary Thyroid Cancer (EXAM) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients with unresectable locally advanced, metastatic and progressive MTC. The ZETA trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of vandetanib in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic MTC. Both drugs significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) more than the placebo (p < 0.001). The NMA suggested that, within the symptomatic and progressive MTC population, the effects on PFS were similar (vandetanib vs. cabozantinib: hazard ratio 1.14, 95% credible interval 0.41 to 3.09). Neither trial demonstrated a significant overall survival benefit for cabozantinib or vandetanib versus placebo, although data from ZETA were subject to potential confounding. Both cabozantinib and vandetanib demonstrated significantly better objective response rates and calcitonin (CTN) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) response rates than placebo. Both cabozantinib and vandetanib produced frequent adverse events, often leading to dose interruption or reduction. The assessment group model indicates that, within the EU-label population (symptomatic and progressive MTC), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for cabozantinib and vandetanib are > £138,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Within the restricted EU-label population (symptomatic and progressive MTC with CEA/CTN doubling times of ≤ 24 months), the ICER for vandetanib is expected to be > £66,000 per QALY gained. The maximum annual budget impact within the symptomatic and progressive population is estimated to be ≈£2.35M for cabozantinib and ≈£5.53M for vandetanib. The costs of vandetanib in the restricted EU-label population are expected to be lower. LIMITATIONS: The intention-to-treat populations of the EXAM and ZETA trials are notably different. The analyses of ZETA subgroups may be subject to confounding as a result of differences in baseline characteristics and open-label vandetanib use. Attempts to statistically adjust for treatment switching were unsuccessful. No HRQoL evidence was identified for the MTC population. CONCLUSIONS: The identified trials suggest that cabozantinib and vandetanib improve PFS more than the placebo; however, significant OS benefits were not demonstrated. The economic analyses indicate that within the EU-label population, the ICERs for cabozantinib and vandetanib are > £138,000 per QALY gained. Within the restricted EU-label population, the ICER for vandetanib is expected to be > £66,000 per QALY gained. FUTURE RESEARCH PRIORITIES: (1) Primary research assessing the long-term effectiveness of cabozantinib and vandetanib within relevant subgroups. (2) Reanalyses of the ZETA trial to investigate the impact of adjusting for open-label vandetanib use using appropriate statistical methods. (3) Studies assessing the impact of MTC on HRQoL. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016050403. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) is a rare form of cancer that presents as a mass of tumours in the thyroid gland of the neck. MTC affects both patients' health-related quality of life and survival. Targeted therapies (cabozantinib and vandetanib) are currently used to treat unresectable progressive and symptomatic MTC. The evidence for the use of cabozantinib and vandetanib in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic MTC was reviewed, and two clinical trials were identified. The trials suggest that both drugs improve progression-free survival. Neither trial demonstrated significant survival benefits for cabozantinib or vandetanib. Both drugs produced frequent adverse events, often leading to dose interruption or reduction. Whether or not these therapies represent good value for money for the NHS was also assessed. Analyses indicate that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (a measure of cost-effectiveness) for cabozantinib and vandetanib versus best supportive care (BSC) in patients with symptomatic and progressive MTC are > £138,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Within a subgroup of patients with symptomatic and progressive MTC and carcinoembryonic antigen and/or calcitonin doubling times of ≤ 24 months, the ICER for vandetanib versus BSC remains > £66,000 per QALY gained.

Adalimumab for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab compared with current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate costs and benefits of the interventions. Systematic reviews were performed to identify the available relevant clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence. Data collected in two key randomised controlled trials (VISUAL I and VISUAL II) were used to estimate the interventions' effectiveness compared with the trials' comparator arms (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis was performed from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources. RESULTS: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of adalimumab versus LCP for the base case are £92 600 and £318 075 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for active and inactive uveitis, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER varied from £15 579 to £120 653 and £35 642 to £800 775 per QALY for active and inactive uveitis. CONCLUSION: The estimated ICERs of adalimumab versus LCP are above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Adalimumab may be more cost-effective in patients with active uveitis at greater risk of blindness. However, there is an unmet need for additional primary data to provide more reliable estimates in several important areas, including effectiveness of adalimumab versus current practice (instead of LCP), incidence of long-term blindness, adalimumab effectiveness in avoiding blindness, and rates and time to remission while on adalimumab.

Dexamethasone implant for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a dexamethasone implant plus current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) compared with current practice alone, in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or pan-uveitis and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate the costs and benefits of dexamethasone. Systematic reviews were performed to identify available relevant evidence. Quality of life data from the key randomised-controlled trial (HURON) was used to estimate the interventions' effectiveness compared with the trial's comparator arm (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis took a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of one dexamethasone implant compared with LCP is estimated as £19 509 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The factors with the largest impact on the results were rate of blindness and relative proportion of blindness cases avoided by dexamethasone. Using plausible alternative assumptions, dexamethasone could be cost saving or it may be associated with an ICER of £56 329 per QALY gained compared with LCP. CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone is estimated to be cost-effective using generally accepted UK thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around these results due to scarcity of evidence. Future research on the following would help provide more reliable estimates: effectiveness of dexamethasone versus current practice (instead of LCP), with subgroup analyses for unilateral and bilateral uveitis, incidence of long-term blindness and effectiveness of dexamethasone in avoiding blindness.

Ibrutinib for Treating Waldenström's Macroglobulinaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ibrutinib (Janssen) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib for treating Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia (WM). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Assessment Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib based on the company's submission to NICE. The clinical evidence was derived from one phase II, single-arm, open-label study of ibrutinib in adult patients with WM who had received at least one prior therapy (Study 1118E) and an indirect comparison using a matched cohort from a retrospective European chart review of patients receiving various treatments for WM. The indirect comparison suggested a hazard ratio for progression-free survival (PFS) of 0.25 (95% confidence interval 0.11-0.57). The ERG had concerns regarding the high risk of bias in Study 1118E, the limited generalisability of the study, and the absence of randomised controlled trial evidence. The company's Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) WM from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) over a lifetime horizon. Based on the company's original Patient Access Scheme (PAS), the company's probabilistic model generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy of £58,905 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG's preferred analysis, which corrected cost errors and used the observed mortality rate from Study 1118E, generated a probabilistic ICER of £61,219 per QALY gained. Based on this amended model, additional exploratory analyses produced ICERs for ibrutinib that were > £60,000 per QALY gained. Subsequently, the company offered to provide ibrutinib at a price that resulted in ibrutinib being cost effective within the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF). The Committee recommended ibrutinib for use in the CDF as an option for treating WM in adults who have had at least one prior therapy, only if the conditions in the managed access agreement for ibrutinib are followed.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Newborn Screening for Severe Combined Immunodeficiency in the UK.

Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) can be detected through newborn bloodspot screening. In the UK, the National Screening Committee (NSC) requires screening programmes to be cost-effective at standard UK thresholds. To assess the cost-effectiveness of SCID screening for the NSC, a decision-tree model with lifetable estimates of outcomes was built. Model structure and parameterisation were informed by systematic review and expert clinical judgment. A public service perspective was used and lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.5%. Probabilistic, one-way sensitivity analyses and an exploratory disbenefit analysis for the identification of non-SCID patients were conducted. Screening for SCID was estimated to result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £18,222 with a reduction in SCID mortality from 8.1 (5-12) to 1.7 (0.6-4.0) cases per year of screening. Results were sensitive to a number of parameters, including the cost of the screening test, the incidence of SCID and the disbenefit to the healthy at birth and false-positive cases. Screening for SCID is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY, key uncertainties relate to the impact on false positives and the impact on the identification of children with non-SCID T Cell lymphopenia.

What is the added value of ultrasound joint examination for monitoring synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis and can it be used to guide treatment decisions? A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Synovitis (inflamed joint synovial lining) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be assessed by clinical examination (CE) or ultrasound (US). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the added value of US, compared with CE alone, in RA synovitis in terms of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane databases were searched from inception to October 2015. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review sought RA studies that compared additional US with CE. Heterogeneity of the studies with regard to interventions, comparators and outcomes precluded meta-analyses. Systematic searches for studies of cost-effectiveness and US and treatment-tapering studies (not necessarily including US) were undertaken. MATHEMATICAL MODEL: A model was constructed that estimated, for patients in whom drug tapering was considered, the reduction in costs of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and serious infections at which the addition of US had a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £20,000 and £30,000. Furthermore, the reduction in the costs of DMARDs at which US becomes cost neutral was also estimated. For patients in whom dose escalation was being considered, the reduction in number of patients escalating treatment and in serious infections at which the addition of US had a cost per QALY gained of £20,000 and £30,000 was estimated. The reduction in number of patients escalating treatment for US to become cost neutral was also estimated. RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies were included. Two randomised controlled trials compared adding US to a Disease Activity Score (DAS)-based treat-to-target strategy for early RA patients. The addition of power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS) to a Disease Activity Score 28 joints-based treat-to-target strategy in the Targeting Synovitis in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (TaSER) trial resulted in no significant between-group difference for change in Disease Activity Score 44 joints (DAS44). This study found that significantly more patients in the PDUS group attained DAS44 remission (p = 0.03). The Aiming for Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis (ARCTIC) trial found that the addition of PDUS and grey-scale ultrasound (GSUS) to a DAS-based strategy did not produce a significant between-group difference in the primary end point: composite DAS of < 1.6, no swollen joints and no progression in van der Heijde-modified total Sharp score (vdHSS). The ARCTIC trial did find that the erosion score of the vdHS had a significant advantage for the US group (p = 0.04). In the TaSER trial there was no significant group difference for erosion. Other studies suggested that PDUS was significantly associated with radiographic progression and that US had added value for wrist and hand joints rather than foot and ankle joints. Heterogeneity between trials made conclusions uncertain. No studies were identified that reported the cost-effectiveness of US in monitoring synovitis. The model estimated that an average reduction of 2.5% in the costs of biological DMARDs would be sufficient to offset the costs of 3-monthly US. The money could not be recouped if oral methotrexate was the only drug used. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity of the trials precluded meta-analysis. Therefore, no summary estimates of effect were available. Additional costs and health-related quality of life decrements, relating to a flare following tapering or disease progression, have not been included. The feasibility of increased US monitoring has not been assessed. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests that US monitoring of synovitis could provide a cost-effective approach to selecting RA patients for treatment tapering or escalation avoidance. Considerable uncertainty exists for all conclusions. Future research priorities include evaluating US monitoring of RA synovitis in longitudinal clinical studies. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017216. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Baricitinib for Previously Treated Moderate or Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) of baricitinib (BARI; Olumiant®; a Janus kinase inhibitor that is taken orally) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission (CS) to NICE. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the CS for BARI was based predominantly on three randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of BARI against adalimumab or placebo, as well as one long-term extension study. The clinical-effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of BARI against all the comparators within the scope. Therefore, the company performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) in two different populations: one in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs (cDMARD-IR), and the other in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). The company's NMAs concluded BARI had comparable efficacy as the majority of its comparators in both populations. The company submitted a de novo discrete event simulation model that analysed the incremental cost-effectiveness of BARI versus its comparators for the treatment of RA from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in four different populations: (1) cDMARD-IR patients with moderate RA, defined as a 28-Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) > 3.2 and no more than 5.1; (2) cDMARD-IR patients with severe RA (defined as a DAS28 > 5.1); (3) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom rituximab (RTX) was eligible; and (4) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with methotrexate (MTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated. In the cDMARD-IR population with moderate RA, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for BARI in combination with MTX compared with intensive cDMARDs was estimated to be £37,420 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In the cDMARD-IR population with severe RA, BARI in combination with MTX dominated all comparators except for certolizumab pegol (CTZ) in combination with MTX, with the ICER of CTZ in combination with MTX compared with BARI in combination with MTX estimated to be £18,400 per QALY gained. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA, when RTX in combination with MTX was an option, BARI in combination with MTX was dominated by RTX in combination with MTX. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated, BARI in combination with MTX dominated golimumab in combination with MTX and was less effective and less expensive than the remaining comparators. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses after applying corrections to the methods used in the NMAs and two programming errors in the economic model that affected the company's probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) results. The ERG's NMA results were broadly comparable with the company's results. The programming error that affected the PSA of the severe cDMARD-IR population had only a minimal impact on the results, while the error affecting the severe TNFi-IR RTX-ineligible population resulted in markedly higher costs and QALYs gained for the affected comparators but did not substantially modify the conclusions of the analysis. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that BARI in combination with MTX or as monotherapy is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in patients with severe RA, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX-eligible.

Ponatinib for Treating Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Incyte Corporation) of ponatinib (Inclusig®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL) and chronic myeloid leukaemia. This paper focusses on Ph+ ALL. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was derived from a phase II, single-arm, open-label, non-comparative study. Given the lack of comparative evidence, a naïve indirect comparison was performed against re-induction chemotherapy comparing major cytogenetic response and complete remission. Best supportive care (BSC) was assumed to produce no disease response. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment for patients with Ph+ ALL. The company submitted a state transition model that analysed the incremental cost effectiveness of ponatinib versus re-induction therapy and BSC for the treatment of Ph+ ALL in patients whose disease is resistant to dasatinib, who are intolerant to dasatinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate or who have the threonine-315-isoleucine mutation. This population was further subdivided into those who were suitable for allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) and those who were not. The company's revised economic evaluation, following the clarification process, estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in those suitable for allo-SCT of £31,123 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ponatinib compared with re-induction chemotherapy and £26,624 per QALY gained compared with BSC. For those for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, the company-estimated ICER compared with BSC was £33,954 per QALY gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that, when combined, produced a range in ICERs (due to uncertainty of the most appropriate overall survival function) of dominant (being less expensive and providing more QALYs) to £11,727 per QALY gained compared with re-induction chemotherapy and between £7892 and £31,696 per QALY gained compared with BSC for those in whom allo-SCT was suitable. For those in whom allo-SCT was not suitable, the ERG estimated that ponatinib was dominant. During the consultation period, the company agreed a revised patient access scheme (PAS) that reduced the ICER ranges to £7156 to £29,995 per QALY gained versus BSC and to less than £5000 per QALY gained versus re-induction chemotherapy. In people for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, ponatinib dominated BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of UK NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.

Tofacitinib for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis After the Failure of Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Pfizer) of tofacitinib (TOF; Xeljanz®) to submit evidence of the drug's clinical and cost-effectiveness in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for TOF is based predominantly on four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of TOF against placebo. Three RCTs investigated TOF in combination with methotrexate (MTX), and one RCT investigated TOF monotherapy. All four RCTs compared TOF with placebo plus cDMARDs, one RCT also included adalimumab as a comparator. The study population in the four RCTs comprised patients who were MTX inadequate responders or cDMARD inadequate responders (cDMARD-IR). The company performed network meta-analyses (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy of TOF compared with biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in patients who were cDMARD-IR or bDMARD-IR with moderate-to-severe RA for European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index at 6 months. The company's NMA concluded that TOF had comparable efficacy to bDMARDs currently recommended by NICE. The company submitted a de novo model that assessed the cost-effectiveness of TOF versus its comparators in six different populations: (1) cDMARD-IR with severe RA; (2) cDMARD-IR with severe RA for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; (3) bDMARD-IR; (4) bDMARD-IR for whom rituximab (RTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated; (5) bDMARD-IR for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; and, (6) cDMARD-IR with moderate RA. According to the company's economic analyses, in cDMARD-IR with severe RA, TOF plus MTX dominates or extendedly dominates most comparators, whilst TOF monotherapy is slightly less effective and less expensive than its comparators, with the cost saved per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) lost always higher than £50,000. In bDMARD-IR with severe RA, RTX plus MTX dominated TOF plus MTX, but in patients for whom RTX was not an option, TOF plus MTX dominated all comparators included in the analysis (four comparators recommended by NICE were not included). In cDMARD-IR with moderate RA, the cost per QALY for TOF in combination with MTX or as monotherapy compared with a sequence of cDMARDs was estimated to be greater than £50,000/QALY. The ERG identified a number of limitations in the company's analyses, including use of a fixed-effects model in the NMA and the use of treatment sequences in the cost-effectiveness model which did not reflect NICE recommendations. These limitations were addressed partly by the company during the clarification round and partly by the ERG. The exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG resulted in similar conclusions: (1) TOF plus MTX was dominated by RTX plus MTX; (2) TOF in combination with MTX or as monotherapy dominates or extendedly dominates some of its comparators in cDMARD-IR and bDMARD-IR with severe RA for whom RTX plus MTX was not an option; and (3) in cDMARD-IR with moderate RA, the cost per QALY of TOF in combination with MTX or as a monotherapy versus cDMARDs was in excess of £47,000. The NICE Appraisal Committee consequently recommended TOF plus MTX as an option for patients whose disease has responded inadequately to intensive therapy with a combination of cDMARDs only if (1) disease is severe [a Disease Activity Score (DAS28) of more than 5.1] and (2) the company provides TOF with the discount agreed in the Patient Access Scheme (PAS). TOF plus MTX is also recommended as an option for adults whose disease has responded inadequately to, or who cannot have, other DMARDs, including at least one bDMARD, only if (1) disease is severe, (2) they cannot have RTX, and (3) the company provides TOF with the discount agreed in the PAS. For patients who are intolerant of MTX, or where MTX is contraindicated, TOF monotherapy is recommended where TOF plus MTX would be recommended.

Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ponatinib (Inclusig®; Incyte Corporation) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL). This paper focusses on the three phases of CML: the chronic phase (CP), the accelerated phase (AP) and the blast crisis phase (BP). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. Clinical evidence for ponatinib was derived from a phase II, industry-sponsored, single-arm, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative study. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment (in terms of major cytogenetic response and major haematological response) with an acceptable safety profile for patients with CML. Given the absence of any head-to-head studies comparing ponatinib with other relevant comparators, the company undertook a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of ponatinib with bosutinib. The approach was only used for patients with CP-CML because comprehensive data were not available for the AP- or BP-CML groups to allow the matching technique to be used. Despite the uncertainty about the MAIC approach, ponatinib was considered likely to offer advantages over bosutinib in the third-line setting, particularly for complete cytogenetic response. The company developed two health economic models to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for the treatment of patients in CP-CML or in advanced CML (AP- or BP-CML, which were modelled separately). The company did not adequately explore the uncertainty in the survivor functions. As a result, the ERG believed the uncertainty in the decision problem was underestimated. Exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG produced the following results for ponatinib. In CP-CML, from £18,246 to £27,667 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with best supportive care (BSC), from £19,680 to £37,381 per QALY gained compared with bosutinib and from £18,279 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT). In AP-CML, the cost per QALY gained for ponatinib ranged from £7123 to £17,625 compared with BSC, and from dominating to £61,896 per QALY gained compared with allo-SCT. In BP-CML, the cost effectiveness of ponatinib ranged from £5033 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allo-SCT, although it was likely to be at the more favourable end of this range, and dominant in all scenarios compared with BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the Patient Access Scheme.