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.

Durvalumab for the Treatment of Locally Advanced, Unresectable, Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: 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 the manufacturer (AstraZeneca) of durvalumab (IMFINZITM) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable, stage III non-small cell lung cancer whose tumours express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) on ≥ 1% of tumour cells and whose disease has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation therapy. 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. The CS included a systematic review that identified one randomised controlled trial, comparing durvalumab with SoC. Participants with tumours expressing PD-L1 on ≥ 1% of tumour cells accounted for approximately 40% of the total participants. In this subgroup, a benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.63] and overall survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.81) was reported. Adverse events were comparable between both treatments, but more serious adverse events were reported for durvalumab (64/213 [30%] vs. 18/90 [20%]). The ERG's concerns regarding the economic analysis included a likely overestimation of PFS for the durvalumab arm, the choice of timepoint for treatment waning, as well as the way treatment waning was incorporated in the model, and potential overestimation of utility values without applying an age- or treatment-related decrement. The revised ERG base-case resulted in a deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £50,238 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with substantial remaining uncertainty. NICE recommended durvalumab as an option for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund only in a subpopulation (concurrent platinum-based chemoradiation therapy) with a commercially managed access agreement in place.

Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for Treating Recurrent Non-infectious Uveitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Alimera Sciences, the company manufacturing fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (FAc) 0.19 mg (tradename ILUVIEN®), to submit evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of FAc for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre + , was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper contains a summary of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by the company, the ERG's critique on the submitted evidence, and the guidance issued by the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The company submission (CS) was mainly informed by the PSV-FAI-001 trial in which FAc was compared with (limited) current practice [(L)CP], which was not considered to be representative of UK clinical practice by the ERG. There was no comparison of FAc to any treatment listed in the final scope, and especially to the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (dexamethasone), which was considered to be a relevant comparator by the AC. The primary outcome of the PSV-FAI-001 was recurrence of uveitis in the treated eye. Most of the events for the primary outcome were imputed during the PSV-FAI-001 trial, which probably led to an overestimation of the number of recurrences of disease, and a biased estimate of the relative effectiveness of FAc versus (L)CP. Finally, the place of FAc in the treatment pathway was not clearly defined by the company. Substantial uncertainty surrounded the cost-effectiveness results due to the shortcomings of the clinical evidence. Additionally, the quality of life of patients was not measured during the PSV-FAI-001 trial and long-term effectiveness data of FAc were lacking. The ERG adjusted several issues identified in the CS and added dexamethasone as a comparator in the decision analytic model. The ERG presented multiple analyses as base-cases because several elements of the assessment remained uncertain. The fully incremental ERG results ranged from dexamethasone (extendedly) dominating FAc (when assuming a hazard ratio of 1 or 0.7 for dexamethasone versus FAc) to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £30,153 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for FAc versus (L)CP [when assuming a hazard ratio of 0.456 for dexamethasone versus (L)CP]. The ICER of FAc versus (L)CP ranged from £12,325 to £30,153 per QALY gained. After a second AC meeting where alternative company scenarios comparing FAc with dexamethasone were considered by the AC, the AC concluded that "the results of the company's analyses ranged from the fluocinolone acetonide implant being dominant (that is, it was more effective and costs less), to an ICER of £29,461 per QALY gained, and most of the ICERs were below £20,000 per QALY gained". Therefore, the AC recommended FAc as a cost-effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye in the final TA590 guidance (published July 2019).