Janette Greenhalgh

Cetuximab for Recurrent and/or Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of cetuximab (Merck Serono) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cetuximab in combination with platinumbased chemotherapy (CTX) for the treatment of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (SCCHN) according to the Institute’s Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG).This article summarizes the ERGs review of the evidence submitted by the manufacturer.Asummary of theAppraisal Committee (AC) decision is provided.The ERG reviewed the clinical evidence in accordance with the decision problem defined by NICE. The analysis of the submitted model assessed the appropriateness of the manufacturers approach to modelling the decision problem, the reliability of model implementation and the extent of conformity to published standards and prevailing norms of practice within the health economics modelling community. Particular attention was paid to issues likely to impact substantially on the base-case cost-effectiveness results.Clinical-effectiveness evidence was derived from a single randomized controlled trial (RCT). Results presented for clinical outcomes were strongly supportive of benefits resulting from the use of cetuximab. Cetuximab + platinum-based CTX with 5 fluorouracil (5-FU) extended median overall survival (OS) from 7.4 months in the CTX group to 10.1 months in the cetuximab +CTX group. Median progression-free survival rose from 3.3months to 5.6 months, best overall response to therapy increased from 19.5% to 35.6%, disease control rate rose from60%to 81.1%andmedian time to treatment failure was 4.8 months compared with 3.0 months.Exploratory subgroup analyses indicated significant OS benefits in 11 of 16 pre-planned analyses.The ERG identified a number of issues relating to the clinical-effectiveness results: consideration was limited to first-line use of cetuximab; patients in the trial were younger and fitter than those presenting in UK clinical practice; there was no evidence of survival advantage for patients with metastatic disease; there was no evidence of effectiveness in patients not cetuximabnaive; and the quality-of-life data were poor.The submitted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was considerably above the NICE threshold. The ERG questioned the submitted economic model on a number of grounds: the rationale for creating an economic model rather than direct analysis of trial data; the use of Weibull functions for survival models; inaccurate CTX costs; selection of health state utilities; inaccurate unit costs; and lack of mid-cycle correction. After amending the model, the ERG considered the use of cetuximab to be not cost effective for NICE at any price.The AC concluded that cetuximab in combination with platinum-based CTX should not be recommended for the treatment of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN. Patients already receiving this treatment for this indication should have the option to continue treatment until they and their clinician consider it appropriate to stop. This was the first appraisal to consider the end-of-life medicines criteria introduced by NICE in January 2009.

Cetuximab for the treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab for recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) based upon a review of the manufacturers submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submissions evidence came from a single reasonably high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) [EXTREME (Erbitux in First-Line Treatment of Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer); n = 442] comparing cetuximab plus chemotherapy (CTX) with CTX alone. Cetuximab plus CTX had significant effects compared with CTX alone on the primary outcome of overall survival (10.1 versus 7.4 months respectively) and the secondary outcomes of progression-free survival (PFS) (5.6 versus 3.3 months), best overall response to therapy (35.6% versus 19.5%), disease control rate (81.1% versus 60%) and time-to-treatment failure (4.8 versus 3.0 months), but not on duration of response (5.6 months versus 4.7 months). No safety issues with cetuximab arose beyond those already previously documented. The manufacturer developed a two-arm state-transition Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus CTX versus CTX alone, using clinical data from the EXTREME trial. The ERG recalculated the base-case cost-effectiveness results taking changes in parameters and assumptions into account. Subgroup and threshold analyses were also explored. The manufacturer reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 121,367 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and an incremental cost per life-year gained of 92,226 pounds. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that varying the cost of day-case infusion and the utility values in the stable/response health state of the cetuximab plus CTX arm had the greatest impact on the ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis illustrated that cetuximab plus CTX is unlikely to be cost-effective for patients with recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN, even at what would usually be considered very high levels of willingness to pay for an additional QALY. With regard to the economic model the appropriateness and reliability of parametric survival projection beyond the duration of trial data could not be fully explored because of lack of information. The ERG also questioned the appropriateness of economic modelling in this STA as evidence is available only from a single RCT. In conclusion, the ERG considers that patients with metastatic SCCHN were not shown to receive a significant survival benefit from cetuximab plus CTX compared with CTX alone and that even setting a lower price for cetuximab would not strengthen the manufacturers case for cost-effectiveness.

Deferasirox for the treatment of iron overload associated with regular blood transfusions (transfusional haemosiderosis) in patients suffering with chronic anaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of deferasirox for the treatment of iron overload associated with regular blood transfusions in patients with chronic anaemia such as beta-thalassaemia major (beta-TM) and sickle cell disease (SCD). DATA SOURCES Electronic databases were searched up to March 2007. REVIEW METHODS Methods followed accepted procedures for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and economic evaluations. RESULTS A total of 14 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a study population of 1480 (ranging from 13 to 586) met the inclusion criteria. There was a high degree of heterogeneity between trials in terms of trial design and outcome reporting. As such it was only possible to meta-analyse serum ferritin data from six trials making comparisons between deferiprone and DFO and combination therapy and DFO. Only one of the results was statistically significant, favouring combination therapy over DFO alone for serum ferritin at 12 months. How this translates into iron loading in organs such as the heart is unclear, nor was it possible to determine the long-term benefits of chelation therapy. Eight full economic evaluations (one full paper; seven abstracts) were included in the review. The results were generally consistent and appear to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of deferasirox compared with DFO for the treatment of iron overload in a number of different patient populations and study locations. However, a number of assumptions and, in the case of the long-term studies, extrapolation from short-term RCT data were required, which render the results highly speculative at best. Because of the paucity of long-term data we developed a simple, short-term (1 year) model to assess the costs and benefits of deferasirox, deferiprone and DFO in patients with beta-TM and SCD from an NHS perspective. A number of assumptions were required to generate results and, as such, they should be interpreted as indicative rather than factual. Our model suggests that deferasirox may be a cost-effective strategy compared with DFO, at a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) below 30,000 pounds per year, for patients with beta-TM and SCD. However, this is highly dependent upon the age of the patient and the use and benefits of balloon infusers to administer DFO. Deferasirox compared with deferiprone is likely to be cost-effective only for young children. Furthermore, if deferiprone is proven to offer the same health benefits as deferasirox, the latter will not be cost-effective for any patient compared with deferiprone. CONCLUSIONS In the short term there is little clinical difference between any of the three chelators in terms of removing iron from the blood and liver. Deferasirox may be cost-effective compared with DFO in patients with beta-TM and SCD, but it is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with deferiprone. Elucidating the long-term benefits of chelation therapy, including issues of adverse events and adherence, should be the primary focus for future research. Future work should aim for consistency and transparency in reporting study design and results to aid decision-making when making comparisons across trials.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued multiple guidance for the first-line management of patients with lung cancer and recommends different combinations of chemotherapy treatments. This review provides a synthesis of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence supporting current guidance. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy currently licensed in Europe and recommended by NICE, for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). DATA SOURCES Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from 2001 to August 2010. REVIEW METHODS Trials that compared first-line chemotherapy currently licensed in Europe and recommended by NICE in chemotherapy-naive adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were included. Data on key outcomes including, but not limited to, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AEs) were extracted. For the assessment of cost-effectiveness, outcomes included incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Analyses were performed for three NSCLC subpopulations: patients with predominantly squamous disease, patients with predominantly non-squamous disease and patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive (M+) status. Meta-analysis and mixed-treatment comparison methodology were conducted where appropriate. RESULTS Twenty-three trials involving > 11,000 patients in total met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the trials was poor. In the case of patients with squamous disease, there were no statistically significant differences in OS between treatment regimes. The mixed-treatment comparison demonstrated that, in patients with non-squamous disease, pemetrexed (Alimta®, Eli Lilly and Company; PEM) + platinum (PLAT) increases OS statistically significantly compared with gemcitabine (Gemzar®, Eli Lilly and Company; GEM) + PLAT [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.98] and that paclitaxel (Abraxane®, Celgene Corporation; PAX) + PLAT increases OS statistically significantly compared with docetaxel (Taxotere®, Sanofi-aventis; DOC) + PLAT (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.93). None of the comparisons found any statistically significant differences in OS among patients with EGFR M+ status. Direct meta-analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in PFS with gefitinib (Iressa®, AstraZeneca; GEF) compared with DOC + PLAT and PAX + PLAT (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.73; and HR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.60, respectively). No papers related to UK decision-making were identified. A de novo economic model was developed. Using list prices (British National Formulary), cisplatin (CIS) doublets are preferable to carboplatin doublets, but this is reversed if electronic market information tool prices are used, in which case drug administration costs then become more important than drug acquisition costs. For patients with both squamous and non-squamous disease, moving from low to moderate willingness-to-pay thresholds, the preferred drugs are PAX → GEM → DOC. However, in patients with non-squamous disease, PEM + CIS resulted in increased OS and would be considered cost-effective up to £35,000 per QALY gained. For patients with EGFR M+, use of GEF compared with PAX or DOC yields very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Vinorelbine (Navelbine®, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceutical Inc.) was not shown to be cost-effective in any comparison. LIMITATIONS Poor trial quality and a lack of evidence for all drug comparisons complicated and limited the data analysis. Outcomes and adverse effects are not consistently combined across the trials. Few trials reported quality-of-life data despite their relevance to patients and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS The results of this comprehensive review are unique to NSCLC and will assist clinicians to make decisions regarding the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. The design of future lung cancer trials needs to reflect the influence of factors such as histology, genetics and the new prognostic biomarkers that are currently being identified. In addition, trials will need to be adequately powered so as to be able to test for statistically significant clinical effectiveness differences within patient populations. New initiatives are in place to record detailed information on the precise chemotherapy (and targeted chemotherapy) regimens being used, together with data on age, cell type, stage of disease and performance status, allowing for very detailed observational audits of management and outcomes at a population level. It would be useful if these initiatives could be expanded to include the collection of health economics data. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole for the prevention of occlusive vascular events (review of Technology Appraisal No. 90): a systematic review and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND Occlusive vascular events such as myocardial infarction (MI), ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are the result of a reduction in blood flow associated with an artery becoming narrow or blocked through atherosclerosis and atherothrombosis. Peripheral arterial disease is the result of narrowing of the arteries that supply blood to the muscles and other tissues, usually in the lower extremities. The primary objective in the treatment of all patients with a history of occlusive vascular events and peripheral arterial disease is to prevent the occurrence of new occlusive vascular events. OBJECTIVES To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole (MRD) alone or with aspirin (ASA) compared with ASA (and each other where appropriate) in the prevention of occlusive vascular events in patients with a history of MI, ischaemic stroke/TIA or established peripheral arterial disease. To consider the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in patients with multivascular disease. This review is an update of the evidence base for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance Technology Appraisal No. 90 (TA90) entitled Clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole for the prevention of occlusive vascular events (2005). DATA SOURCES Four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations. Submissions to NICE by the manufacturers of the interventions were also considered. REVIEW METHODS A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness was conducted. To manage heterogeneity between trials, indirect analysis (using a mixed-treatment methodology) was performed on selected clinical outcomes. A new economic model was developed to assess incremental costs per life-year gained [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)]. RESULTS For evidence of clinical effectiveness, four RCTs were identified: CAPRIE (Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischaemic Events), ESPRIT (European/Australasian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia Trial), PRoFESS (Prevention Regimen For Effectively avoiding Second Strokes) and ESPS-2 (Second European Stroke Prevention Study). In CAPRIE (patients with MI, ischaemic stroke or peripheral arterial disease), statistically significant outcomes in favour of clopidogrel were noted for the primary outcome (first occurrence of ischaemic stroke, MI or vascular death) compared with ASA [relative risk reduction 8.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3% to 16.5%; p = 0.043]. In ESPRIT (patients with ischaemic stroke/TIA) for the primary outcome (first occurrence of death from all vascular causes, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal MI or major bleeding complication), the risk of event occurrence was statistically significantly lower in the MRD + ASA arm than in the ASA arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98], with no statistically significant difference in bleeding events between the two arms. In PRoFESS (patients with ischaemic stroke) the rate of recurrent stroke of any type (primary outcome) was similar in the MRD + ASA and clopidogrel groups, and the null hypothesis (that MRD + ASA was inferior to clopidogrel) could not be rejected. In ESPS-2 (patients with ischaemic stroke/TIA), on the primary outcome of stroke, statistically significant differences in favour of MRD + ASA were observed compared with ASA and MRD alone (relative risk 0.76; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93). The outcomes addressed in the mixed-treatment comparisons (limited by the available data) for the ischaemic stroke/TIA population confirmed the results of the direct comparisons. The 11 economic evaluations included in the review of cost-effectiveness indicated that for patients with previous peripheral arterial disease, ischaemic stroke or MI, clopidogrel is cost-effective compared with ASA, and for patients with previous ischaemic stroke/TIA, treatment with MRD + ASA is cost-effective compared with any other treatment in patients in the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events. The relevance of the review was limited as the economic evaluations were not based on the most current clinical data. Cost-effectiveness results generated from the Assessment Groups de novo economic model suggested that the most cost-effective approach for patients with ischaemic stroke/TIA is clopidogrel followed by MRD + ASA then ASA. For patients with MI, the most cost-effective approach is ASA followed by clopidogrel. For patients with established peripheral arterial disease, the most cost-effective approach is clopidogrel followed by ASA. For patients with multivascular disease, clopidogrel followed by ASA is the most cost-effective approach. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were also calculated for patients who are intolerant to ASA. Assuming that the branded price for clopidogrel is used and TA90 guidance is not applied, all of the ICERs range between £2189 and £13,558 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were fully consistent with these findings. CONCLUSIONS The evidence suggests that the most cost-effective treatment for patients with ischaemic stroke/TIA is clopidogrel followed by MRD + ASA followed by ASA; for patients with MI, ASA followed by clopidogrel; and for patients with established peripheral arterial disease or multivascular disease, clopidogrel followed by ASA. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Prasugrel for the treatment of acute coronary artery syndromes with percutaneous coronary intervention.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prasugrel for the treatment of coronary artery syndromes with percutaneous coronary intervention, based upon the evidence submission from Eli Lilly to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The submitted clinical evidence was based on a phase III double-blind, double-dummy randomised controlled trial which compared the use of prasugrel with clopidogrel. The primary clinical outcome measure was a composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) or non-fatal stroke at 15 months. Secondary outcomes included the primary end point at 30 days and 90 days; a composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal MI or urgent target vessel revascularisation; a composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke or rehospitalisation due to a cardiac ischaemic event; and stent thrombosis. For the overall trial cohort during the 15 month follow-up period, the results of the trial demonstrated a statistically significant benefit of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel on the primary outcome. The efficacy difference between treatment groups was, in the main, due to a statistically significant lower incidence of non-fatal MIs in the prasugrel group than in the clopidogrel group. No statistically significant differences were found for death from cardiovascular causes or non-fatal stroke. For the fully licensed and target populations, there was a statistically significant lower incidence of non-fatal MIs in the prasugrel group than in the clopidogrel group; there was no statistically significant difference in bleeding rates. The ERG recalculated the base-case cost-effectiveness results taking changes in parameters and assumptions into account: for example, revised drug costs, mid-cycle correction, amended relative risk mortality. Subgroup and threshold analyses were also explored by the ERG. For the fully licensed population (i.e. excluding patients with prior stroke or TIA), the manufacturer reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 159,358 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 12 months and an ICER of 3,220 pounds per QALY gained at 40 years. Considering the 15-month clinical trial data available for the fully licensed and target populations and current practice in England and Wales, the evidence was considered insufficient to support the conclusion that prasugrel is clinically more effective than clopidogrel or vice versa. Assuming that there is no evidence to distinguish between prasugrel and clopidogrel in terms of clinical effectiveness in the short term for this population, equipoise between prasugrel and clopidogrel at year 1 is achieved by a 20% reduction in the acquisition cost of prasugrel (approximately 120 pounds per patient). At the time of writing, the guidance/has not yet been published by NICE.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary stroke prevention in children with sickle cell disease: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a recessive genetic blood disorder, caused by a mutation in the β-globin gene. For children with SCD, the risk of stroke is estimated to be up to 250 times higher than in the general childhood population. Transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasonography is a non-invasive technique which measures local blood velocity in the proximal portions of large intracranial arteries. Screening with TCD ultrasonography identifies individuals with high cerebral blood velocity; these children are at the highest risk of stroke. A number of primary stroke prevention strategies are currently used in clinical practice in the UK including blood transfusion, treatment with hydroxycarbamide and bone marrow transplantation (BMT). No reviews have yet assessed the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of primary stroke prevention strategies in children with SCD identified to be at high risk of stroke using TCD ultrasonography. OBJECTIVE To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary stroke prevention treatments for children with SCD who are identified (using TCD ultrasonography) to be at high risk of stroke. DATA SOURCES Electronic databases were searched from inception up to May 2011, including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), EMBASE, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, ISI Web of Science Proceedings, ISI Web of Science Citation Index, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and MEDLINE. REVIEW METHODS The assessment was conducted according to accepted procedures for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and economic evaluations. A de novo Markov model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of TCD ultrasonography and blood transfusion, where clinically appropriate, in patients with SCD. RESULTS Two randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria involving a study population of 209 participants. One compared blood transfusion with standard care for children who are identified as being at high risk of stroke using TCD ultrasonography. In this trial, one patient in the transfusion group had a stroke (1/63) compared with 11 children in the standard care group (11/67). The other trial assessed the impact of halting chronic transfusion in patients with SCD. Sixteen patients in the transfusion-halted group had an event (16/41) (two patients experienced stroke and 14 reverted to abnormal TCD velocity); there were no events in the continued-transfusion group (0/38). No meta-analyses of these trials were undertaken. No relevant economic evaluations were identified for inclusion in the review. The de novo modelling suggests that blood transfusions plus TCD scans (compared with just TCD scans) for patients with SCD at high risk of stroke, aged ≥ 2 years, may be good value for money. The intervention has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £24,075 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and helps avoid 68 strokes over the lifetime of a population of 1000 patients. The intervention costs an additional £13,751 per patient and generates 0.6 extra years of life in full health per patient. The data available for the economic analysis are limited. Sensitivity analyses and validation against existing data and expert opinion provide some reassurance that the conclusion of the model is reliable but further research is required to validate these findings. LIMITATIONS The main limitations relate to the availability of published clinical data; no completed randomised controlled trials were identified which evaluated the efficacy of either BMT or hydroxycarbamide for primary stroke prevention. Both the clinical and cost data available for use in the economic analysis are limited. Sensitivity analyses and validation against existing data and expert opinion provide some reassurance that the conclusions of the model are reliable, but further research is required to validate these findings. CONCLUSIONS The use of TCD ultrasonography to identify children at high risk of stroke, and treating these children with prophylactic blood transfusions, appears to be both clinically effective and cost-effective compared with TCD ultrasonography only. However, given the limitations in the data available, further research is required to verify this conclusion. Several research recommendations can be proposed from this review. Clinically, more research is needed to assess the effects and optimal duration of long-term blood transfusion and the potential role of hydroxycarbamide in primary stroke prevention. From an economics perspective, further research is required to generate more robust data on which to base estimates of cost-effectiveness or against which model outputs can be calibrated. More data are required to explain how utility weights vary with age, transfusions and strokes. Research is also needed around the cost of paediatric stroke in the UK. STUDY REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42011001496. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Prasugrel (Efient®) with percutaneous coronary intervention for treating acute coronary syndromes (review of TA182): systematic review and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND Acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) are life-threatening conditions associated with acute myocardial ischaemia. There are three main types of ACS: ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina (UA). One treatment for ACS is percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus adjunctive treatment with antiplatelet drugs. Dual therapy antiplatelet treatment [aspirin plus either prasugrel (Efient(®), Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd UK/Eli Lilly and Company Ltd), clopidogrel or ticagrelor (Brilique(®), AstraZeneca)] is standard in UK clinical practice. Prasugrel is the focus of this review. OBJECTIVES The remit is to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prasugrel within its licensed indication for the treatment of ACS with PCI and is a review of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence technology appraisal TA182. DATA SOURCES Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed) were searched from database inception to June 2013 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to August 2013 for economic evaluations comparing prasugrel with clopidogrel or ticagrelor in ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS Clinical outcomes included non-fatal and fatal cardiovascular (CV) events, adverse effects of treatment and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Cost-effectiveness outcomes included incremental cost per life-year gained and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. An independent economic model assessed four mutually exclusive subgroups: ACS patients treated with PCI for STEMI and with and without diabetes mellitus and ACS patients treated with PCI for UA or NSTEMI and with and without diabetes mellitus. RESULTS No new RCTs were identified beyond that reported in TA182. TRITON-TIMI 38 (Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition with Prasugrel Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38) compared prasugrel with clopidogrel in ACS patients scheduled for PCI. No relevant economic evaluations were identified. Our analyses focused on a key subgroup of patients: those aged < 75 years who weighed > 60 kg (no previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack). For the primary composite end point (death from CV causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke) statistically significantly fewer events occurred in the prasugrel arm (8.3%) than in the clopidogrel arm (11%). No statistically significant difference in major bleeding events was noted. However, there was a significant difference in favour of clopidogrel when major and minor bleeding events were combined (3.0 vs. 3.9%). No conclusions could be drawn regarding HRQoL. The results of sensitivity analyses confirmed that it is likely that, for all four ACS subgroups, within 5-10 years prasugrel is a cost-effective treatment option compared with clopidogrel at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained. At the full 40-year time horizon, all estimates are < £10,000 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS Lack of data precluded a clinical comparison of prasugrel with ticagrelor; the comparative effectiveness of prasugrel compared with ticagrelor therefore remains unknown. The long-term modelling exercise is vulnerable to major assumptions about the continuation of early health outcome gains. CONCLUSION A key strength of the review is that it demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel using the generic price of clopidogrel. Although the report demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel at a threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained, the long-term modelling is vulnerable to major assumptions regarding long-term gains. Lack of data precluded a clinical comparison of prasugrel with ticagrelor; the comparative effectiveness of prasugrel compared with ticagrelor therefore remains unknown. Well-audited data are needed from a long-term UK clinical registry on defined ACS patient groups treated with PCI who receive prasugrel, ticagrelor and clopidogrel. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005047. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Pemetrexed for the maintenance treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed for the maintenance treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The primary clinical outcome measure was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), time to worsening of symptoms, objective tumour response rate, adverse events and changes in lung cancer symptom scale. Data for two populations were presented: patients with non-squamous NSCLC histology and patients with adenocarcinoma histology. The clinical evidence was derived from a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial (RCT), the JMEN trial. The trial compared the use of pemetrexed + best supportive care (BSC ) as maintenance therapy, with placebo + BSC in patients with NSCLC (n = 663) who had received four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (CTX) and whose disease had not progressed. In the licensed population (patients with non-squamous histology), the trial demonstrated greater median PFS for patients treated with pemetrexed than for patients in the placebo arm [4.5 vs 2.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55, p < 0.00001]. Median OS was also greater for the pemetrexed- treated patients (15.5 vs 10.3 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.88, p = 0.002). In addition, tumour response and disease control rates were statistically significantly greater for patients who received pemetrexed. Patient survival rates at 1 year and 2 years were higher in the pemetrexed arm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) estimated by the manufacturers model were 33,732 pounds per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) for the licensed nonsquamous population, and 39,364 pounds per QALY for the adenocarcinoma subgroup. Both of these ICERs were above the standard NICE willingness-to-pay range (20,000 pounds-30,000 pounds per QALY). The manufacturer also presented a case for pemetrexed to be considered as an end of life treatment. The ERG identified a number of problems in the economic model presented by the manufacturer; after correction, the base case ICER was re-estimated as 51,192 pounds per QALY gained and likely to exceed NICEs willingness-to-pay thresholds. Following a revised economic analysis submitted by the manufacturer, the AC accepted that an ICER of 47,000 pounds per QALY gained was most plausible. The AC also considered that maintenance treatment with pemetrexed fulfilled the end of life criteria.The guidance issued by NICE, on 20 June 20 2010, in TA190 as a result of the STA states that: People who have received pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy cannot receive pemetrexed maintenance treatment. 1.1 Pemetrexed is recommended as an option for the maintenance treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer other than predominantly squamous cell histology if disease has not progressed immediately following platinum-based chemotherapy in combination with gemcitabine, paclitaxel or docetaxel.

Pharmacological treatment of acute agitation associated with psychotic and bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We used systematic review methodology to identify and evaluate short‐term pharmacological interventions for agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.