Hyperhidrosis quality of life measures: review and patient perspective.

PURPOSE: To identify the tools that have been used to measure quality of life in hyperhidrosis research and obtain patient insight on commonly used tools. METHODS: Twelve databases were searched to identify studies that reported measuring quality of life or described a quality of life tool in the context of hyperhidrosis. Data on the use of the tools were tabulated and hyperhidrosis-specific and dermatology-specific measures were summarized. A workshop was held to obtain the patients' perspective on the most commonly used tools and the newly developed HidroQoL tool. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-two studies were included in the review. Twenty-two quality of life tools were identified; two or more tools were often used in combination. The most commonly used tools were the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale, the Dermatology Quality of Life Index and the Hyperhidrosis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Patient advisors preferred the new HidroQoL tool, which was considered to be easy to complete and most relevant to hyperhidrosis patients. CONCLUSIONS: There are several tools available for assessing quality of life in hyperhidrosis patients; disease specific measures are widely used and appear suitable. It is unclear which tool is the most reliable, although the HidroQoL tool was preferred by a small group of patient advisors.

Correction to: Ceritinib for Untreated Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The title of the article should read.

Ceritinib for Untreated Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ceritinib (Zykadia®, Novartis) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug, as a first-line treatment for adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive (+) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) and CHE (Centre for Health Economics) Technology Assessment Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the Company's submission (CS), the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The evidence submitted in support of ceritinib, as the first-line treatment in ALK+ advanced NSCLC, was a phase III, international, multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing ceritinib with pemetrexed/cisplatin plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy (chemotherapy [CT] group). The results indicated that ceritinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with CT. The only comparator considered in the CS was crizotinib. The evidence selected in support of crizotinib was PROFILE 1014, an open-label RCT of crizotinib, compared with pemetrexed/cisplatin CT (without maintenance therapy), in previously untreated advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC. The design and population of PROFILE 1014 was similar to that of ASCEND-4, though there were some differences between the trials. The Company considered it not possible to perform an 'anchor-based' analysis of first-line ceritinib and crizotinib, and presented a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of ceritinib and crizotinib using only the ALK inhibitor arm of ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. The indirect comparison suggests that ceritinib may be more effective in prolonging PFS than crizotinib. The ERG agreed that an indirect comparison using only the ALK inhibitor arm of the trials was the only option available in the present assessment; however, a number of limitations and potential bias were identified in this analysis. The Company's model estimated that ceritinib was cost effective when compared with crizotinib. However, the ERG highlighted several concerns with the Company's analysis; the ERG's preferred base case estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £69,255 per quality-adjusted life-year (no patient access scheme [PAS] included). The ERG considered the economic analysis to be sensitive to changes in assumption used, partly due to the due to the immaturity of the overall survival data from trials, which leads to uncertainty around the extrapolation used. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ceritinib is recommended, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC in adults, if the Company provides it with the discount agreed in the PAS.

Strimvelis® for Treating Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Caused by Adenosine Deaminase Deficiency: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Highly Specialised Technology Evaluation.

The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics Technology Assessment Group at the University of York was commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Highly Specialised Technologies (HST) programme to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG) for an appraisal of Strimvelis®, a gene therapy treatment for adenosine deaminase deficiency-severe combined immunodeficiency (ADA-SCID). This paper describes the manufacturing company's submission of clinical and economic evidence, the ERG's review and the resulting NICE guidance. For Strimvelis® compared with haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) from a matched unrelated donor (MUD) and HSCT from a haploidentical donor, the company base-case deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £36,360 and £14,645 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively (using a discount rate of 1.5%). Although overall survival in patients receiving Strimvelis® was substantially higher than historical comparator data on HSCT from a MUD or haploidentical donor, the ERG was concerned that the estimated treatment benefit remained highly uncertain. The ERG critiqued some assumptions in the cost-effectiveness model, including that all patients return to general population mortality and morbidity after a successful procedure; that all patients receive a matched sibling donor following an unsuccessful engraftment; and that differences in wait times exist between the treatments. Incorporating a number of changes to the model, the ERG's base-case ICERs were £86,815 per QALY gained for Strimvelis® compared with HSCT from a MUD and £16,704 per QALY gained compared with HSCT from a haploidentical donor (using a discount rate of 1.5%). The ICER for Strimvelis® compared with HSCT from a MUD was highly sensitive to the difference in procedural mortality and could exceed NICE's £100,000 per QALY gained threshold for HSTs, if HSCT survival rates have improved since the most recent data. The evaluation committee concluded that the most plausible ICERs were lower than £100,000 per QALY gained and that Strimvelis® should be recommended for treatment of ADA-SCID where a matched related donor is unavailable.

Brain and spinal stimulation therapies for phantom limb pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although many treatments exist for phantom limb pain (PLP), the evidence supporting them is limited and there are no guidelines for PLP management. Brain and spinal cord neurostimulation therapies are targeted at patients with chronic PLP but have yet to be systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To determine which types of brain and spinal stimulation therapy appear to be the best for treating chronic PLP. DESIGN: Systematic reviews of effectiveness and epidemiology studies, and a survey of NHS practice. POPULATION: All patients with PLP. INTERVENTIONS: Invasive interventions - deep brain stimulation (DBS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. Non-invasive interventions - repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Phantom limb pain and quality of life. DATA SOURCES: Twelve databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) and clinical trial registries were searched in May 2017, with no date limits applied. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full texts. Data extraction and quality assessments were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by another. A questionnaire was distributed to clinicians via established e-mail lists of two relevant clinical societies. All results were presented narratively with accompanying tables. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 30 non-comparative group studies, 18 case reports and 21 epidemiology studies were included. Results from a good-quality RCT suggested short-term benefits of rTMS in reducing PLP, but not in reducing anxiety or depression. Small randomised trials of tDCS suggested the possibility of modest, short-term reductions in PLP. No RCTs of invasive therapies were identified. Results from small, non-comparative group studies suggested that, although many patients benefited from short-term pain reduction, far fewer maintained their benefits. Most studies had important methodological or reporting limitations and few studies reported quality-of-life data. The evidence on prognostic factors for the development of chronic PLP from the longitudinal studies also had important limitations. The results from these studies suggested that pre-amputation pain and early PLP intensity are good predictors of chronic PLP. Results from the cross-sectional studies suggested that the proportion of patients with severe chronic PLP is between around 30% and 40% of the chronic PLP population, and that around one-quarter of chronic PLP patients find their PLP to be either moderately or severely limiting or bothersome. There were 37 responses to the questionnaire distributed to clinicians. SCS and DRG stimulation are frequently used in the NHS but the prevalence of use of DBS and MCS was low. Most responders considered SCS and DRG stimulation to be at least sometimes effective. Neurosurgeons had mixed views on DBS, but most considered MCS to rarely be effective. Most clinicians thought that a randomised trial design could be successfully used to study neurostimulation therapies. LIMITATION: There was a lack of robust research studies. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available studies of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neurostimulation treatments do not provide robust, reliable results. Therefore, it is uncertain which treatments are best for chronic PLP. FUTURE WORK: Randomised crossover trials, randomised N-of-1 trials and prospective registry trials are viable study designs for future research. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017065387. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Ustekinumab for Treating Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease after Prior Therapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Janssen to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of their drug ustekinumab, an interleukin-12/23 inhibitor, for treating moderate-to-severe active Crohn's disease (CD). The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) and Centre for Health Economics (CHE) Technology Appraisal Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the Company's submission, the ERG's critical review of submitted evidence, and the resulting NICE guidance. The main supporting clinical evidence was derived from four well conducted, randomised controlled trials, comparing ustekinumab with placebo in two sub-populations (conventional care failure and anti-TNFα failure patients) of adults with moderate-to-severe CD. Three trials assessed treatment induction over 8 weeks, while the fourth recruited successfully induced patients into a maintenance trial for 1 year. These trials showed ustekinumab to be more effective than placebo in terms of its ability to induce and maintain clinical response and remission. In the absence of any direct head-to-head data, the Company conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA), which synthesised induction trial data on ustekinumab and relevant comparators (vedolizumab, adalimumab and infliximab) using placebo data as a common comparator. This analysis found ustekinumab to be of comparable efficacy to previously approved biologics in treatment induction. A 'treatment sequence analysis' compared long-term treatment efficacy, finding ustekinumab to be comparable in maintaining treatment response and remission to the three other biologic therapies. However, the ERG had identified many limitations and potential bias in this analysis, and urged caution when interpreting the results. The Company's economic model estimated ustekinumab to be dominant in both sub-populations compared with conventional care; however, the ERG's preferred base-case estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £109,279 in the conventional care failure sub-population, and £110,967 in the anti-TNFα failure sub-population when compared with conventional care. However, the ERG identified significant failings in both the model structure and data inputs, which could not be addressed without complete restructuring. The ERG considered that the economic analysis presented by the Company failed to adequately address the decision problem specified in NICE's scope. The NICE Appraisal Committee recommended ustekinumab within its market authorisation, on the grounds of sufficiently similar efficacy and costs to previously recommended biologic therapies. However, the ERG's analyses demonstrated that all currently recommended biologics are unlikely to be cost effective relative to conventional care, raising broader questions regarding the appropriateness of cost-comparison exercises for decision making.

Interventions for hyperhidrosis in secondary care: a systematic review and value-of-information analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hyperhidrosis is uncontrollable excessive sweating that occurs at rest, regardless of temperature. The symptoms of hyperhidrosis can significantly affect quality of life. The management of hyperhidrosis is uncertain and variable. OBJECTIVE: To establish the expected value of undertaking additional research to determine the most effective interventions for the management of refractory primary hyperhidrosis in secondary care. METHODS: A systematic review and economic model, including a value-of-information (VOI) analysis. Treatments to be prescribed by dermatologists and minor surgical treatments for hyperhidrosis of the hands, feet and axillae were reviewed; as endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy (ETS) is incontestably an end-of-line treatment, it was not reviewed further. Fifteen databases (e.g. CENTRAL, PubMed and PsycINFO), conference proceedings and trial registers were searched from inception to July 2016. Systematic review methods were followed. Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted for comparisons between botulinum toxin (BTX) injections and placebo for axillary hyperhidrosis, but otherwise, owing to evidence limitations, data were synthesised narratively. A decision-analytic model assessed the cost-effectiveness and VOI of five treatments (iontophoresis, medication, BTX, curettage, ETS) in 64 different sequences for axillary hyperhidrosis only. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Fifty studies were included in the effectiveness review: 32 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 17 non-RCTs and one large prospective case series. Most studies were small, rated as having a high risk of bias and poorly reported. The interventions assessed in the review were iontophoresis, BTX, anticholinergic medications, curettage and newer energy-based technologies that damage the sweat gland (e.g. laser, microwave). There is moderate-quality evidence of a large statistically significant effect of BTX on axillary hyperhidrosis symptoms, compared with placebo. There was weak but consistent evidence for iontophoresis for palmar hyperhidrosis. Evidence for other interventions was of low or very low quality. For axillary hyperhidrosis cost-effectiveness results indicated that iontophoresis, BTX, medication, curettage and ETS was the most cost-effective sequence (probability 0.8), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £9304 per quality-adjusted life-year. Uncertainty associated with study bias was not reflected in the economic results. Patients and clinicians attending an end-of-project workshop were satisfied with the sequence of treatments for axillary hyperhidrosis identified as being cost-effective. All patient advisors considered that the Hyperhidrosis Quality of Life Index was superior to other tools commonly used in hyperhidrosis research for assessing quality of life. LIMITATIONS: The evidence for the clinical effectiveness and safety of second-line treatments for primary hyperhidrosis is limited. This meant that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions for most interventions assessed and the cost-effectiveness analysis was restricted to hyperhidrosis of the axilla. FUTURE WORK: Based on anecdotal evidence and inference from evidence for the axillae, participants agreed that a trial of BTX (with anaesthesia) compared with iontophoresis for palmar hyperhidrosis would be most useful. The VOI analysis indicates that further research into the effectiveness of existing medications might be worthwhile, but it is unclear that such trials are of clinical importance. Research that established a robust estimate of the annual incidence of axillary hyperhidrosis in the UK population would reduce the uncertainty in future VOI analyses. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027803. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for treating plaque psoriasis in children and young people: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that predominantly affects the skin. Adalimumab (HUMIRA®, AbbVie, Maidenhead, UK), etanercept (Enbrel®, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) and ustekinumab (STELARA®, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Titusville, NJ, USA) are the three biological treatments currently licensed for psoriasis in children. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab within their respective licensed indications for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in children and young people. DATA SOURCES: Searches of the literature and regulatory sources, contact with European psoriasis registries, company submissions and clinical study reports from manufacturers, and previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal documentation. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies were summarised and subjected to detailed critical appraisal. A network meta-analysis incorporating adult data was developed to connect the effectiveness data in children and young people and populate a de novo decision-analytic model. The model estimated the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab compared with each other and with either methotrexate or best supportive care (BSC), depending on the position of the intervention in the management pathway. RESULTS: Of the 2386 non-duplicate records identified, nine studies (one randomised controlled trial for each drug plus six observational studies) were included in the review of clinical effectiveness and safety. Etanercept and ustekinumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than placebo at 12 weeks' follow-up. The magnitude and persistence of the effects beyond 12 weeks is less certain. Adalimumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than methotrexate for some but not all measures at 16 weeks. Quality-of-life benefits were inconsistent across different measures. There was limited evidence of excess short-term adverse events; however, the possibility of rare events cannot be excluded. The majority of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the use of biologics in children and young people exceeded NICE's usual threshold for cost-effectiveness and were reduced significantly only when combined assumptions that align with those made in the management of psoriasis in adults were adopted. LIMITATIONS: The clinical evidence base for short- and long-term outcomes was limited in terms of total participant numbers, length of follow-up and the absence of young children. CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of clinical and economic evidence to inform the cost-effectiveness of biological treatments in children and young people imposed a number of strong assumptions and uncertainties. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) gains associated with treatment and the number of hospitalisations in children and young people are areas of considerable uncertainty. The findings suggest that biological treatments may not be cost-effective for the management of psoriasis in children and young people at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, unless a number of strong assumptions about HRQoL and the costs of BSC are combined. Registry data on biological treatments would help determine safety, patterns of treatment switching, impact on comorbidities and long-term withdrawal rates. Further research is also needed into the resource use and costs associated with BSC. Adequately powered randomised controlled trials (including comparisons against placebo) could substantially reduce the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of biological treatments in biologic-experienced populations of children and young people, particularly in younger children. Such trials should establish the impact of biological therapies on HRQoL in this population, ideally by collecting direct estimates of EuroQol-5 Dimensions for Youth (EQ-5D-Y) utilities. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039494. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Certolizumab pegol and secukinumab for treating active psoriatic arthritis following inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Several biologic therapies are approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients who have had an inadequate response to two or more synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). NICE does not specifically recommend switching from one biologic to another, and only ustekinumab (UST; STELARA®, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Horsham, PA, USA) is recommended after anti-tumour necrosis factor failure. Secukinumab (SEC; COSENTYX®, Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and certolizumab pegol (CZP; CIMZIA®, UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) have not previously been appraised by NICE. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CZP and SEC for treating active PsA in adults in whom DMARDs have been inadequately effective. DESIGN: Systematic review and economic model. DATA SOURCES: Fourteen databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched for relevant studies from inception to April 2016 for CZP and SEC studies; update searches were run to identify new comparator studies. REVIEW METHODS: Clinical effectiveness data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were synthesised using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) methods to investigate the relative efficacy of SEC and CZP compared with comparator therapies. A de novo model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of SEC and CZP compared with the other relevant comparators. The model was specified for three subpopulations, in accordance with the NICE scope (patients who have taken one prior DMARD, patients who have taken two or more prior DMARDs and biologic-experienced patients). The models were further classified according to the level of concomitant psoriasis. RESULTS: Nineteen eligible RCTs were included in the systematic review of short-term efficacy. Most studies were well conducted and were rated as being at low risk of bias. Trials of SEC and CZP demonstrated clinically important efficacy in all key clinical outcomes. At 3 months, patients taking 150 mg of SEC [relative risk (RR) 6.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.55 to 15.43] or CZP (RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.94 to 5.56) were more likely to be responders than patients taking placebo. The NMA results for the biologic-naive subpopulations indicated that the effectiveness of SEC and CZP relative to other biologics and each other was uncertain. Limited data were available for the biologic-experienced subpopulation. Longer-term evidence suggested that these newer biologics reduced disease progression, with the benefits being similar to those seen for older biologics. The de novo model generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three subpopulations and three psoriasis subgroups. In subpopulation 1 (biologic-naive patients who had taken one prior DMARD), CZP was the optimal treatment in the moderate-severe psoriasis subgroup and 150 mg of SEC was optimal in the subgroups of patients with mild-moderate psoriasis or no concomitant psoriasis. In subpopulation 2 (biologic-naive patients who had taken two or more prior DMARDs), etanercept (ETN; ENBREL®, Pfizer Inc., New York City, NY, USA) is likely to be the optimal treatment in all subgroups. The ICERs for SEC and CZP versus best supportive care are in the region of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In subpopulation 3 (biologic-experienced patients or patients in whom biologics are contraindicated), UST is likely to be the optimal treatment (ICERs are in the region of £21,000-27,000 per QALY). The optimal treatment in subpopulation 2 was sensitive to the choice of evidence synthesis model. In subpopulations 2 and 3, results were sensitive to the algorithm for Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index costs. The optimal treatment is not sensitive to the use of biosimilar prices for ETN and infliximab (REMICADE®, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Kenilworth, NJ, USA). CONCLUSIONS: SEC and CZP may be an effective use of NHS resources, depending on the subpopulation and subgroup of psoriasis severity. There are a number of limitations to this assessment, driven mainly by data availability. FUTURE WORK: Trials are needed to inform effectiveness of biologics in biologic-experienced populations. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033357. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Methodological challenges for the evaluation of clinical effectiveness in the context of accelerated regulatory approval: an overview.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory authorities are approving innovative therapies with limited evidence. Although this level of data is sufficient for the regulator to establish an acceptable risk-benefit balance, it is problematic for downstream health technology assessment, where assessment of cost-effectiveness requires reliable estimates of effectiveness relative to existing clinical practice. Some key issues associated with a limited evidence base include using data, from nonrandomized studies, from small single-arm trials, or from single-center trials; and using surrogate end points. METHODS: We examined these methodological challenges through a pragmatic review of the available literature. RESULTS: Methods to adjust nonrandomized studies for confounding are imperfect. The relative treatment effect generated from single-arm trials is uncertain and may be optimistic. Single-center trial results may not be generalizable. Surrogate end points, on average, overestimate treatment effects. Current methods for analyzing such data are limited, and effectiveness claims based on these suboptimal forms of evidence are likely to be subject to significant uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Assessments of cost-effectiveness, based on the modeling of such data, are likely to be subject to considerable uncertainty. This uncertainty must not be underestimated by decision makers: methods for its quantification are required and schemes to protect payers from the cost of uncertainty should be implemented.

The Type and Impact of Evidence Review Group Exploratory Analyses in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process.

BACKGROUND: As part of the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal process, independent evidence review groups (ERGs) critically appraise a company's submission relating to a specific technology and indication. OBJECTIVES: To explore the type of additional exploratory analyses conducted by ERGs and their impact on the recommendations made by NICE. METHODS: The 100 most recently completed single technology appraisals with published guidance were selected for inclusion. A content analysis of relevant documents was undertaken to identify and extract relevant data, and narrative synthesis was used to rationalize and present these data. RESULTS: The types of exploratory analysis conducted in relation to companies' models were fixing errors, addressing violations, addressing matters of judgment, and the provision of a new, ERG-preferred base case. Ninety-three of the 100 ERG reports contained at least one of these analyses. The most frequently reported type of analysis in these 93 ERG reports related to the category "Matters of judgment," which was reported in 83 reports (89%). At least one of the exploratory analyses conducted and reported by an ERG is mentioned in 97% of NICE appraisal consultation documents and 94% of NICE final appraisal determinations, and had a clear influence on recommendations in 72% of appraisal consultation documents and 47% of final appraisal determinations. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the additional analyses undertaken by ERGs in the appraisal of company submissions are highly influential in the policy-making and decision-making process.

Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?

BACKGROUND: Despite a steady stream of headlines suggesting they will transform the future of healthcare, high-tech regenerative medicines have, to date, been quite inaccessible to patients, with only eight having been granted an EU marketing licence in the last 7 years. Here, we outline some of the historical reasons for this paucity of licensed innovative regenerative medicines. We discuss the challenges to be overcome to expedite the development of this complex and rapidly changing area of medicine, together with possible reasons to be more optimistic for the future. DISCUSSION: Several factors have contributed to the scarcity of cutting-edge regenerative medicines in clinical practice. These include the great expense and difficulties involved in planning how individual therapies will be developed, manufactured to commercial levels and ultimately successfully delivered to patients. Specific challenges also exist when evaluating the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these therapies. Furthermore, many treatments are used without a licence from the European Medicines Agency, under "Hospital Exemption" from the EC legislation. For products which are licensed, alternative financing approaches by healthcare providers may be needed, since many therapies will have significant up-front costs but uncertain benefits and harms in the long-term. However, increasing political interest and more flexible mechanisms for licensing and financing of therapies are now evident; these could be key to the future growth and development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Recent developments in regulatory processes, coupled with increasing political interest, may offer some hope for improvements to the long and often difficult routes from laboratory to marketplace for leading-edge cell or tissue therapies. Collaboration between publicly-funded researchers and the pharmaceutical industry could be key to the future development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice; such collaborations might also offer a possible antidote to the innovation crisis in the pharmaceutical industry.

The assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products: an exploration of methods for review, economic evaluation and appraisal.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) commissioned a 'mock technology appraisal' to assess whether changes to its methods and processes are needed. This report presents the findings of independent research commissioned to inform this appraisal and the deliberations of a panel convened by NICE to evaluate the mock appraisal. METHODS: Our research included reviews to identify issues, analysis methods and conceptual differences and the relevance of alternative decision frameworks, alongside the development of an exemplar case study of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for treating acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. RESULTS: An assessment of previous evaluations of regenerative medicines found that, although there were a number of evidential challenges, none was unique to regenerative medicines or was beyond the scope of existing methods used to conceptualise decision uncertainty. Regarding the clinical evidence for regenerative medicines, the issues were those associated with a limited evidence base but were not unique to regenerative medicines: small non-randomised studies, high variation in response and the intervention subject to continuing development. The relative treatment effects generated from single-arm trials are likely to be optimistic unless it is certain that the historical data have accurately estimated the efficacy of the control agent. Pivotal trials may use surrogate end points, which, on average, overestimate treatment effects. To reduce overall uncertainty, multivariate meta-analysis of all available data should be considered. Incorporating indirectly relevant but more reliable (more mature) data into the analysis can also be considered; such data may become available as a result of the evolving regulatory pathways being developed by the European Medicines Agency. For the exemplar case of CAR T-cell therapy, target product profiles (TPPs) were developed, which considered the 'curative' and 'bridging to stem-cell transplantation' treatment approaches separately. Within each TPP, three 'hypothetical' evidence sets (minimum, intermediate and mature) were generated to simulate the impact of alternative levels of precision and maturity in the clinical evidence. Subsequent assessments of cost-effectiveness were undertaken, employing the existing NICE reference case alongside additional analyses suggested within alternative frameworks. The additional exploratory analyses were undertaken to demonstrate how assessments of cost-effectiveness and uncertainty could be impacted by alternative managed entry agreements (MEAs), including price discounts, performance-related schemes and technology leasing. The panel deliberated on the range of TPPs, evidence sets and MEAs, commenting on the likely recommendations for each scenario. The panel discussed the challenges associated with the exemplar and regenerative medicines more broadly, focusing on the need for a robust quantification of the level of uncertainty in the cost-effective estimates and the potential value of MEAs in limiting the exposure of the NHS to high upfront costs and loss associated with a wrong decision. CONCLUSIONS: It is to be expected that there will be a significant level of uncertainty in determining the clinical effectiveness of regenerative medicines and their long-term costs and benefits, but the existing methods available to estimate the implications of this uncertainty are sufficient. The use of risk sharing and MEAs between the NHS and manufacturers of regenerative medicines should be investigated further. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Crizotinib for Untreated Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal process, the manufacturer of crizotinib submitted evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of crizotinib in untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK-positive) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Crizotinib has previously been assessed by NICE for patients with previously treated ALK-positive NSCLC (TA 296). It was not approved in this previous appraisal, but had been made available through the cancer drugs fund. As part of this new appraisal, the company included a price discount patient access scheme (PAS). The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics Technology Appraisal Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company's submission and the ERG's review and summarises the resulting NICE guidance issued in August 2016. The main clinical-effectiveness data were derived from a multicentre randomised controlled trial-PROFILE 1014-that compared crizotinib with pemetrexed chemotherapy in combination with carboplatin or cisplatin in patients with untreated non-squamous ALK-positive NSCLC. In the trial, crizotinib demonstrated improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The company's economic model was a three-state 'area under the curve' Markov model. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be greater than £50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (excluding the PAS discount). The ERG assessment of the evidence submitted by the company raised a number of concerns. In terms of the clinical evidence, the OS benefit was highly uncertain due to the cross-over permitted in the trial and the immaturity of the data; only 26% of events had occurred by the data cut-off point. In the economic modelling, the most significant concerns related to the analysis of OS and assumptions made regarding the duration of therapy. The ERG exploratory re-analysis of the OS data relaxed the assumption of proportional hazards made in the company submission, which demonstrated significant uncertainty regarding the OS gains from crizotinib. The ERG reconfigured the economic model so that duration of therapy was based on the area under the curve analysis of the PROFILE 1014 trial, dramatically increasing the cost associated with implementing crizotinib and consequently, substantially increasing the ICER. At the first appraisal meeting, the NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that crizotinib, while clinically effective, was not sufficiently cost effective for use in the UK NHS. Following the consultation, the company offered a revised PAS and conducted extensive re-analysis, resulting in a revised base-case ICER of £47,291 per QALY gained. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that crizotinib was likely to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources, despite the uncertainty that persisted around a number of factors, namely the long-term survival benefit of crizotinib. Crizotinib was therefore recommended as an option for untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in adults.

A Review of Ruxolitinib for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis: A Critique of the Evidence.

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, ruxolitinib was assessed to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of its use in the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adults with myelofibrosis. Ruxolitinib had previously been assessed as part of the STA process and was not recommended in NICE guidance issued in June 2013 (TA289). A review of TA289 was commissioned following the availability of new longer-term survival data; a price discount patient access scheme (PAS) was also introduced. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) and Centre for Health Economics (CHE) Technology Appraisal Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a summary of the manufacturer or sponsor of the technology's (referred to as the company) submission, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance issued in March 2016. The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from two good-quality multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs): COMFORT-II compared ruxolitinib with best available therapy (BAT) and COMFORT-I compared ruxolitinib with placebo. Both RCTs demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in splenomegaly and its associated symptoms in intermediate-2 and high-risk myelofibrosis patients. Overall survival was statistically significantly improved with ruxolitinib compared with BAT at 3.5 years of follow-up in the COMFORT-II trial (hazard ratio 0.58, 95 % CI 0.36-0.93). Grade 3-4 adverse events were more frequent in the ruxolitinib group than in the BAT group; 42 % compared with 25 %. Evidence relating to patients with lower-risk disease or low platelet counts (50-100 × 109/L) was less robust. The company's economic model was well-presented and had an appropriate model structure. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be around £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (including the PAS discount). Extensive sensitivity and scenario analyses were presented, demonstrating that the estimated ICER was robust to a range of input values and assumptions made in the model. Alternative scenarios presented by the ERG showed only modest increases in the estimated ICER, primarily as a result of including an element of drug wastage within the model. Alternative scenarios resulted in estimated ICERs ranging from around £45,000 to £49,000 per QALY gained (including the PAS discount). At the first appraisal meeting, the NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ruxolitinib was clinically effective and was a cost effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for patients with high-risk myelofibrosis who meet NICE's end-of-life criteria. Following the consultation, the company offered a revised PAS, resulting in a revised base-case ICER of £31,229 per QALY gained. The company also presented new evidence on the cost effectiveness of ruxolitinib in intermediate-2 and high-risk subgroups and a revised version of the model. The NICE Appraisal Committee considered the new evidence and recommended ruxolitinib for the treatment of patients with intermediate-2-risk disease as well as patients with high-risk disease, based on International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) prognostic factors.

Systematic review of patient preference and adherence to the correct use of graduated compression stockings to prevent deep vein thrombosis in surgical patients.

AIM: The aim of this study was to explore patient preference and adherence to thigh and knee length graduated compression stockings for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in surgical patients. BACKGROUND: Hospitalised patients are at risk of developing deep vein thrombosis. Mechanical methods of prophylaxis include compression stockings, available as knee or thigh length. Patient adherence to correct stocking use is of critical importance to their effectiveness. DESIGN: Systematic review of quantitative evidence. DATA SOURCES: Eleven databases were searched from inception to 2013 for systematic reviews of compression stockings. Reviews were screened for relevant primary studies and update searches of eight electronic sources were undertaken (2010-2014). REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials and observational studies of surgical patients using compression stockings were quality assessed and data were extracted on patient adherence and preference. A narrative summary is presented. RESULTS: Nine randomised controlled trials and seven observational studies were included in the systematic review. There was substantial variation between studies in terms of patient characteristics, interventions and methods of outcome assessment. CONCLUSION: Patient adherence was generally higher with knee length than thigh length stockings. However, the studies reflect patient adherence in a hospital setting only, where patients are observed by healthcare professionals; it is likely that adherence reduces once patients have been discharged from hospital. Patients preferred knee length stockings over thigh length stockings. In many clinical settings, any difference in efficacy between thigh length and knee length stockings may be rendered irrelevant by patient preference for and likely better adherence to knee length stockings.

Issues Related to the Frequency of Exploratory Analyses by Evidence Review Groups in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process.

BACKGROUND: Evidence Review Groups (ERGs) critically appraise company submissions as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. As part of their critique of the evidence submitted by companies, the ERGs undertake exploratory analyses to explore uncertainties in the company's model. The aim of this study was to explore pre-defined factors that might influence or predict the extent of ERG exploratory analyses. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore predefined factors that might influence or predict the extent of ERG exploratory analyses. METHODS: We undertook content analysis of over 400 documents, including ERG reports and related documentation for the 100 most recent STAs (2009-2014) for which guidance has been published. Relevant data were extracted from the documents and narrative synthesis was used to summarise the extracted data. All data were extracted and checked by two researchers. RESULTS: Forty different companies submitted documents as part of the NICE STA process. The most common disease area covered by the STAs was cancer (44%), and most ERG reports (n = 93) contained at least one exploratory analysis. The incidence and frequency of ERG exploratory analyses does not appear to be related to any developments in the appraisal process, the disease area covered by the STA, or the company's base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). However, there does appear to be a pattern in the mean number of analyses conducted by particular ERGs, but the reasons for this are unclear and potentially complex. CONCLUSIONS: No clear patterns were identified regarding the presence or frequency of exploratory analyses, apart from the mean number conducted by individual ERGs. More research is needed to understand this relationship.

The Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Apremilast for Treating Active Psoriatic Arthritis: A Critique of the Evidence.

As part of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process, the manufacturer of apremilast was invited to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) for whom disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been inadequately effective, not tolerated or contraindicated. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper provides a description of the ERG review of the company's submission, the ERG report and submission and summarises the NICE Appraisal Committee's subsequent guidance (December 2015). In the company's initial submission, the base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £14,683 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the sequence including apremilast (positioned before tumour necrosis factor [TNF]-α inhibitors) versus a comparator sequence without apremilast. However, the ERG considered that the base-case sequence proposed by the company represented a limited set of potentially relevant treatment sequences and positions for apremilast. The company's base-case results were therefore not a sufficient basis to inform the most efficient use and position of apremilast. The exploratory ERG analyses indicated that apremilast is more effective (i.e. produces higher health gains) when positioned after TNF-α inhibitor therapies. Furthermore, assumptions made regarding a potential beneficial effect of apremilast on long-term Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression, which cannot be substantiated, have a very significant impact on results. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC), when taking into account their preferred assumptions for HAQ progression for patients on treatment with apremilast, placebo response and monitoring costs for apremilast, concluded that the addition of apremilast resulted in cost savings but also a QALY loss. These cost savings were not high enough to compensate for the clinical effectiveness that would be lost. The AC thus decided that apremilast alone or in combination with DMARD therapy is not recommended for treating adults with active PsA that has not responded to prior DMARD therapy, or where such therapy is not tolerated.

Daclatasvir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: A Critique of the Clinical and Economic Evidence.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of daclatasvir (Bristol-Myers Squibb) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for daclatasvir in combination with other medicinal products within its licensed indication for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the ERG's critical review of the evidence presented in the company submission in the context of a description of the company submission, and the resulting NICE guidance. The main clinical effectiveness data for daclatasvir in combination with sofosbuvir (daclatasvir + sofosbuvir) were derived from two uncontrolled open-label trials. Among patients with genotype 1 infection, 98-100 % of patients had a sustained virologic response at week 12 (SVR12), overall. Among genotype 3 patients, between 85 and 100 % had SVR12 across patient populations and regimens. The main evidence for daclatasvir + pegylated interferon-α and ribavirin (PR) came from one randomised controlled trial comparing daclatasvir + PR with PR in patients with genotype 4. This found an SVR12 rate of 82 % in previously untreated patients. Serious adverse event rates associated with daclatasvir were low. The lack of comparative trial evidence for daclatasvir + sofosbuvir and many of the comparators defined in the NICE scope meant that established methods for comparing interventions either directly via head-to-head trial comparisons or via adjusted indirect comparisons were not feasible. Comparisons of SVR rates were therefore largely based on unadjusted estimates drawn from individual trial arms and subgroups of individual trial arms. The ERG concluded that, despite limited evidence, daclatasvir in combination with other treatments appeared to be associated with a high SVR rate. Daclatasvir + sofosbuvir was unlikely to be inferior to comparator treatments in genotype 1 patients; but, due to limited evidence, the relative efficacy of daclatasvir and other treatments in genotype 3 and 4 patients or patients with compensated cirrhosis was uncertain. The economic evaluation compared daclatasvir + sofosbuvir and daclatasvir + PR with a wide range of NICE-approved treatments for hepatitis C. The company submission focused on a series of subgroups defined by disease severity (METAVIR fibrosis stage F3, compensated cirrhosis), genotype and treatment history. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, daclatasvir-containing regimens were cost effective at a £20,000-£30,000 per QALY threshold in the following F3 populations: genotype 1 treatment naïve (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = £19,739/QALY) and treatment experienced (£15,687/QALY) and genotypes 1, 3 and 4 interferon ineligible or intolerant (£5906-£9607/QALY depending on subgroup). In patients with cirrhosis, daclatasvir-containing regimens were not cost effective. The ERG found the company's economic analyses to be highly uncertain and in places biased. However, the ERG found that daclatasvir-containing regimens were cost effective in certain populations with significant fibrosis, and following new analyses by the company after a price reduction, in certain populations with cirrhosis, including patients who were not eligible for or who were intolerant to interferon therapy. The NICE Appraisal Committee's preliminary recommendation was that daclatasvir + sofosbuvir should be available as an option in genotype 1 and 4 patients with significant fibrosis but without cirrhosis, who had either been treated previously or were ineligible or intolerant to interferon. In response to the preliminary recommendation, the manufacturer submitted additional information including comparator SVR rates and a revised confidential price. Following this, the Committee expanded its original recommendation in its Final Appraisal Determination. The recommendation was expanded to include daclatasvir + sofosbuvir as an option for patients with significant fibrosis but without cirrhosis (in previously untreated patients with genotype 1, and genotype 3 patients ineligible or intolerant to interferon) and genotype 1, 3 and 4 cirrhotic patients who were ineligible or intolerant to interferon. Daclatasvir + PR was also recommended as an option for genotype 4 patients who had significant fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis.