Mark Clowes

Evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia: an evidence review group perspective of a NICE single technology appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of evolocumab (Amgen) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of evolocumab. The appraisal assessed evolocumab as monotherapy or in combination with a statin with or without ezetimibe, or in combination with ezetimibe (without statin therapy), in adult patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia (which includes mixed dyslipidaemia), for whom statins do not provide optimal control of their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and/or for whom statins are contraindicated or not tolerated. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based on the company’s submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from four randomised controlled trials comparing evolocumab with either ezetimibe or placebo in adults with primary familial or non-familial hypercholesterolaemia, who were either able to take statins or who were statin intolerant. The clinical-effectiveness review found that evolocumab is efficacious at lowering LDL-C but that there was uncertainty regarding its impact on cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes. In response to the ERG’s critique of the submitted health economic model, the company submitted an amended model, which also included a patient access scheme (PAS). Based on this, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for evolocumab against ezetimibe were above £74,000 and £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained within the non-familial primary and secondary prevention populations, respectively, whilst the ICER within the heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH) population was approximately £23,000 per QALY gained. The final determination was that evolocumab would be a clinically and cost-effective use of UK NHS resource in certain patient subgroups.

Adalimumab for Treating Moderate-to-Severe Hidradenitis Suppurativa: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of adalimumab (AbbVie) to submit evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of adalimumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). The appraisal assessed adalimumab as monotherapy in adult patients with an inadequate response to conventional systemic HS therapy. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the technology based on the company’s submission to NICE. The evidence was mainly derived from three randomised controlled trials comparing adalimumab with placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe HS. The clinical-effectiveness review found that significantly more patients achieved a clinical response in the adalimumab groups than in the control groups but that the treatment effect varied between trials and there was uncertainty regarding its impact on a range of other relevant outcomes as well as long-term efficacy. The company’s submitted Markov model assessed the incremental cost effectiveness of adalimumab versus standard care for the treatment of HS from the perspective of the UK NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) over a lifetime horizon. The original submitted model, including a patient access scheme (PAS), suggested that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adalimumab versus standard care was expected to be £16,162 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG’s preferred base case, which corrected programming errors and structural problems surrounding discontinuation rules and incorporated a lower unit cost for HS surgery, resulted in a probabilistic ICER of £29,725 per QALY gained. Based on additional analyses undertaken by the company and the ERG following the publication of the appraisal consultation document (ACD), the Appraisal Committee concluded that the maximum possible ICER for adalimumab compared with supportive care was between £28,500 and £33,200 per QALY gained but was likely to be lower. The Appraisal Committee recommended adalimumab (with the PAS) for the treatment of active moderate-to-severe HS in adults whose disease has not responded to conventional systemic therapy.

Supporting public involvement in interview and other panels: a systematic review

Members of the public are increasingly being invited to become members of a variety of different panels and boards.

Obinutuzumab with Bendamustine for Treating Follicular Lymphoma Refractory to Rituximab: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of obinutuzumab (Roche) to submit evidence on its clinical and cost effectiveness when used in combination with bendamustine in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) refractory to rituximab. The Evidence Review Group (ERG), the School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield, produced a document summarising the key points from the company submission alongside a critical review. Efficacy for progression-free survival (PFS) and safety was positively demonstrated in the pivotal GADOLIN trial, which compared obinutuzumab in combination with bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab maintenance (O-Benda+O) against bendamustine monotherapy. Data on overall survival were immature. The company submitted a model-based economic analysis, including a patient access scheme. The ERG identified a number of limitations, in particular the absence of subgroup analysis and the approach used by the company to estimate overall survival (OS), which was more favourable to the intervention arm. The key uncertainty was the duration of the treatment effect on OS. This uncertainty is expected to be reduced when the final analysis of the GADOLIN trial is reported. Consequently, the NICE appraisal committee recommended O-Benda+O in the population covered by the marketing authorisation within the Cancer Drug Fund until NICE is able to review the guidance following publication of the final analysis of GADOLIN.

Ibrutinib for Treating Relapsed or Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ibrutinib (Janssen) to submit evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Assessment Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company’s submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence for ibrutinib included one randomised controlled trial comparing ibrutinib and temsirolimus and two single-arm studies. The company’s indirect comparison of ibrutinib versus rituximab plus chemotherapy (R-chemo) produced a hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) of 0.28. The ERG’s random effects network meta-analysis (NMA) indicated that the treatment effect on PFS was highly uncertain (HR 0.27; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.06–1.26). The company’s Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of ibrutinib versus R-chemo for the treatment of R/R MCL from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services over a lifetime horizon. Based on a re-run of the company’s model by the ERG, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ibrutinib versus R-chemo [including the company’s original patient access scheme (PAS)] was expected to be £76,014 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ERG had several concerns regarding the company’s model structure and the evidence used to inform its parameters. The ERG’s preferred analysis, which used the ERG’s NMA and the observed Kaplan–Meier curve for time to ibrutinib discontinuation and excluded long-term disutilities for R-chemo, produced ICERs of £63,340 per QALY gained for the overall R/R MCL population and of £44,711 per QALY gained for patients with one prior treatment. Following an updated PAS and consideration of evidence from a later data-cut of the RAY trial, the appraisal committee concluded that the most plausible ICER for the one prior treatment subgroup was likely to be lower than the company’s estimate of £49,848 per QALY gained. The company’s ICER for the overall R/R MCL population was higher, at £62,650 per QALY gained. The committee recommended ibrutinib as an option for treating R/R MCL in adults only if they have received only one previous line of therapy and the company provides ibrutinib with the discount agreed in the commercial access agreement with NHS England.

What is the burden of immunoglobulin replacement therapy in adult patients with primary immunodeficiencies? A systematic review

Background Primary immunodeficiency disorders (PIDs) are a group of heterogeneous rare disorders, whereby the immune system is missing or not functioning adequately. For patients requiring treatment, the most common option is immunoglobulin replacement therapy (Ig). Treatment of PIDs is simultaneously associated with both improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and increased treatment burden. Objectives This review sought to review studies investigating the burden of Ig treatment, synthesize evidence in relation to administration routes (subcutaneous or intravenous) and instruments used, as well as make recommendations for clinical and research applications in this area for patients aged 16 years and older. Methods We searched Medline, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. Sifting of titles was performed by two reviewers, and the assessment of full-text articles by three. From a database which contained 3,770 unique results, 67 full texts were reviewed. Eventually, 17 studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria, and included in this review. Due to data heterogeneity, a narrative, descriptive synthesis of the evidence was undertaken. Results Most studies were carried out in the USA/North America, used a prospective observational design and involved patients with common variable immune deficiency. Four studies measured the burden of receiving IVIg therapy and 13 measured SCIg therapy. A wide range of measures, primarily designed to measure aspects of treatment satisfaction (e.g., life quality index or a slightly modified version) and HRQoL (e.g., The Short Form-36) had been used. Conclusion Lack of a parallel control group in most studies meant that changes in outcomes could be due to factors other than changes in the treatment regimen. However, overall, PID patients appeared to report little Ig treatment burden and were satisfied with either modality. However, patient preference appeared to be the delivery of the Ig treatment in the patient’s home and SCIg was preferred after switching from IVIg therapy. Individual differences appeared to affect treatment preference and therefore understanding the decision support needs of PID patients facing IG treatment choices would be valuable. Using a questionnaire specifically designed to measure the burden of Ig treatment from the patient’s perspective is recommended in future research.

Certolizumab Pegol for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis Following Inadequate Response to a TNF-α Inhibitor: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (UCB Pharma) of certolizumab pegol (CZP; Cimzia®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following inadequate response to a tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company’s submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company’s submission for CZP was based predominantly on six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of CZP against placebo. The clinical effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of CZP against the comparators within the scope; therefore, the company performed a network meta-analysis (NMA). The company’s NMA concluded that CZP had a similar efficacy to that of its comparators. The company submitted a Markov model that assessed the incremental cost effectiveness of CZP versus comparator biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for the treatment of RA from the perspective of the National Health Service for three decision problems, each of which followed an inadequate response to a TNFi. These were (1) a comparison against rituximab (RTX) in combination with methotrexate (MTX); (2) a comparison against bDMARDs when RTX was contraindicated or withdrawn due to an adverse event; and (3) a comparison against bDMARDs when MTX was contraindicated or withdrawn due to an adverse event. Results from the company’s economic evaluation showed that CZP resulted in a similar number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) produced at similar or lower costs compared with comparator bDMARDs. The commercial-in-confidence patient access schemes for abatacept and tocilizumab could not be incorporated by the company, but were incorporated by the ERG in a confidential appendix for the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The company estimated that the addition of CZP before RTX in a sequence for patients who could receive MTX produced more QALYs at an increased cost, with a cost per QALY of £33,222. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that did not change the conclusions reached based on the company’s economic evaluation in relation to the comparison with bDMARDs. The ERG estimated that where CZP replaced RTX, CZP was dominated, as it produced fewer QALYs at an increased cost. The AC concluded that there was little difference in effectiveness between CZP and comparator bDMARDs and that equivalence among bDMARDs could be accepted. The AC consequently recommended CZP plus MTX for people for whom RTX is contraindicated or not tolerated and CZP monotherapy for people for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated. The AC concluded that CZP plus MTX could not be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources when RTX plus MTX is a treatment option.