M Lai

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.

BACKGROUNDnThe 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.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo 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).nnnDATA SOURCESnThree electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from 2001 to August 2010.nnnREVIEW METHODSnTrials 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.nnnRESULTSnTwenty-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.nnnLIMITATIONSnPoor 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.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe 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.nnnFUNDINGnThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

A Systematic Review of the Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmalgen® for the Treatment of Bee and Wasp Venom Allergy

BACKGROUNDnEach year in the UK, there are between two and nine deaths from anaphylaxis caused by bee and wasp venom. Anaphylactic reactions can occur rapidly following a sting and can progress to a life-threatening condition within minutes. To avoid further reactions in people with a history of anaphylaxis to bee and wasp venom, the use of desensitisation, through a process known as venom immunotherapy (VIT), has been investigated and is in use in the UK. VIT consists of subcutaneous injections of increasing amounts of purified bee and/or wasp venom extract. Pharmalgen® products (ALK Abelló) have had UK marketing authorisation for VIT (as well as diagnosis) of allergy to bee venom (using Pharmalgen Bee Venom) and wasp venom (using Pharmalgen Wasp Venom) since March 1995.nnnOBJECTIVEnThis review assessed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Pharmalgen in providing immunotherapy to individuals with a history of type 1 [immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated] systemic allergic reaction to bee and wasp venom.nnnDATA SOURCESnA comprehensive search strategy using a combination of index terms (e.g. Pharmalgen) and free-text words (e.g. allerg

INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA

) was developed and used to interrogate the following electronic databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library.nnnREVIEW METHODSnPapers were included if they studied venom immunotherapy using Pharmalgen (PhVIT) in patients who had previously experienced a systemic reaction to a bee and/or a wasp sting. Comparators were any alternative treatment options available in the NHS without VIT. Included outcomes were systemic reactions, local reactions, mortality, anxiety related to the possibility of future allergic reactions, health-related quality of life (QoL) and adverse reactions (ARs) to treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Because of the small number of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs), no meta-analyses were conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of PhVIT plus high-dose antihistamine (HDA) plus adrenaline auto-injector (AAI) plus avoidance advice in relation to two comparators.nnnRESULTSnA total of 1065 citations were identified, of which 266 full-text papers were obtained. No studies were identified that compared PhVIT with any of the outlined comparators. When these criteria were widened to include different protocols and types of PhVIT administration, four RCTs and five quasi-experimental studies were identified for inclusion. The quality of included studies was poor, and none was conducted in the UK. Eight studies reported re-sting data (systemic reactions ranged from 0.0% to 36.4%) and ARs (systemic reactions ranged from 0.0% to 38.1% and none was fatal). No included studies reported quality of life. No published economic evidence relevant to the decision problem was identified. The manufacturer of PhVIT did not submit any clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness evidence to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in support of PhVIT. The results of the Assessment Groups (AG) base-case analysis show that the comparison of PhVIT + HDA + AAI versus AAI + HDA yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £18,065,527 per QALY gained; PhVIT + HDA + AAI versus avoidance advice only yields an ICER of £7,627,835 per QALY gained. The results of the sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses showed that the results of the base-case economic evaluation were robust for every plausible change in parameter made. The results of the High Risk of Sting Patients subgroup analysis show that PhVIT + HDA + AAI dominates both AAI + HDA and avoidance advice only (i.e. is less expensive and more effective). The VIT Anxiety QoL Improvement subgroup analysis shows that PhVIT + HDA + AAI versus HDA + AAI has an ICER of £23,868 per QALY gained, and PhVIT + HDA + AAI versus avoidance advice only yields an ICER of £25,661 per QALY gained.nnnLIMITATIONSnThis review is limited to the use of Pharmalgen in the treatment of hymenoptera venom allergy and therefore does not assess the effectiveness of VIT in general.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe current use of PhVIT in clinical practice in the NHS appears to be based on limited and poor-quality clinical effectiveness research. Available evidence indicates that sting reactions following the use of PhVIT are low and that the ARs related to treatment are minor and easily treatable. The results of the AGs de novo economic evaluation demonstrate that PhVIT + AAI + HDA compared with AAI + HDA and with avoidance advice only yields ICERs in the range of £8-20M per QALY gained. Two subgroups (High Risk of Sting Patients and VIT Anxiety QoL Improvement) were considered in the economic evaluation and the AG concludes that the use of PhVIT + AAI + HDA may be cost-effective in both groups. Future research should focus on clearly identifying groups of patients most likely to benefit from treatment and ensure that clinical practice is focussed on these groups. Furthermore, given the paucity of UK data in this area it would be informative if data could be collected routinely when VIT is administered in the NHS (e.g. rates of systemic adverse reactions to VIT, rates of systemic reactions to bee/wasp stings).nnnFUNDINGnThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.