Micah Rose

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is characterised by joint pain, swelling and a limitation of movement caused by inflammation. Subsequent joint damage can lead to disability and growth restriction. Treatment commonly includes disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate. Clinical practice now favours newer drugs termed biologic DMARDs where indicated. OBJECTIVE To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four biologic DMARDs [etanercept (Enbrel(®), Pfizer), abatacept (Orencia(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), adalimumab (Humira(®), AbbVie) and tocilizumab (RoActemra(®), Roche) - with or without methotrexate where indicated] for the treatment of JIA (systemic or oligoarticular JIA are excluded). DATA SOURCES Electronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for published studies from inception to May 2015 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company submissions were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence. REVIEW METHODS Systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A cost-utility decision-analytic model was developed to compare the estimated cost-effectiveness of biologic DMARDs versus methotrexate. The base-case time horizon was 30 years and the model took a NHS perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS Four placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness review (one RCT evaluating each biologic DMARD). Only one RCT included UK participants. Participants had to achieve an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric (ACR Pedi)-30 response to open-label lead-in treatment in order to be randomised. An exploratory adjusted indirect comparison suggests that the four biologic DMARDs are similar, with fewer disease flares and greater proportions of ACR Pedi-50 and -70 responses among participants randomised to continued biologic DMARDs. However, confidence intervals were wide, the number of trials was low and there was clinical heterogeneity between trials. Open-label extensions of the trials showed that, generally, ACR responses remained constant or even increased after the double-blind phase. The proportions of adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Four economic evaluations of biologic DMARDs for patients with JIA were identified but all had limitations. Two quality-of-life studies were included, one of which informed the cost-utility model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab versus methotrexate were £38,127, £32,526 and £38,656 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively. The ICER for abatacept versus methotrexate as a second-line biologic was £39,536 per QALY. LIMITATIONS The model does not incorporate the natural history of JIA in terms of long-term disease progression, as the current evidence is limited. There are no head-to-head trials of biologic DMARDs, and clinical evidence for specific JIA subtypes is limited. CONCLUSIONS Biologic DMARDs are superior to placebo (with methotrexate where permitted) in children with (predominantly) polyarticular course JIA who have had an insufficient response to previous treatment. Randomised comparisons of biologic DMARDs with long-term efficacy and safety follow-up are needed to establish comparative effectiveness. RCTs for JIA subtypes for which evidence is lacking are also required. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016459. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Does Methodological Guidance Produce Consistency? A Review of Methodological Consistency in Breast Cancer Utility Value Measurement in NICE Single Technology Appraisals

Since 2004, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) methodological guidance for technology appraisals has emphasised a strong preference for using the validated EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) quality-of-life instrument, measuring patient health status from patients or carers, and using the general public’s preference-based valuation of different health states when assessing health benefits in economic evaluations. The aim of this study was to review all NICE single technology appraisals (STAs) for breast cancer treatments to explore consistency in the use of utility scores in light of NICE methodological guidance. A review of all published breast cancer STAs was undertaken using all publicly available STA documents for each included assessment. Utility scores were assessed for consistency with NICE-preferred methods and original data sources. Furthermore, academic assessment group work undertaken during the STA process was examined to evaluate the emphasis of NICE-preferred quality-of-life measurement methods. Twelve breast cancer STAs were identified, and many STAs used evidence that did not follow NICE’s preferred utility score measurement methods. Recent STA submissions show companies using EQ-5D and mapping. Academic assessment groups rarely emphasized NICE-preferred methods, and queries about preferred methods were rare. While there appears to be a trend in recent STA submissions towards following NICE methodological guidance, historically STA guidance in breast cancer has generally not used NICE’s preferred methods. Future STAs in breast cancer and reviews of older guidance should ensure that utility measurement methods are consistent with the NICE reference case to help produce consistent, equitable decision making.

Etelcalcetide for Treating Secondary Hyperparathyroidism: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The manufacturer of the calcimimetic drug etelcalcetide was invited to make an evidence submission as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) programme. Within this submission, they reported evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of etelcalcetide for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on haemodialysis. The Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), part of the Wessex Institute at the University of Southampton, was the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG) commissioned to appraise the company’s submission. This article describes the ERG’s review and critique of the company’s submission and summarises the NICE Appraisal Committee’s subsequent guidance (issued in June 2017). The clinical-effectiveness evidence submitted by the company consisted of two double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing etelcalcetide with placebo, one RCT comparing etelcalcetide with cinacalcet, two single-arm extension studies of the above trials, and one single-arm study evaluating the effect of switching from cinacalcet to etelcalcetide. No study specifically examined the population specified in the NICE appraisal scope: patients refractory to standard therapy with phosphate binders and vitamin D (PBVD). None of these trials were designed to collect long-term efficacy data for outcomes such as mortality, bone fractures, cardiovascular events, or parathyroidectomies. Instead, biomarker data from the trials were mapped to long-term outcomes by an assumed linear relationship between the trial outcome, reduction of parathyroid hormone (PTH) by > 30%, and the log-hazard ratios for the occurrence of clinical events derived from a large, long-term RCT of cinacalcet (the EVOLVE trial). After submission of a confidential Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount reducing etelcalcetide drug costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for etelcalcetide versus cinacalcet was £14,778 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in the company’s base case. While this value is lower than the NICE threshold range of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, it was the opinion of the ERG that the ICER was highly uncertain due to efficacy data limitations for etelcalcetide, inadequate synthesis of clinical-effectiveness evidence, and strong assumptions connecting short-term biomarker data with long-term clinical outcomes. The ERG produced an alternative base case for etelcalcetide versus cinacalcet, with an ICER of £22,400 per QALY gained, also subject to uncertainty. The NICE Appraisal Committee recommended etelcalcetide as an option for the treatment of SHPT in adults with CKD only if treatment with a calcimimetic is indicated and cinacalcet is not suitable, subject to the company’s provision of the agreed PAS discount.

Virtual chromoendoscopy for the real-time assessment of colorectal polyps in vivo: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND Current clinical practice is to remove a colorectal polyp detected during colonoscopy and determine whether it is an adenoma or hyperplastic by histopathology. Identifying adenomas is important because they may eventually become cancerous if untreated, whereas hyperplastic polyps do not usually develop into cancer, and a surveillance interval is set based on the number and size of adenomas found. Virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) (an electronic endoscopic imaging technique) could be used by the endoscopist under strictly controlled conditions for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps to replace histopathological diagnosis. OBJECTIVE To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the VCE technologies narrow-band imaging (NBI), flexible spectral imaging colour enhancement (FICE) and i-scan for the characterisation and management of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps using high-definition (HD) systems without magnification. DESIGN Systematic review and economic analysis. PARTICIPANTS People undergoing colonoscopy for screening or surveillance or to investigate symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer. INTERVENTIONS NBI, FICE and i-scan. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Diagnostic accuracy, recommended surveillance intervals, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse effects, incidence of colorectal cancer, mortality and cost-effectiveness of VCE compared with histopathology. DATA SOURCES Electronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for published English-language studies from inception to June 2016. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company information were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence. REVIEW METHODS Systematic reviews of test accuracy and economic evaluations were undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were conducted, where possible, to inform the independent economic model. A cost-utility decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of VCE compared with histopathology. The model used a decision tree for patients undergoing endoscopy, combined with estimates of long-term outcomes (e.g. incidence of colorectal cancer and subsequent morbidity and mortality) derived from University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Researchs bowel cancer screening model. The model took a NHS perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5% over a lifetime horizon. There were limitations in the data on the distribution of adenomas across risk categories and recurrence rates post polypectomy. RESULTS Thirty test accuracy studies were included: 24 for NBI, five for i-scan and three for FICE (two studies assessed two interventions). Polyp assessments made with high confidence were associated with higher sensitivity and endoscopists experienced in VCE achieved better results than those without experience. Two economic evaluations were included. NBI, i-scan and FICE are cost-saving strategies compared with histopathology and the number of quality-adjusted life-years gained was similar for histopathology and VCE. The correct surveillance interval would be given to 95% of patients with NBI, 94% of patients with FICE and 97% of patients with i-scan. LIMITATIONS Limited evidence was available for i-scan and FICE and there was heterogeneity among the NBI studies. There is a lack of data on longer-term health outcomes of patients undergoing VCE for assessment of diminutive colorectal polyps. CONCLUSIONS VCE technologies, using HD systems without magnification, could potentially be used for the real-time assessment of diminutive colorectal polyps, if endoscopists have adequate experience and training. FUTURE WORK Future research priorities include head-to-head randomised controlled trials of all three VCE technologies; more research on the diagnostic accuracy of FICE and i-scan (when used without magnification); further studies evaluating the impact of endoscopist experience and training on outcomes; studies measuring adverse effects, HRQoL and anxiety; and longitudinal data on colorectal cancer incidence, HRQoL and mortality. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037767. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.