Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy in the US for women with previously treated deficient mismatch repair or high microsatellite instability unresectable or metastatic endometrial cancer.

AIMS: There is limited published evidence for the cost-effectiveness of treatments for unresectable or metastatic endometrial cancer (mEC). The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously treated unresectable or mEC, in women whose tumors have deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) or high microsatellite instability (MSI-H). The analysis was carried out from a US healthcare payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A lifetime partitioned survival model comprising three health states (progression-free, progressed disease and death) was constructed. Chemotherapy was represented by single-agent paclitaxel or doxorubicin. Overall survival, progression-free survival and time on treatment data for pembrolizumab were obtained from a Phase II clinical study that included women with previously treated dMMR/MSI-H unresectable or mEC (KEYNOTE-158, NCT02628067). Survival data for chemotherapy were obtained from a published Phase III study for previously treated advanced endometrial cancer. Costs included were drug acquisition and administration, health-state, end-of-life, and adverse event management. Costs were presented in 2019 US$. Outcomes were calculated as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using EQ-5D data from KEYNOTE-158. Model results were tested extensively in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that pembrolizumab is a highly cost-effective treatment option when compared with chemotherapy, with estimated deterministic and probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $58,165 and $57,668 per QALY gained, respectively. Pembrolizumab was associated with a large QALY and life-year gain per person versus chemotherapy over the model time horizon (deterministic 4.68 life year gain, 3.80 QALYs), with the majority of QALYs accrued in the progression-free health state. LIMITATIONS: The key limitation of the analysis was the lack of comparative effectiveness data for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab is a highly cost-effective treatment option when compared with chemotherapy for women with previously treated dMMR/MSI-H unresectable or mEC. Results were robust to the changes in parameters and assumptions explored.

Challenging current views on bile acid diarrhoea and malabsorption.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) assessed guidance (DG7) on the use of tauroselcholic (75selenium) acid (also known as SeHCAT) for the investigation of diarrhoea due to bile acid malabsorption (BAM) in patients with IBS-D and in patients with Crohn's disease who have not had an ileal resection. NICE concluded that tauroselcholic (75selenium) acid was recommended for use in research only. NICE will be reviewing the decision to update the guidance for tauroselcholic (75selenium) acid, for these populations, in March 2017. AIM: Our aim is to summarise advances in BAM, also known as bile acid diarrhoea (BAD), and encourage clinicians to re-evaluate their understanding of this disorder. APPROACH: We review the prevalence, diagnosis and treatment of BAD/BAM. We describe the new evidence available since the original NICE review in 2012, and discuss the economic issues associated with failure to diagnose or to treat BAD/BAM accurately. EVIDENCE UPDATE: There is new and compelling evidence available since DG7, which shows that tauroselcholic (75selenium) acid scanning is a powerful tool in the diagnosis of BAD/BAM. We summarise published prevalence data (approximately 1% prevalence in the UK, as suggested by clinical practice diagnosis rates), and highlight that the true prevalence of BAD/BAM could be far greater than this. CONCLUSION: We present evidence that challenges current opinion about this disorder, and we commend both clinicians and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for being open to arguments and new evidence in any future HTAs.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of anogenital warts: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Typically occurring on the external genitalia, anogenital warts (AGWs) are benign epithelial skin lesions caused by human papillomavirus infection. AGWs are usually painless but can be unsightly and physically uncomfortable, and affected people might experience psychological distress. The evidence base on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for AGWs is limited. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of medical and surgical treatments for AGWs and to develop an economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library databases and Web of Science) were searched from inception (or January 2000 for Web of Science) to September 2014. Bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched to identify potentially relevant studies. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for ongoing and planned studies. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out according to standard methods and a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) undertaken. The model implemented for each outcome was that with the lowest deviance information criterion. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the UK NHS. The model structure was informed through a systematic review of the economic literature and in consultation with clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the MTC. Costs were obtained from the literature and standard UK sources. RESULTS: Of 4232 titles and abstracts screened for inclusion in the review of clinical effectiveness, 60 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 19 interventions were included. Analysis by MTC indicated that ablative techniques were typically more effective than topical interventions at completely clearing AGWs at the end of treatment. Podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution (Condyline(®), Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd; Warticon(®) solution, Stiefel Laboratories Ltd) was found to be the most effective topical treatment evaluated. Networks for other outcomes included fewer treatments, which restrict conclusions on the comparative effectiveness of interventions. In total, 84 treatment strategies were assessed using the economic model. Podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution first line followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) laser therapy second line if AGWs did not clear was most likely to be considered a cost-effective use of resources at a willingness to pay of £20,000-30,000 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. The result was robust to most sensitivity analyses conducted. LIMITATIONS: Limited reporting in identified studies of baseline characteristics for the enrolled population generates uncertainty around the comparability of the study populations and therefore the generalisability of the results to clinical practice. Subgroup analyses were planned based on type, number and size of AGWs, all of which are factors thought to influence treatment effect. Lack of data on clinical effectiveness based on these characteristics precluded analysis of the differential effects of treatments in the subgroups of interest. Despite identification of 60 studies, most comparisons in the MTC are informed by only one RCT. Additionally, lack of head-to-head RCTs comparing key treatments, together with minimal reporting of results in some studies, precluded comprehensive analysis of all treatments for AGWs. CONCLUSIONS: The results generated by the MTC are in agreement with consensus opinion that ablative techniques are clinically more effective at completely clearing AGWs after treatment. However, the evidence base informing the MTC is limited. A head-to-head RCT that evaluates the comparative effectiveness of interventions used in clinical practice would help to discern the potential advantages and disadvantages of the individual treatments. The results of the economic analysis suggest that podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution is likely to represent a cost-effective first-line treatment option. More expensive effective treatments, such as CO2 laser therapy or surgery, may represent cost-effective second-line treatment options. No treatment and podophyllin are unlikely to be considered cost-effective treatment options. There is uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of treatment with imiquimod, trichloroacetic acid and cryotherapy. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005457. 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.