Bivalirudin for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a NICE single technology appraisal

Bivalirudin as compared to unfractionated heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization: A meta-analysis of 22 randomized trials

Bivalirudin has gained ground against unfractionated heparin (UFH) in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), due to a reported better safety profile. However, whether bivalirudin may provide also advantages in clinical outcome beyond the known benefits in major bleedings, is still a debated matter and was, therefore, the aim of present meta-analysis of randomized trials, evaluating efficacy and safety of bivalirudin as compared with UFH in PCI.

METHODS AND STUDY OUTCOMES

Literature archives (Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane) and main scientific sessions were scanned. Primary endpoint was overall mortality. Secondary endpoints were: 1) mortality within 30-days; 2) overall and within 30-days non fatal myocardial infarction; 3) overall and within 30-days stent thrombosis. Safety endpoints were major bleedings (per protocol definition or TIMI classification). A prespecified analysis was conducted according to clinical presentation (Elective, ACS, STEMI).

RESULTS

A total of 22 randomized clinical were finally included, involving 40156 patients randomized to bivalirudin (52.9%) or to UFH (47.1%). Death occurred in 1100 (2.8%) of patients, with no difference between bivalirudin and UFH (2.7% vs 2.8% OR[95%C]=0.94[0.83,-.06], p=0.32, phet=0.48). The results did not change according to clinical presentation. By meta-regression analysis, the effects on mortality were not related to patients risk profile (r=-0.38(-0.89-0.14), p=0.15) or the reduction in bleeding complications (r=-0.008(-0.86-0.85), p=0.98). A significant increase in short-term stent thrombosis was observed with bivalirudin (OR[95%CI]=1.42 [1.10-1.83], p=0.006). However, Bivalirudin significantly reduced bleedings according to both study protocol definition (OR[95%CI]=0.62[0.56-0.69],p<0.00001; phet=0.0003) or TIMI major criteria (OR[95%CI]=0.65[0.53-0.79],p<0.0001, phet=0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

In present meta-analysis, among patients undergoing PCI, bivalirudin, as compared with UFH, is associated with a significant reduction in major bleeding complications that, however, does not translate into mortality benefits. Furthermore, bivalirudin is associated with higher rate of 30-days stent thrombosis and recurrent MI among STEMI patients.

Rituximab in combination with corticosteroids for the treatment of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: 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 of rituximab (Roche Products) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of rituximab in combination with corticosteroids for treatment of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV). 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 upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from a double-blind, phase III, placebo-controlled trial of rituximab in patients with new or relapsed 'severe' AAV, which compared a rituximab treatment regimen with an oral cyclophosphamide treatment regimen. Intravenous cyclophosphamide is also commonly used but was not included in the pivotal trial. The evidence showed that rituximab is noninferior to oral cyclophosphamide in terms of induction of remission in adults with AAV and de novo disease, and is superior to oral cyclophosphamide in terms of remission in adults who have relapsed once on cyclophosphamide. The ERG concluded that the results of the manufacturer's economic evaluation could not be considered robust, because of errors and because the full range of relevant treatment sequences were not modelled. The ERG amended the manufacturer's model and demonstrated that rituximab was likely to represent a cost-effective addition to the treatment sequence if given after cyclophosphamide treatment.

Aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic and mixed episodes in bipolar I disorder in children and adolescents: a NICE single technology appraisal

As part of its single technology process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturers of aripiprazole (Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. and Bristol Myers Squibb) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic and mixed episodes in bipolar I disorder in children and adolescents. 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 upon the manufacturers' submission to NICE. The evidence, which was derived mainly from a double-blind, phase III, placebo-controlled trial of aripiprazole in patients aged 10-17 years, showed that aripiprazole performed significantly better than placebo in reducing mania according to the primary outcome measurement (the Young Mania Rating Scale at 4 weeks). Safety outcomes indicated that aripiprazole was significantly more likely to cause extrapyramidal symptoms and somnolence than placebo. The manufacturers also presented a network meta-analysis of aripiprazole versus other atypical antipsychotics commonly used to treat manic episodes (olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone) to show that aripiprazole performed similarly to the comparator drugs in terms of efficacy and safety. Aripiprazole was demonstrated to perform better in safety outcomes of (1) less weight gain than olanzapine and quetiapine; and (2) less prolactin increase than olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone. Results from the manufacturers' economic evaluation showed that use of aripiprazole second-line dominated all of the other treatment strategies that were considered. However, there was considerable uncertainty in this result, and clinical advisors indicated that the actual treatment strategy employed in practice is likely to be dependent upon the patient's characteristics. The ERG demonstrated that if this personalised medicine resulted in improved cost effectiveness for any of the other treatment strategies, then they had the potential to dominate use of aripiprazole second-line. In conclusion, whilst a strategy including aripiprazole appeared to be cost effective relative to a strategy without it, there was not robust enough evidence to recommend a specific place for aripiprazole within the treatment pathway.

Ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis: a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ruxolitinib (Novartis) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for ruxolitinib within its licensed indication (the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adult patients with myelofibrosis), according to the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance TA289 issued in June 2013. The ERG critically reviewed the evidence presented in the manufacturer's submission and identified areas requiring clarification, for which the manufacturer provided additional evidence. The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from two phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trials (RCTs): Controlled myelofibrosis study with oral JAK inhibitor treatment (COMFORT)-II compared ruxolitinib with best available therapy (BAT), and COMFORT-I compared ruxolitinib with placebo. These RCTs demonstrated that ruxolitinib confers significant benefits in terms of spleen size reduction and improvement in symptom burden. In the COMFORT-II trial, a reduction in spleen volume of ≥35 % was achieved in 28 % of ruxolitinib-treated patients compared with 0 % of patients in the BAT group (p < 0.001) at 48 weeks, and there was a mean change in spleen volume of -30.1 versus +7.3 % (p < 0.001). Ruxolitinib also provided significant improvements in myelofibrosis-associated symptoms and health-related quality-of-life compared with BAT and placebo. The ERG concluded that ruxolitinib appears to reduce splenomegaly and its associated symptoms, but that there was considerable uncertainty surrounding the manufacturer's cost-effectiveness estimates due to limitations in the manufacturer's model. The manufacturer's model did not allow for disease progression, did not accurately capture symptomatic relief, had several implausible or unjustified assumptions, and there were several parameter choices that the ERG found sub-optimal. ERG sensitivity analyses found that nearly all plausible adjustments to the model reduced the cost effectiveness of ruxolitinib. It is very likely that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £73,980/quality-adjusted life-year presented by the manufacturer represents a best-case scenario. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ruxolitinib was clinically effective, but could not be considered a cost effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for treating disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adults with myelofibrosis. Ruxolitinib is not recommended for the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adult patients with primary myelofibrosis (also known as chronic idiopathic myelofibrosis), post-polycythaemia vera myelofibrosis and post-essential thrombocythaemia myelofibrosis in NICE TA289.

Cabazitaxel for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of cabazitaxel (Jevtana®, sanofi-aventis, UK) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group (ScHARR-TAG) 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 upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence was derived from a multinational randomized open-label phase III trial of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone in men with mHRPC that had progressed during or following treatment with docetaxel. The comparator was mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone. Use of cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, median progression-free survival and time to tumour progression. However, it was also associated with an increased incidence of adverse events such as neutropenia. Utility data were based on interim results from the early access programme for cabazitaxel. Data were only available for a small number of patients with stable disease, resulting in great uncertainty as to the effect of cabazitaxel on quality of life. For their economic evaluation, the manufacturer estimated that the use of cabazitaxel was associated with an incremental cost of £74,908 per QALY gained. However, the ERG disagreed with the manufacturer over two key methodological points. The first concerned modelling and extrapolating survival; the second point was concerned with the choice of patient population. The ERG altered the manufacturer's evaluation to take into account these two points of disagreement. The resulting cost per QALY gained was £82,950. The NICE Appraisal Committee believed the analysis presented by the ERG to be more plausible, and likely to be an underestimate of the cost per QALY. They concluded that whilst the clinical effectiveness of cabazitaxel had been proven, it was not likely to represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources and so its use could not be recommended.

Trabectedin for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of trabectedin (PharmaMar) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (aMSTS), as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The ERG produced a review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology contained within the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently modified the manufacturer's decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. The main evidence was derived from a single phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma only, in which the licensed dose of trabectedin was compared with a different dose of trabectedin. Additional data were also presented from three uncontrolled phase II trials. Supplementary studies were used to represent best supportive care (BSC). The median overall survival (OS) was 13.9 months for the licensed dose of trabectedin in the main randomized controlled trial (RCT) and ranged from 9.2 months to 12.8 months in the other studies included. Supplementary studies supplied by the manufacturer, and assumed to represent BSC, had median OS of 5.9-6.6 months. The progression-free survival (PFS) rates at 6 months for trabectedin were 35.5 % in the main RCT and 24.4-29 % in the other studies included. The PFS rates at 6 months were 8-14 % for BSC. In the manufacturer's original submission to NICE, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of trabectedin compared with BSC was approximately £44,000 per QALY gained. After amendment of errors identified by the ERG, the ICER reported by the manufacturer increased to approximately £61,000. The ERG concluded that, despite clarifications from the manufacturer and the revisions made to the model, there was still considerable uncertainty in the ICER. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) gave a negative initial recommendation, although indicated that trabectedin in aMSTS met the end-of-life criteria. Subsequently, the manufacturer submitted a patient access scheme (PAS) where any cycles beyond the fifth were provided at no cost by the manufacturer. This improved the ICER to approximately £34,000 per QALY gained. The AC gave a positive recommendation, subject to the implementation of the PAS.

Golimumab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a NICE single technology appraisal

As part of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process, the Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a report to comment on the clinical and cost effectiveness of golimumab (Simponi(®), Merck Sharp & Dohme) for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) relative to other comparators as presented in the manufacturer's submission (MS) to NICE. The population was those with active disease who had not responded to conventional therapy. The specified comparators were conventional care and two other tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors (adalimumab and etanercept). Outcomes to be considered were disease activity, functional capacity, disease progression, adverse effects of treatment and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). There were no head-to-head trials comparing TNF-α inhibitors. The submission included one trial of golimumab versus placebo (the GO-RAISE trial) and additionally seven placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of other TNF-α inhibitor agents (five with etanercept, and two with adalimumab). The results of these trials were generally a statistically significant improvement from each of the TNF-α inhibitors. A Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) showed there was generally overlap in the 95 % credible intervals (CrIs) between the TNF-α inhibitors. Exceptions included a greater risk of discontinuation of treatment for golimumab than for etanercept (relative risk [RR] 4.30; 95 % CrI 1.01-18.50). The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) compared all of these TNF-α inhibitors. Relative effectiveness was informed only by RR of response (proportion achieving at least a 50 % improvement in Bath AS Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] score; BASDAI50) from the MTC. In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of golimumab versus conventional care was £26,597 and adalimumab and etanercept were extendedly dominated by golimumab. The manufacturer concluded that golimumab is a cost-effective treatment option. Generally, the ERG agreed with the MTC analyses. The main problem was that the MS used data from one trial, which included a period of cross-over. The ERG found some problems with the CEA model, mainly that it did not allow for comparison of TNF-α inhibitor sequences and did not use MTC estimates for treatment discontinuation or adverse events (AEs). The ERG could not correct the sequencing problem, but re-ran the CEA with discontinuations and AEs estimated from the MTC and using the correct trial data. The results of the ERG analysis were that golimumab was extendedly dominated by etanercept, and the preferred treatment was either conventional treatment or etanercept, depending on the ICER threshold. Uncertainty was also substantial. NICE issued guidance (technology appraisal [TA] 233), which recommended golimumab according to the indications described in TA143 for etanercept and adalimumab, i.e. as first-line therapy among the TNF-α inhibitors unless patients are intolerant to one or both alternatives. Given the factors cited by NICE for their decision, the ERG recommends that there should be greater clarity in the NICE methods guidance on handling uncertainty in CEAs as well as the incorporation of benefit from process of care.

Rituximab for the first-line maintenance treatment of follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma : a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of rituximab (RTX) [Roche] to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of RTX as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (fNHL) whose disease has responded to induction therapy with RTX plus cytotoxic chemotherapy (R-CTX) in accordance with the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarizes the ERG's review of the evidence submitted by the manufacturer and provides a summary of the Appraisal Committee's (AC) decision. The clinical evidence was derived from a multi-centred, open-label, randomized phase III study (PRIMA) comparing first-line maintenance treatment with RTX with observation only in 1,018 patients with previously untreated advanced fNHL. Median time to event (MTE) for the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) in the RTX arm was not estimable due to data immaturity; median PFS in the observation arm was 48.36 months. A statistically significant benefit of RTX maintenance therapy for PFS was reported (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95 % CI 0.44-0.68; p < 0.0001). Statistically significant differences in favour of RTX were also reported for a range of secondary endpoints. Assessment of overall survival benefit could be not made due to insufficient events. The ERG's main concern with the clinical-effectiveness data presented was their lack of maturity. The submitted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was within the NICE threshold. The ERG questioned the model on a number of grounds, particularly the use of Markov methodology rather than patient simulations, the impact of patient age on the outcome and the projective PFS modelling. The ERG considered it impossible to draw firm conclusions regarding the clinical or cost effectiveness of the intervention as the dataset was as yet too immature. At a third meeting, the AC concluded that RTX could be recommended as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with fNHL whose disease has responded to induction R-CTX.