Software with artificial intelligence-derived algorithms for analysing CT brain scans in people with a suspected acute stroke: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Artificial intelligence-derived software technologies have been developed that are intended to facilitate the review of computed tomography brain scans in patients with suspected stroke. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of using artificial intelligence-derived software to support review of computed tomography brain scans in acute stroke in the National Health Service setting. Methods: Twenty-five databases were searched to July 2021. The review process included measures to minimise error and bias. Results were summarised by research question, artificial intelligence-derived software technology and study type. The health economic analysis focused on the addition of artificial intelligence-derived software-assisted review of computed tomography angiography brain scans for guiding mechanical thrombectomy treatment decisions for people with an ischaemic stroke. The de novo model (developed in R Shiny, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) consisted of a decision tree (short-term) and a state transition model (long-term) to calculate the mean expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years for people with ischaemic stroke and suspected large-vessel occlusion comparing artificial intelligence-derived software-assisted review to usual care. Results: A total of 22 studies (30 publications) were included in the review; 18/22 studies concerned artificial intelligence-derived software for the interpretation of computed tomography angiography to detect large-vessel occlusion. No study evaluated an artificial intelligence-derived software technology used as specified in the inclusion criteria for this assessment. For artificial intelligence-derived software technology alone, sensitivity and specificity estimates for proximal anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion were 95.4% (95% confidence interval 92.7% to 97.1%) and 79.4% (95% confidence interval 75.8% to 82.6%) for Rapid (iSchemaView, Menlo Park, CA, USA) computed tomography angiography, 91.2% (95% confidence interval 77.0% to 97.0%) and 85.0 (95% confidence interval 64.0% to 94.8%) for Viz LVO (Viz.ai, Inc., San Fransisco, VA, USA) large-vessel occlusion, 83.8% (95% confidence interval 77.3% to 88.7%) and 95.7% (95% confidence interval 91.0% to 98.0%) for Brainomix (Brainomix Ltd, Oxford, UK) e-computed tomography angiography and 98.1% (95% confidence interval 94.5% to 99.3%) and 98.2% (95% confidence interval 95.5% to 99.3%) for Avicenna CINA (Avicenna AI, La Ciotat, France) large-vessel occlusion, based on one study each. These studies were not considered appropriate to inform cost-effectiveness modelling but formed the basis by which the accuracy of artificial intelligence plus human reader could be elicited by expert opinion. Probabilistic analyses based on the expert elicitation to inform the sensitivity of the diagnostic pathway indicated that the addition of artificial intelligence to detect large-vessel occlusion is potentially more effective (quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.003), more costly (increased costs of £8.61) and cost-effective for willingness-to-pay thresholds of £3380 per quality-adjusted life-year and higher. Limitations and conclusions: The available evidence is not suitable to determine the clinical effectiveness of using artificial intelligence-derived software to support the review of computed tomography brain scans in acute stroke. The economic analyses did not provide evidence to prefer the artificial intelligence-derived software strategy over current clinical practice. However, results indicated that if the addition of artificial intelligence-derived software-assisted review for guiding mechanical thrombectomy treatment decisions increased the sensitivity of the diagnostic pathway (i.e. reduced the proportion of undetected large-vessel occlusions), this may be considered cost-effective. Future work: Large, preferably multicentre, studies are needed (for all artificial intelligence-derived software technologies) that evaluate these technologies as they would be implemented in clinical practice. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021269609. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR133836) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 11. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Stroke is a serious life-threatening medical condition caused by a blood clot or haemorrhage in the brain. Quick and effective management, including a brain scan, of the patients with suspected stroke can make a big difference in their outcome. Artificial intelligence-derived computer programmes exist that are intended to help with the interpretation of computed tomography scans of the brain in stroke. We undertook a thorough review of the existing research into the effectiveness and value for money of using these programmes to help doctors and other specialists to interpret computed tomography brain scans. We found very little evidence to tell us how well artificial intelligence-derived computer programmes work in practice. Some studies have looked at artificial intelligence-derived computer programmes on their own (i.e. not taken together with a doctor's judgement, as they were designed to be used). Other studies have looked at what happens to patients who are treated for stroke when artificial intelligence-derived computer programmes are used; these studies provide no information about whether using artificial intelligence-derived computer programmes may have led to patients who could have benefitted from treatment being missed. It is unclear how well artificial intelligence-derived software-assisted review works when added to current clinical practice.

KardiaMobile 6L for measuring QT interval in people having antipsychotic medication to inform early value assessment: a systematic review.

Background: The indication for this assessment is the use of the KardiaMobile six-lead electrocardiogram device for the assessment of QT interval-based cardiac risk in service users prior to the initiation of, or for the monitoring of, antipsychotic medications, which are associated with an established risk of QT interval prolongation. Objectives: To provide an early value assessment of whether KardiaMobile six-lead has the potential to provide an effective and safe alternative to 12-lead electrocardiogram for initial assessment and monitoring of QT interval-based cardiac risk in people taking antipsychotic medications. Review methods: Twenty-seven databases were searched to April/May 2022. Review methods followed published guidelines. Where appropriate, study quality was assessed using appropriate risk of bias tools. Results were summarised by research question; accuracy/technical performance; clinical effects (on cardiac and psychiatric outcomes); service user acceptability/satisfaction; costs of KardiaMobile six-lead. Results: We did not identify any studies which provided information about the diagnostic accuracy of KardiaMobile six-lead, for the detection of corrected QT-interval prolongation, in any population. All studies which reported information about agreement between QT interval measurements (corrected and/or uncorrected) with KardiaMobile six-lead versus 12-lead electrocardiogram were conducted in non-psychiatric populations, used cardiologists and/or multiple readers to interpret electrocardiograms. Where reported or calculable, the mean difference in corrected QT interval between devices (12-lead electrocardiogram vs. KardiaMobile six-lead) was generally small (≤ 10 ms) and corrected QT interval measured using KardiaMobile six-lead was consistently lower than that measured using 12-lead electrocardiogram. All information about the use of KardiaMobile six-lead, in the context of QT interval-based cardiac risk assessment for service users who require antipsychotic medication, was taken from retrospective surveys of staff and service users who had chosen to use KardiaMobile six-lead during pilots, described in two unpublished project reports. It is important to note that both these project reports relate to pilot studies which were not intended to be used in wider evaluations of KardiaMobile six-lead for use in the NHS. Both reports included survey results which indicated that the use of KardiaMobile six-lead may be associated with reductions in the time taken to complete an electrocardiogram and costs, relative to 12-lead electrocardiogram, and that KardiaMobile six-lead was preferred over 12-lead electrocardiogram by almost all responding staff and service users. Limitations: There was a lack of published evidence about the efficacy of KardiaMobile six-lead for initial assessment and monitoring of QT interval-based cardiac risk in people taking antipsychotic medications. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support a full diagnostic assessment evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of KardiaMobile six-lead, in the context of QT interval-based cardiac risk assessment for service users who require antipsychotic medication. The evidence to inform the aims of this early value assessment (i.e. to assess whether the device has the potential to be clinically effective and cost-effective) was also limited. This report includes a comprehensive list of research recommendations, both to reduce the uncertainty around this early value assessment and to provide the additional data needed to inform a full diagnostic assessment, including cost-effectiveness modelling. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022336695. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135520) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 19. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Some medicines used for people with certain mental health problems can increase the risk of developing serious heart conditions. Although these heart conditions are rare, it is generally recommended that people have an electrocardiogram examination before starting to take these medicines. People who need to continue these medications over a period of time may need additional electrocardiograms every so often, to check for any heart problems that have developed recently. KardiaMobile six-lead (or 6-lead) is a portable electrocardiogram that may offer a less intrusive way to take electrocardiogram measurements. This is because less undressing is needed as the electrodes are only applied to fingers of the left and right hand and the left ankle or knee and the cold gel is not needed. Testing using the KardiaMobile six-lead device can be carried out at the patient's home. These features might mean that the KardiaMobile six-lead device could be more acceptable than the 12-lead electrocardiogram to some patients. This assessment considered whether the KardiaMobile six-lead device has the potential to provide an effective and safe alternative to 12-lead electrocardiogram for initial assessment and monitoring of the risk of heart problems in people taking antipsychotic medications. Based on the available evidence, it remains unclear whether KardiaMobile six-lead has adequately demonstrated sufficient evidence of potential advantage(s) over current practice to justify further research to inform assessment of its clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness. Our report provides detailed recommendations about the research needed, to provide further information about potential benefits so that a decision can be made about whether it should be used in the NHS in England, after further research has been completed.

A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and safety for historical and current treatment options for metachromatic leukodystrophy in children, including atidarsagene autotemcel.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the benefit-risk profile for historical and current treatments for MLD. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on the effectiveness, safety, and costs of MLD treatments: allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and atidarsagene autotemcel (arsa-cel) according to best practice. RESULTS: A total of 6940 titles and abstracts were retrieved from the literature searches and 26 from other sources. From these, 35 manuscripts reporting on a total of 12 studies were selected for inclusion in the review. There were no controlled multi-armed trials. However, we provide observations comparing two interventional therapies (alloHSCT and arsa-cel) and each of these to standard/supportive care (natural history). There were no benefits for survival, gross motor function and cognitive function for LI patients receiving alloHSCT, as patients experienced disease progression similar to LI natural history. For juvenile patients receiving alloHSCT, no differences in survival were observed versus natural history, however stabilisation of cognitive and motor function were reported for some patients (particularly for pre- or minimally-symptomatic LJ patients), while others experienced disease progression. Furthermore, alloHSCT was associated with severe complications such as treatment-related mortality, graft versus host disease, and re-transplantation in both LI and EJ treated patients. Most LI and EJ patients treated with arsa-cel appeared to have normal development, preservation, or slower progression of gross motor function and cognitive function, in contrast to the rapid decline observed in natural history patients. A survival benefit for arsa-cel versus natural history and versus alloHSCT was observed in LI patients.LI and EJ patients treated with arsa-cel had better gross motor function and cognitive function compared to alloHSCT, which had limited effect on motor and cognitive decline. No data has been reported for arsa-cel treatment of LJ patients. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this systematic review indicates that compared to NHx and HSCT, treatment with arsa-cel results in clinically relevant benefits in LI and EJ MLD patients by preserving cognitive function and motor development in most patients, and increased survival for LI patients. Nevertheless, further research is required to confirm these findings, given they are based on results from non-RCT studies.

Oral Azacitidine for Maintenance Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia After Induction Therapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Celgene) of oral azacitidine (ONUREG), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral azacitidine for maintenance treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) after induction therapy compared with watch-and-wait plus best supportive care (BSC) and midostaurin. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. In the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo: median OS gain of 9.9 months (24.7 months versus 14.8 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.55-0.86), p < 0.001). The median time to relapse was also better for oral azacitidine, and the incidences of TEAEs were similar for the two arms. The company excluded two of the comparators listed in the scope, low-dose cytarabine and subcutaneous azacitidine, informed only by clinical expert opinion, leaving only best supportive care (BSC) and midostaurin for the FLT3-ITD and/or FLT3-TKD (FLT3 mutation)-positive subgroup. An ITC comparing oral azacitidine to midostaurin as maintenance therapy in the appropriate subgroup demonstrated that the OS and relapse-free survival (RFS) HRs were favourable for oral azacitidine when compared with midostaurin. However, in the only available trial of midostaurin as maintenance treatment in AML that was used for this ITC, subjects were not randomised at the maintenance phase, but at induction, which posed a substantial risk of bias. The revised and final probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) presented by the company, including a commercial arrangement, was £32,480 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for oral azacitidine versus watch-and-wait plus BSC. Oral azacitidine was dominant versus midostaurin in the FLT-3 subgroup. The ERG's concerns included the approach of modelling haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the generalisability of the population and the number of cycles of consolidation therapy pre-treatment in the QUAZAR AML-001 trial to UK clinical practice, and uncertainty in the relapse utility. The revised and final ERG base case resulted in a similar probabilistic ICER of £33,830 per QALY gained versus watch-and-wait plus BSC, but with remaining uncertainty. Oral azacitidine remained dominant versus midostaurin in the FLT-3 subgroup. After the second NICE appraisal committee meeting, the NICE Appraisal Committee recommended oral azacitidine (according to the commercial arrangement), within its marketing authorisation, as an option for maintenance treatment for AML in adults who are in complete remission, or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery, after induction therapy with or without consolidation treatment, and cannot have or do not want HSCT.

Abemaciclib in Combination with Endocrine Therapy for Adjuvant Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative, Node-Positive Early Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) of abemaciclib (Verzenios) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) for the treatment of adult patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence, as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in combination with Newcastle University, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarised the Company Submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS and also independently searched for relevant evidence and modified the manufacturer decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. A systematic literature review identified the MonarchE trial, an ongoing, open-label, randomised, double blind trial involving 5637 people comparing abemaciclib in combination with ET versus ET alone. The trial included two cohorts that used different inclusion criteria to define high risk of recurrence. The ERG considered Cohort 1 as an adequate representation of this population and the AC concluded that Cohort 1 was generalisable to National Health Service clinical practice. Trial results showed improvements in invasive disease-free survival for the abemaciclib arm, which was considered an appropriate surrogate outcome. The ERG believed that the modelling structure presented in the de novo economic model by the company was appropriate but highlighted several areas of uncertainty that had the potential to have a significant impact on the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Areas of uncertainty included the extrapolation of long-term survival curves, the duration of treatment effect and treatment waning, and the proportion of patients who receive other CDK4/6 treatments for metastatic disease after receiving abemaciclib. ICER estimates were £9164 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the company's base-case and £17,810 for the ERG's base-case. NICE recommended abemaciclib with ET as an option for the adjuvant treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

Pralsetinib for RET Fusion-Positive Advanced Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Roche) of pralsetinib (Gavreto®), as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pralsetinib for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with a RET inhibitor. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with University Medical Center Groningen, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarizes the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS reported data from the ARROW trial. ARROW is a single-arm, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, multi-cohort study in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and other advanced solid tumors. The CS included both untreated and pre-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients, among other disease types. The comparators in the untreated population were pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The comparators for the pre-treated population were docetaxel monotherapy, docetaxel + nintedanib, and platinum-based chemotherapy ± pemetrexed. As no comparators were included in ARROW, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate relative effectiveness. The ERG's concerns included the immaturity of data, small sample size, and lack of comparative safety evidence. The ERG considers the clinical evidence presented to be insufficiently robust to inform the economic model. Even when all the ERG preferred assumptions were implemented in the model, uncertainty remained on a number of issues, such as the appropriateness of the hazard ratios and the methods and data used to derive them, long-term efficacy of pralsetinib, and direct evidence for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). NICE did not recommend pralsetinib within its marketing authorization for treating RET fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults who have not had a RET inhibitor before. The uncertainty of the clinical evidence and the estimates of cost effectiveness were too high to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Therefore, pralsetinib was not recommended for routine use.

Filgotinib for Treating Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer (Galapagos) of filgotinib (Jyseleca®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of filgotinib for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults who have had an inadequate response, loss of response or were intolerant to a previous biologic agent or conventional therapy. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group. This paper summarises the company submission, presents the Evidence Review Group's critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the company submission, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The company submission included one relevant study for the comparison of filgotinib versus placebo: the SELECTION trial. As there was no head-to-head evidence with any of the comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses, one for the biologic-naïve population and one for the biologic-experienced population, and for both the induction and maintenance phases. The Evidence Review Group questioned the validity of the maintenance network meta-analysis because it assumed all active treatments to be comparators in this phase, which is not in line with clinical practice. The economic analysis used a number of assumptions that introduced substantial uncertainty, which could not be fully explored, for instance, the assumption that a risk of loss of response would be independent of health state and constant over time. Company and Evidence Review Group results indicate that at its current price, and disregarding confidential discounts for comparators and subsequent treatments, filgotinib dominates some comparators (golimumab and adalimumab in the company base case, all but intravenous and subcutaneous vedolizumab in the Evidence Review Group's base case) in the biologic-naïve population. In the biologic-experienced population, filgotinib dominates all comparators in both the company and the Evidence Review Group's base case. Results should be interpreted with caution as some important uncertainties were not included in the modelling. These uncertainties were mostly centred around the maintenance network meta-analysis, loss of response, health-related quality-of-life estimates and modelling of dose escalation. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended filgotinib within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults when conventional or biological treatment cannot be tolerated, or if the disease has not responded well enough or has stopped responding to these treatments, and if the company provides filgotinib according to the commercial arrangement.

Fenfluramine for Treating Dravet Syndrome: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Fenfluramine, tradename Fintepla®, was appraised within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process as Technology Appraisal 808. Within the STA process, the company (Zogenix International) provided NICE with a written submission and a mathematical health economic model, summarising the company's estimates of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fenfluramine for patients with Dravet syndrome (DS). This company submission (CS) was reviewed by an evidence review group (ERG) independent of NICE. The ERG, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, produced an ERG report. This paper presents a summary of the ERG report and the development of the NICE guidance. The CS included a systematic review of the evidence for fenfluramine. From this review the company identified and presented evidence from two randomised trials (Study 1 and Study 1504), an open-label extension study (Study 1503) and 'real world evidence' from a prospective and retrospective study. Both randomised trials were conducted in patients up to 18 years of age with DS, whose seizures were incompletely controlled with previous anti-epileptic drugs. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare fenfluramine with cannabidiol plus clobazam. There was no evidence of a difference between any doses of fenfluramine and cannabidiol in the mean convulsive seizure frequency (CSF) rate during treatment. However, fenfluramine increased the number of patients achieving ≥ 50% reduction in CSF frequency from baseline compared to cannabidiol. The company used an individual-patient state-transition model (R version 3.5.2) to model cost-effectiveness of fenfluramine. The CSF and convulsive seizure-free days were estimated using patient-level data from the placebo arm of the fenfluramine registration studies. Subsequently, a treatment effect of either fenfluramine or cannabidiol was applied. Utility values for the economic model were obtained by mapping Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory data from the registration studies to EuroQol-5D-3L Youth (EQ-5D-Y-3L). The company included caregiver utilities in their base-case, as the severe needs of patients with DS have a major impact on parents and caregivers. There were several key issues. First, the company included caregiver utilities in the model in a way that when patients in the economic model died, the corresponding caregiver utility was also set to zero. Second, the model was built in R statistical software, resulting in transparency issues. Third, the company assumed the same percentage reduction for convulsive seizure days as was estimated for CSF. Fourth, during the final appraisal committee meeting, influential changes were made to the model that were not in line with the ERG's preferences (but were accepted by the appraisal committee). The company's revised and final incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) in line with committee preferences resulted in fenfluramine dominating cannabidiol. Fenfluramine was recommended as an add-on to other antiepileptic medicines for treating seizures associated with DS in people aged 2 years and older in the National Health Service (NHS).

Belimumab for Treating Active Autoantibody-Positive Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (GlaxoSmithKline [GSK]) of Benlysta (belimumab) to submit evidence regarding its clinical and cost effectiveness, for the review and possible extension of a previously conditionally approved intravenous formulation of belimumab for the treatment of active autoantibody-positive systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the NICE Appraisal Committee.This appraisal is different to the previous appraisal in three ways: (1). This appraisal expands its definition of 'high disease activity'. (2). In TA397, belimumab was approved, with a managed access arrangement (MAA), for adults only. This appraisal includes subjects aged 5 years or older. (3). The original appraisal included an intravenous formulation only, but the current appraisal also includes a new subcutaneous formulation in the form of a prefilled pen.The company was required to collect real-world data from the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register (BILAG-BR), including data on the efficacy, safety, and effect on health-related quality of life of belimumab versus rituximab. This appraisal considers these data as well as additional clinical trial evidence presented in the company's updated submission to address uncertainties identified during the original appraisal. The ERG identified three major concerns with the evidence presented on the clinical effectiveness in the current submission; namely, short follow-up in the main comparative trials (BLISS-SC, BLISS-52 and BLISS-76); using the propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis in calibrating the cost-effectiveness model can severely bias the results in favour of belimumab; and BILAG-BR data are not suitable for a comparison of belimumab with rituximab.The main issue in the economic analysis was the uncertainty about long-term disease activity progression and resulting organ damage. The company's approach of calibrating modelled organ damage to longer-term data analysed using the PSM analysis was methodologically inappropriate. The final analysis comparing belimumab with standard treatment for the intravenous formulation resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,335 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and £30,278 per QALY gained in the company's and ERG's base-case analyses, respectively. For the subcutaneous formulation, the final analysis resulted in £8480 per QALY gained and £29,313 per QALY gained in the company's and ERG's base-case analyses, respectively. NICE recommended belimumab in both intravenous and subcutaneous formulations as an add-on treatment option for active autoantibody-positive SLE in the HDA-2 subgroup.

Mogamulizumab for Previously Treated Mycosis Fungoides and Sézary Syndrome: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Kyowa Kirin) of mogamulizumab (Poteligeo®), as part of the single technology appraisal process, to submit evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness for previously treated mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. Based on a systematic literature review, one randomised controlled trial, MAVORIC, was identified showing favourable results in patients with MF and SS. However, MAVORIC compared mogamulizumab to vorinostat, which is not standard care in the NHS, and there is uncertainty due to the study design, specifically crossover of patients. Based on a "naïve comparison of results from the vorinostat arm of the MAVORIC study and the physician's choice arm (methotrexate or bexarotene i.e. United Kingdom [UK] standard treatments) of the ALCANZA study as well as comparison to Phase II bexarotene data", the company considered vorinostat to be "a reasonable proxy for current standard of care in the NHS". The ERG considered, based on the limited data available, that the comparability of vorinostat (MAVORIC) and physician's choice (ALCANZA) could not be established. In response to the Appraisal Consultation Document, the company provided an unanchored matched adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of mogamulizumab with UK standard care by analysing Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. However, given the high risk of bias of an unanchored MAIC, these results needed to be regarded with a considerable degree of caution. The economic analysis suffered from uncertainty because there was no trial evidence on the comparator in the England and Wales National Health Service (NHS), and it was unclear to what extent the trial (MAVORIC) comparator (vorinostat) was comparable to standard care, referred to as established clinical management (ECM) in the NHS. The evidence for overall survival had not reached maturity and was confounded by treatment switching, for which different crossover adjustment methods produced large variations in life years. Caregiver utilities were applied in the analysis, but there was a lack of guidance on their application and whether these were indicated in this appraisal. After consultation, the company updated the economic analysis with the MAIC. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing mogamulizumab against ECM were (depending on whether the HES or MAVORIC comparison were used) £31,030 or £32,634 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained according to the company's base case and £38,274 or £80,555 per QALY gained according to the ERG's base case. NICE did not recommend mogamulizumab for treating MF or SS in adults who have had at least one previous systemic treatment. This decision was subsequently appealed, and an appeal decision has been reached.

Filgotinib for Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Gilead) of filgotinib (JyselecaTM), as part of the single technology appraisal process, to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the NICE Appraisal Committee. The evidence for filgotinib was based on two good-quality international randomised controlled trials. In FINCH 1, filgotinib was compared with placebo, and in FINCH 2, filgotinib was compared with adalimumab and placebo. As there was no head-to-head evidence with most active comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), one for the conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-inadequate response population and one for the biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-inadequate response population. The outcomes analysed were American College of Rheumatology response criteria at weeks 12 and 24, and European League Against Rheumatism response criteria at 24 weeks. The statistical methods used to perform the NMAs were valid and were in line with previous NICE appraisals. Results of the NMAs are confidential and cannot be reported here, but they were uncertain due to heterogeneity of the included studies. The economic analysis of the patient population with moderate RA suffered from limited evidence on the progression from moderate to severe health states. For the moderate RA population, the final analyses comparing filgotinib, with or without methotrexate, against standard of care resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of around £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in the company's and ERG's base-case and scenario analyses. NICE recommended filgotinib in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy when methotrexate is contraindicated, or if people cannot tolerate it, for patients with moderate RA whose disease had responded inadequately to two or more conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). For the severe RA population, in view of the higher or similar net health benefits that filgotinib provided versus its comparators, NICE recommended filgotinib with or without methotrexate for patients whose disease had responded inadequately to two or more conventional DMARDs, who had been treated with one or more biological DMARDs, if rituximab was not an option, or after treatment with rituximab.

High-sensitivity troponin assays for early rule-out of acute myocardial infarction in people with acute chest pain: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction is important, but only 20% of emergency admissions for chest pain will actually have an acute myocardial infarction. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays may allow rapid rule out of myocardial infarction and avoid unnecessary hospital admissions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays for the management of adults presenting with acute chest pain, in particular for the early rule-out of acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: Sixteen databases were searched up to September 2019. Review methods followed published guidelines. Studies were assessed for quality using appropriate risk-of-bias tools. The bivariate model was used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity for meta-analyses involving four or more studies; otherwise, random-effects logistic regression was used. The health economic analysis considered the long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with different troponin testing methods. The de novo model consisted of a decision tree and a state-transition cohort model. A lifetime time horizon (of 60 years) was used. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies (123 publications) were included in the review. The high-sensitivity cardiac troponin test strategies evaluated are defined by the combination of four factors (i.e. assay, number and timing of tests, and threshold concentration), resulting in a large number of possible combinations. Clinical opinion indicated a minimum clinically acceptable sensitivity of 97%. When considering single test strategies, only those using a threshold at or near to the limit of detection for the assay, in a sample taken at presentation, met the minimum clinically acceptable sensitivity criterion. The majority of the multiple test strategies that met this criterion comprised an initial rule-out step, based on high-sensitivity cardiac troponin levels in a sample taken on presentation and a minimum symptom duration, and a second stage for patients not meeting the initial rule-out criteria, based on presentation levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin and absolute change after 1, 2 or 3 hours. Two large cluster randomised controlled trials found that implementation of an early rule-out pathway for myocardial infarction reduced length of stay and rate of hospital admission without increasing cardiac events. In the base-case analysis, standard troponin testing was both the most effective and the most costly. Other testing strategies with a sensitivity of 100% (subject to uncertainty) were almost equally effective, resulting in the same life-year and quality-adjusted life-year gain at up to four decimal places. Comparisons based on the next best alternative showed that for willingness-to-pay values below £8455 per quality-adjusted life-year, the Access High Sensitivity Troponin I (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA) [(symptoms > 3 hours AND < 4 ng/l at 0 hours) OR (< 5 ng/l AND Δ < 5 ng/l at 0 to 2 hours)] would be cost-effective. For thresholds between £8455 and £20,190 per quality-adjusted life-year, the Elecsys® Troponin-T high sensitive (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) (< 12 ng/l at 0 hours AND Δ < 3 ng/l at 0 to 1 hours) would be cost-effective. For a threshold > £20,190 per quality-adjusted life-year, the Dimension Vista® High-Sensitivity Troponin I (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) (< 5 ng/l at 0 hours AND Δ < 2 ng/l at 0 to 1 hours) would be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: High-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing may be cost-effective compared with standard troponin testing. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019154716. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Heart disease is a leading cause of death in the UK, with myocardial infarction (heart attack) accounting for approximately 4% of all deaths recorded in 2018. Many people attend hospital with chest pain and suspected myocardial infarction, and chest pain has been reported as the most common cause of hospital admissions in the UK, accounting for approximately 5% of all emergency admissions in 2017­18. It is important to diagnose people who are suspected of having a myocardial infarction as early as possible to ensure quick and effective treatment. However, only around 20% of emergency admissions for chest pain will actually have an myocardial infarction and there are many other possible causes of chest pain (e.g. gastro-oesophageal disorders, muscle pain, anxiety or stable ischaemic heart disease). Current practice for ruling out myocardial infarction includes blood tests taken when the patient is first seen in the emergency department and repeated after 3­6 hours or 10­12 hours, depending on the test used. Tests that can quickly tell which patients do not have myocardial infarction could therefore avoid unnecessary hospital admissions and anxiety for many people. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high-sensitivity troponin tests, used as single tests or repeated over a short time, for the early rule out of myocardial infarction in people who present to hospital with chest pain. We found that high-sensitivity troponin tests can safely rule out myocardial infarction within the 4-hour NHS emergency department target. Health economic analyses indicated that high-sensitivity tests may be considered value for money compared with standard troponin tests, which require repeat testing at 10­12 hours.

SpaceOAR Hydrogel Spacer for Reducing Radiation Toxicity During Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between SpaceOAR and radiation dosing, toxicity and quality-of-life vs no spacer across all radiotherapy modalities for prostate cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase was performed from database inception through May 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full papers. Data extraction was performed, and quality assessed by 1 reviewer and checked by a second, using a third reviewer as required. The synthesis was narrative. RESULTS: 19 studies (3,622 patients) were included (only 1 randomized controlled trial, in image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT), 18 comparatives non-randomized controlled trials in external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT), brachytherapy, and combinations thereof). No hypofractionation studies were found. Regardless of radiotherapy type, SpaceOAR significantly reduced rectal radiation dose (eg, V40 average difference -6.1% in high dose-rate brachytherapy plus IG-IMRT to -9.1% in IG-IMRT) and reduced gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities (eg, late gastrointestinal toxicity 1% vs 6% (P = .01), late genitourinary toxicity of 15% vs 32% (P < .001) in stereotactic body radiotherapy). Improvements were observed in most Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite quality-of-life domains (eg, bowel function score decrease at 3 and 6 months: Average change of zero vs -6.25 and -3.57 respectively in low dose-rate brachytherapy plus EBRT). CONCLUSION: The randomized controlled trial in IG-IMRT demonstrated that SpaceOAR reduces rectal radiation dose and late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities, with urinary, bowel, and sexual quality-of-life improvement. These advantages were verified in observational studies in various radiotherapy types. Further research is required in hypofractionation.

Modeling the cost-effectiveness of prolonged-release fampridine for the treatment of walking impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis in Sweden.

Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding prolonged-release (PR)-fampridine to best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for the improvement of walking ability in patients with MS.Methods: A cost-utility analysis based on a Markov model was developed to model responders and timed 25-foot walk (T25FW) scores, accumulated costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) in adults with MS and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores between 4 and 7. The analysis was conducted from a Swedish societal perspective.Results: In the base-case analysis, PR-fampridine plus BSC led to a higher QALY gain than BSC alone. The largest direct cost was professional care provision followed by hospital inpatient stays while the indirect cost was the loss of earnings due to days off work. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PR-fampridine plus BSC compared with BSC alone was 57,109 Swedish Kronor (kr)/QALY (€5,607/QALY [1 kr = €0.0981762 on 8 April 2021] and $6,675/QALY [1 kr = $0.116890 on 8 April 2021]). All sensitivity analyses performed resulted in ICERs below 500,000 kr (€49,088 and $58,445).Limitations: Resource use data were not specific to the Swedish market.Conclusions: PR-fampridine represents a cost-effective treatment for MS-related walking impairment in Sweden, due to improvements in patients' quality of life and reduced healthcare resource utilization.

Optimizing the Use of High-Sensitivity Troponin Assays for the Early Rule-out of Myocardial Infarction in Patients Presenting with Chest Pain: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the accuracy and clinical effectiveness of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays for early rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in adults presenting with acute chest pain. METHODS: Sixteen databases were searched to September 2019. Review methods followed published guidelines. The bivariate model was used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals for meta-analyses involving 4 or more studies, otherwise random-effects logistic regression was used. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies (124 publications) were included in the review. The hs-cTn test strategies evaluated in the included studies were defined by the combination of 4 factors (assay, number of tests, timing of tests, and threshold concentration or change in concentration between tests). Clinical opinion indicated a minimum acceptable sensitivity of 97%. A single test at presentation using a threshold at or near the assay limit of detection could reliably rule-out NSTEMI for a range of hs-cTn assays. Serial testing strategies, which include an immediate rule-out step, increased the proportion ruled out without loss of sensitivity. Finally, serial testing strategies without an immediate rule-out step had excellent sensitivity and specificity, but at the expense of the option for immediate patient discharge. CONCLUSION: Test strategies that comprise an initial rule-out step, based on low hs-cTn concentrations at presentation and a minimum symptom duration, and a second step for those not ruled-out that incorporates a small absolute change in hs-cTn at 1, 2, or 3 hours, produce the highest rule-out rates with a very low risk of missed NSTEMI. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42019154716.

DNA damage repair gene mutation testing and genetic counseling in men with/without prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Background: Ongoing clinical trials are investigating PARP inhibitors to target the DNA damage repair (DDR) pathway in prostate cancer. DDR mutation screening will guide treatment strategy and assess eligibility for clinical trials. Materials & methods: This systematic review estimated the rate of DDR mutation testing or genetic counseling among men with or at risk of prostate cancer. Results: From 6856 records, one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria and described men undiagnosed with prostate cancer with a family history of BRCA1/2 mutation who received DDR mutation testing. Conclusion: With only one study included in this first systematic review of DDR mutation testing or genetic counseling in men with or at risk of prostate cancer, more research is warranted.