Comparative Assessment of Reimbursement Recommendations by NICE and HAS for Oncology New Medicines Indicated for the Treatment of Solid Tumors from 2015 to 2021.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare reimbursement recommendations by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the French National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé; HAS) for oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors. METHODS: Public assessment reports published on NICE and HAS Web sites between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2021, describing appraisals for public reimbursement for oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors were searched and systematically reviewed. Biosimilars and generic drugs were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 119 public assessment reports published by NICE and 134 by HAS were identified, with 101 interventions assessed by both agencies. Of 101, 38 (38%) interventions received similar recommendations, 38 (38%) were recommended for different populations, and 25 (25%) were endorsed by one agency but rejected by the other. The main reason NICE would not recommend a drug was due to lack of cost-effectiveness, whereas HAS would primarily reject a drug on the grounds of insufficient clinical evidence. CONCLUSION: The major divergence between agencies is the key criterion used for reimbursement recommendations. NICE mainly considers cost-effectiveness, whereas HAS primarily focuses on the clinical value of interventions. This contributes to the variability in reimbursement recommendations and leads to differential access to oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors among patients in France, and England and Wales. HIGHLIGHTS: Both the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé; HAS) have established formal health technology assessment (HTA) processes and offer universal public health care coverage. However, both agencies diverge in the weight given to different elements of evidence during HTA evaluations. NICE uses cost-effectiveness as key criterion for recommendations on drug reimbursement, while HAS mostly limits its assessment to clinical value.For oncology new medicines indicated for treating solid tumors between 2015 and 2021, recommendations differed 62% of the time between NICE and HAS, primarily due to the distinct key decision-making criteria each HTA agency uses.For 4 interventions not endorsed by NICE, HAS saw these drugs as providing a substantial enhancement in clinical value over existing treatments, potentially providing an edge in price negotiations. Conversely, NICE deemed these drugs as not delivering adequate value for money in comparison with current therapies.A key difference between the 2 agencies is HAS's insistence on methodological rigor in efficacy results, compared with NICE's more flexible approach, considering descriptive efficacy results in cost-effectiveness modeling.

Cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with binimetinib in unresectable or metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with binimetinib (EncoBini) as compared to other targeted double combination therapies, namely dabrafenib with trametinib (DabraTrame) and vemurafenib with cobimetinib (VemuCobi), for the treatment of BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma (MM) from the French payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed considering a lifetime horizon. The model structure simulated the clinical pathway of patients with BRAF V600-mutant MM. Clinical effectiveness and safety inputs were sourced from the COLUMBUS trial, a network meta-analysis and published literature. Costs, resource use, and the quality of life inputs were obtained from the literature and appropriate French sources. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, EncoBini was associated, on average, with reduced costs and increased quality adjusted life years (QALYs), dominating both targeted double combination therapies. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of €90,000 per QALY, the probability of EncoBini being cost-effective against either comparator remained above 80%. The most influential model parameters were the hazard ratios for the overall survival of EncoBini vs DabraTrame and VemuCobi, the pre- and post-progression utility values, as well as treatment dosages and the relative dose intensity of all interventions. CONCLUSION: EncoBini is associated with reduced costs and increased QALYs, dominating other targeted double combination therapies (DabraTrame, VemuCobi) for patients with BRAF V600-mutant MM in France. EncoBini is a highly cost-effective intervention in MM.

Economic evaluation of encorafenib with cetuximab in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer in France: a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from the BEACON CRC randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The BEACON CRC randomised controlled trial (NCT02928224) in BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients showed improved overall survival for the combination treatment of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) with cetuximab (EGFR inhibitor) compared with cetuximab with chemotherapy (FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) or irinotecan). We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab in adult patients with BRAF-mutant mCRC after prior systemic therapy, from the perspective of the French healthcare system. DESIGN: A partitioned survival analysis model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab using data from BEACON CRC (encorafenib with cetuximab and cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan). For two further comparator treatments (FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI), a systemic literature review identified appropriate clinical trial data for indirect comparison. Piecewise modelling extrapolation was used to fulfil a lifetime horizon in the model. A discount rate of 2.5% was used. Treatment-emergent adverse events ≥grade 3 with an incidence of ≥2% were included, as well as relative dose intensity and utility values. OUTCOME MEASURES: The effectiveness outcomes of the model were expressed in terms of incremental life years gained and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. The cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results were presented probabilistically to account for parametric uncertainty. Deterministic and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The ICER for encorafenib with cetuximab versus cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan, FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI was €69 823/QALY, €70 421/QALY and €72 336/QALY, respectively. Encorafenib with cetuximab was considered cost-effective compared with the three comparators at a willingness to pay threshold of €90 000/QALY, with probabilities of being cost-effective of 89.8%, 98.2% and 86.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed encorafenib with cetuximab to be a cost-effective treatment in mCRC patients with a BRAF V600E mutation.

Comparative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for BRAF-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Results from a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma using a network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) identified studies in Medline, Embase and Cochrane published until November 2020. Screening used prespecified eligibility criteria. Following a transitivity assessment across included studies, Bayesian NMA was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 43 publications reporting 15 targeted therapy trials and 42 reporting 18 immunotherapy trials were retained from the SLR and considered for the NMA. Due to substantial between-study heterogeneity with immunotherapy trials, the analysis considered a network restricted to targeted therapies. Among combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib was superior to dabrafenib + trametinib for overall response rate (OR = 1.86; 95 % credible interval [CrI] 1.10, 3.17), superior to vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR = 0.51; 95 % CrI 0.29, 0.91) and fewer discontinuations due to AEs (OR = 0.45; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.96), and superior to atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer SAEs (OR = 0.41; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.82). Atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib and encorafenib + binimetinib were generally comparable for efficacy endpoints. Among double combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib showed high probabilities of being better for all efficacy and safety endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: This NMA confirms that combination therapies are more efficacious than monotherapies. Encorafenib + binimetinib has a favourable efficacy profile compared to other double combination therapies and a favourable safety profile compared to both double and triple combination therapies.