Single technology appraisal at the UK National Institute for Health and clinical excellence: a source of evidence and analysis for decision making internationally

Comparing the ICERs in Medicine Reimbursement Submissions to NICE and PBAC-Does the Presence of an Explicit Threshold Affect the ICER Proposed?

OBJECTIVES

The English National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) require evidence that a new medicine represents value for money before being publicly funded. NICE has an explicit threshold for cost effectiveness, whereas PBAC does not. We compared the initial incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) presented by manufacturers in matched submissions to each decision-making body, with the aim of exploring the impact of an explicit threshold on these ICERs.

METHODS

Data were extracted from matched submissions from 2005 to 2015. The ICERs in these submissions were compared within each pair and with respect to a cost-effectiveness threshold.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight pairs of matched submissions were identified. The median difference between the ICERs ($2635/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) was significantly greater than zero (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P = 0.0299), indicating that the proposed ICERs in the submissions to NICE were higher than those in the matched submissions to PBAC. On 93% of occasions, NICE ICERs were within -$17,772 to +$48,422 of the corresponding PBAC ones (Bland-Altman analysis), demonstrating poor agreement. When an implicit threshold of AUD$50,000/QALY was assumed for PBAC decision making, only eight pairs of submissions had discordant ICERs falling above or below the respective threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

The significantly higher ICERs in the submissions to NICE than those to PBAC may be a consequence of NICE's explicit willingness-to-pay threshold, and/or other health system factors. Industry may be assuming an implicit threshold for PBAC when constructing their ICERs despite the lack of acknowledgement of such a threshold.

How to design the cost-effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies to maximise population health: A conceptual framework

This paper presents a conceptual framework to analyse the design of the cost-effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies. The framework characterises the appraisal processes as a diagnostic test aimed at identifying cost-effective (true positive) and non-cost-effective (true negative) technologies. Using the framework, factors that influence the value of operating an appraisal process, in terms of net gain to population health, are identified. The framework is used to gain insight into current policy questions including (a) how rigorous the process should be, (b) who should have the burden of proof, and (c) how optimal design changes when allowing for appeals, price reductions, resubmissions, and re-evaluations. The paper demonstrates that there is no one optimal appraisal process and the process should be adapted over time and to the specific technology under assessment. Optimal design depends on country-specific features of (future) technologies, for example, effect, price, and size of the patient population, which might explain the difference in appraisal processes across countries. It is shown that burden of proof should be placed on the producers and that the impact of price reductions and patient access schemes on the producer's price setting should be considered when designing the appraisal process.

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.

Special funding schemes for innovative medical devices in French hospitals: the pros and cons of two different approaches

Financing innovative medical devices is an important challenge for national health policy makers, and a crucial issue for hospitals. However, when innovative medical devices are launched on the European market there is generally little clinical evidence regarding both efficacy and safety, both because of the flaws in the European system for regulating such devices, and because they are at an early stage of development. To manage the uncertainty surrounding the reimbursement of innovation, several European countries have set up temporary funding schemes to generate evidence about the effectiveness of devices. This article explores two different French approaches to funding innovative in-hospital devices and collecting supplementary data: the coverage with evidence development (CED) scheme introduced under Article L. 165-1-1 of the French Social Security Code; and national programs for hospital-based research. We discuss pros and cons of both approaches in the light of CED policies in Germany and the UK. The CED policies for devices share common limitations. Thus, transparency of CED processes should be enhanced and decisions need to be made in a timely way. Finally, we think that closer collaboration between manufacturers, health authorities and hospitals is essential to make CED policies more operational.

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.

Golimumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a NICE single technology appraisal

As part of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process, the manufacturer of golimumab (Simponi(®); Merck Sharp & Dohme, USA) was invited to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). 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). This article provides details of the manufacturer's initial submission, the ERG's clarification questions and the ERG report submitted to NICE. The decision made by NICE is provided alongside a brief comment on additional results produced from an additional analysis requested by NICE on behalf of the Committee. The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based on upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The clinical evidence was derived from three randomized controlled trials of golimumab in the treatment of moderate to severe RA: GO-FORWARD and Kay et al. (DMARD-experienced population) and GO-AFTER (tumour necrosis factor [TNF]-α inhibitor-experienced population). The ERG considered that the trials were of reasonable methodological quality and measured a clinically relevant range of outcomes. The trials for golimumab, as well as comparator treatments, were synthesized using mixed-treatment comparison methods for the DMARD-experienced population and an indirect comparison using the Bucher method for the TNF-α inhibitor-experienced population. The trials used were appropriate, although no definitive judgement regarding the comparative efficacy of golimumab with other biologics was possible. The manufacturer provided a DMARD-experienced population model and a TNF-α inhibitor-experienced population model. The models allowed sequences of treatments to be evaluated for each population, although a fully incremental analysis between the use of golimumab following DMARD failure and the use of golimumab following TNF-α inhibitor failure was not possible. Several limitations with the model were identified, and after a request from NICE and suspension of the appraisal, the manufacturer submitted sensitivity analyses with an additional American College of Rheumatology 70 % improvement criteria (ACR70) health state included, using SF-36 data directly from the GO-FORWARD study. The annual rate of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score increase for patients receiving palliative treatment was also changed from 0.09 to 0.06. The further analyses provided highlighted the particular sensitivity of the results to HAQ progression rates and the re-administration frequency for rituximab in the TNF-α inhibitor-experienced population. The Appraisal Committee concluded that golimumab should be recommended in combination with methotrexate as an option for patients with severe active RA who have failed on conventional DMARDs, or who have failed on a TNF-α inhibitor and are contraindicated to or withdrawn from rituximab.

Dabigatran for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation: A NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of dabigatran etexilate (Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this drug for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) as part of the NICE single technology appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the evidence review group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the manufacturer's submission, the ERG report and the subsequent development of NICE guidance for the use of dabigatran within the UK National Health Service. Dabigatran was granted marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency for a sequential dosing regimen (DBG sequential), in which patients under 80 years are treated with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (DBG150) and patients 80 years and over are given dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (DBG110). NICE decisions are bound by the marketing authorisation; therefore, the decision problem faced by the committee was whether the DBG sequential regimen was effective and cost-effective compared with warfarin or aspirin for patients with non-valvular AF and one or more risk factors. The RE-LY trial, a large multi-centre non-inferiority randomised clinical trial, was the primary source of clinical evidence. DBG150 was shown to be non-inferior, and subsequently superior to warfarin, for the primary outcome of all stroke/systemic embolism. DBG110 was found to be non-inferior to warfarin. Results were presented for a post hoc subgroup analysis for patients under and over 80 years of age, where DBG110 showed a statistically significant reduction of haemorrhagic stroke and intracranial haemorrhage in comparison to warfarin in patients over 80 years of age. This post hoc subgroup analysis by age was the basis for the licensed DBG sequential regimen. The economic evaluation compared the costs and outcomes of DBG110, DBG150 and DBG sequential against warfarin, aspirin, and aspirin plus clopidogrel. Across the three dosing regimens, dabigatran was associated with greater costs and better health outcomes than warfarin; however, DBG150 offered the most benefits and dominated DBG110 and DBG sequential (i.e. less costly and more effective). The cost-effectiveness of DBG150 was less favourable for patients well controlled on warfarin. In the first appraisal meeting, the committee issued a 'minded no' decision until additional analyses on the licensed DBG sequential regimen were presented by the manufacturer. These additional analyses indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the DBG sequential regimen compared with warfarin ranged from £8,388 to £18,987 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained depending on the level of monitoring costs assumed for warfarin. Patients on warfarin would need to be within therapeutic range 83-85 % of the time for the ICER to exceed £30,000 per additional QALY. Following consideration of the additional evidence and the responses from a large number of consultees and commentators, the committee recommended dabigatran as DBG sequential as an option for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in people with non-valvular AF with one or more risk factors for ischaemic stroke.

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.

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

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (The Medicines Company) of bivalirudin to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness within its licensed indication for the treatment of adults with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) intended for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), as part of NICE's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG), which produced a review of the evidence within the manufacturer's submission to NICE. This article describes the manufacturer's submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The main evidence was derived from one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of STEMI patients intended for PPCI, comparing bivalirudin with unfractionated heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs). Bivalirudin was associated with a significant reduction in cardiac mortality at 30 days (p = 0.03) and at 1-year follow-up (p = 0.005), and a significant reduction in major bleeding at 30 days (p < 0.001) and 1 year (p < 0.0001), compared with heparin plus GPI. Stent thrombosis up to 24 hours following PPCI was significantly (p < 0.001) more common with bivalirudin. However, there was no significant treatment effect for stent thrombosis from 1 to 30 days (p = 0.28), or at 1-year follow-up (p = 0.53). There were no significant treatment group differences at 30 days and at 1 year in stroke (p = 0.68 and p = 0.99, respectively), in myocardial infarction [MI] (p = 0.90 and p = 0.22, respectively), or in the need for the revascularization of the target vessel for ischaemia (p = 0.18 and p = 0.12, respectively). There were two decision-analytic models: the base-case scenario used 1-year follow-up data from the RCT; and a sensitivity analysis used 3-year follow-up data. Resource use was primarily drawn from this RCT. Health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) estimates were drawn from a UK cohort study. Both models evaluated the incremental costs and outcomes of bivalirudin compared with heparin plus GPI for patients with STEMI intended for PPCI. The analysis adopted a UK NHS perspective over a lifetime horizon. Unit costs were based on year 2009-2010 prices. The model adopted a decision-tree structure to reflect initial events for the initial period (stroke, repeat MI, minor/major bleeding events, repeat revascularization and death) and a two-state Markov component to simulate longer-term survival. The economic analysis suggested that bivalirudin is expected to dominate the heparin plus GPI strategy. This finding was consistent across the probabilistic sensitivity analysis and the vast majority of deterministic sensitivity analyses undertaken. Three exceptions to this finding were observed for the following sensitivity analyses: (1) the exclusive use of eptifibatide as the GPI (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = £1,764); (2) the combination of 100 % eptifibatide use, 100 % radial arterial access and no differential length between strategies for initial hospital stay (ICER = £4,106); and (3) a longer length of ward stay (increase of 0.33 days) for the initial hospitalization (ICER = £415). The Appraisal Committee (AC) gave a positive recommendation for bivalirudin for the treatment of adults with STEMI undergoing PPCI.

Trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer : a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of trastuzumab, Roche Pharmaceuticals, to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (aGC), as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) and the Centre for Health Economics (CHE) Technology Appraisal Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the evidence review group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG report and NICE's subsequent decisions. In the initial appraisal by NICE, trastuzumab was rejected for use in the licensed population. Given this result, the manufacturer submitted additional evidence. In the final appraisal decision, trastuzumab was approved, in accordance with supplementary guidance issued by NICE on appraising life-extending, end-of-life treatments, for patients whose human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status was defined by an immunohistochemistry 3 positive (IHC3+) result. This appraisal highlights the need to fully assess the impact of different approaches to diagnostic testing on the cost effectiveness of targeted treatments. In this appraisal, it was found that the diagnostic strategy influenced the effectiveness and cost of trastuzumab. In the future, different diagnostic strategies should be compared in the incremental cost-effectiveness analysis.

Retigabine for the adjunctive treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures in epilepsy with and without secondary generalization : a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of retigabine (GlaxoSmithKline) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures in epilepsy, with and without secondary generalization, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG undertakes a critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence of the technology based upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently searches for relevant evidence and evaluates modifications to the manufacturer's decision-analytic model. This paper provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The clinical effectiveness data were derived from three placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A meta-analysis pooling across all doses of retigabine found beneficial effects of retigabine in terms of responder rate (odds ratio [OR] 2.79; 95 % CI 2.08, 3.76) and rate of seizure freedom (OR 2.54; 95 % CI 0.92, 6.98) [both double-blind phase analyses]. When compared in a network meta-analysis with the selected comparator antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) [eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide, pregabalin, tiagabine and zonisamide], retigabine offered broadly similar efficacy in terms of responder rate and freedom from seizure. The de novo decision-analytic model presented within the submission evaluated the cost effectiveness of retigabine compared with these AEDs and no treatment (i.e. maintenance therapy). After numerous additional analyses, the ERG considered the use of retigabine to be not cost effective for NICE at thresholds below £43,000 if no treatment was considered a relevant comparator. The NICE Appraisal Committee decided that an appropriate comparator was an active treatment. The Committee recommended that retigabine is offered as an option for the adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization in adults aged 18 years and older with epilepsy, only when previous treatment with carbamazepine, clobazam, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, sodium valproate and topiramate has not provided an adequate response, or has not been tolerated.

Pazopanib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma : a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of pazopanib hydrochloride (GlaxoSmithKline) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug for the first-line treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group were commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The objective of this paper is to summarize the independent review and critique of the evidence submitted for the consideration of the NICE Appraisal Committee and NICE's subsequently issued guidance. 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 ERG also independently searched for relevant evidence and modified the manufacturer's decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. For progression-free survival (PFS), there was a statistically significant longer survival for pazopanib compared with placebo (as assessed by the ERG, based upon the original manufacturer submission with a clinical cut-off date of 23 May 2008) [median 11.1 vs. 2.8 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95 % CI 0.27, 0.60]. Data from the indirect comparison suggested that pazopanib had a greater survival than interferon alpha (IFN-α) [HR 0.512; 95 % CI 0.326, 0.802] but provided no evidence of any difference compared with sunitinib (HR 0.949; 95 % CI 0.575, 1.568). With regard to overall survival, 64 % (n = 99) of patients in the pazopanib arm and 63 % (n = 49) of patients in the placebo arm had died and a total of 51 % (n = 40) of placebo patients had crossed over to receive pazopanib. Although data were provided on an intention-to-treat basis, crossover between therapies made such data difficult to interpret. There was no evidence of any statistically significant difference between pazopanib and best supportive care (HR 0.501; 95 % CI 0.136, 2.348). In the indirect comparison, there were no statistically significant differences between pazopanib and IFN-α (HR 0.627; 95 % CI 0.173, 2.269) or between pazopanib and sunitinib (HR 0.969; 95 % CI 0.359, 2.608). Based upon the work presented including a 12.5 % discount for pazopanib, sunitinib was extendedly dominated by a combination of pazopanib and IFN-α. As a consequence, the incremental cost per QALY for pazopanib versus IFN-α was £38,925. The results were not greatly altered over the range of univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses conducted by the manufacturer but pair-wise probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that given a threshold value of £30,000, there is a 54 % probability that pazopanib was preferred to sunitinib, 40 % chance against IFN-α and 47 % chance against best supportive care. The Appraisal Committee concluded that pazopanib should be recommended as a first-line treatment option for people with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have not received prior cytokine therapy and have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and if the manufacturer provides pazopanib with a 12.5 % discount on the list price and provides a possible future rebate linked to the outcome of the head-to-head COMPARZ trial, as agreed under the terms of the patient access scheme and to be confirmed when the COMPARZ trial data are made available.

Bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of bevacizumab (Roche Products) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at the University of Sheffield 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 critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology provided within the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently searched for relevant evidence and modified the manufacturer's decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from a phase III, multicentre, multinational, two-arm, randomized, open-label study with the primary objective of confirming the non-inferiority of oxaliplatin plus capecitabine (XELOX) compared with oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid (FOLFOX-4) in adult patients with histologically confirmed mCRC who had not previously been treated. The ERG considered that the NO16966 trial was of reasonable methodological quality and demonstrated a significant improvement in both progression-free and overall survival when bevacizumab is added to either XELOX or FOLFOX-4. The ERG considered that the size of the actual treatment effect of bevacizumab was uncertain due to trial design limitations, imbalance of a known prognostic factor, relatively short treatment duration compared with that allowed within the trial protocol, and interpretation of the statistical analyses. The manufacturer's submission included a de novo economic evaluation using a cost-effectiveness model built in Microsoft® Excel. The ERG believed that the modelling structure employed was appropriate but highlighted several areas of uncertainty that had the potential to have a significant impact on the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The areas of uncertainty identified by the ERG included whether chemotherapy would be administered continuously or intermittently, patient access scheme (PAS) costs and uptake, survival that was dependent on the statistical analyses used, and the likely duration of continued treatment with bevacizumab after cessation of oxaliplatin and the efficacy associated with continuation. The STA described here highlighted the challenges in appraising interventions with a complex PAS. Based on the analyses that include a discount to the list price of oxaliplatin, the ERG concluded that the ICERs for the addition of bevacizumab to XELOX or FOLFOX were both over £50 000. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin and either 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid or capecitabine (i.e. FOLFOX or XELOX) was not recommended for the treatment of mCRC.

Omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6-11 years: a NICE single technology appraisal

Following a licence extension to include those aged 6-11 years, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of omalizumab (Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for patients with severe persistent allergic asthma in this age bracket. NICE had previously considered the use of omalizumab in patients aged 12 years and over. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) and the Centre for Health Economics (CHE) at the University of York were commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) to critically appraise the evidence presented by the manufacturer. This article summarizes that review of the evidence, the deliberations of the NICE Appraisal Committee and the resulting NICE guidance. 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 relevant patient population was patients aged 6-11 years of age with severe persistent allergic immunoglobulin E-mediated asthma whose condition remained uncontrolled despite best standard care with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and a long-acting inhaled β₂-agonist. The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from a pre-planned subgroup analysis of a single randomized controlled trial comparing omalizumab plus standard therapy against standard therapy alone. At a 52-week follow-up, the only outcome to show a statistically significant benefit of omalizumab compared with placebo was the number of exacerbations defined as 'clinically significant' [CS] (relative risk [RR] 0.504; 95% CI 0.350, 0.725; p < 0.001). At the ERG's request, the manufacturer provided analyses stratified by baseline exacerbation rate, which indicated the effect of omalizumab on CS exacerbations was statistically significant only for those children with ≥3 exacerbations as baseline. The ERG identified a number of issues relating to the clinical effectiveness results: it was unclear whether the pre-planned subgroup analysis had sufficient power; the definition of CS exacerbation was less severe than that used in UK clinical practice; and the method for imputing exacerbations for those who withdrew from treatment may have underestimated the exacerbation rate. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio based on the manufacturer's results was considerably above the threshold range stated in the NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. The ERG identified numerous issues relating to the cost-effectiveness results, which included the following: the 10-year time horizon for treatment may exceed that in clinical practice; the assumption of constant exacerbation rates over a lifetime given that adolescence is expected to impact on the severity of asthma; and whether it is appropriate to use health-related quality-of-life data collected in adults for children. The ERG concluded that omalizumab appears to reduce CS exacerbations but there was no evidence of improvement in daily symptoms, CS severe (CSS) exacerbations or hospitalization rates. The main driver of cost effectiveness was the reduction in asthma-related mortality associated with a reduction in CSS exacerbations. As the number of CSS exacerbations avoided was low, as is asthma-related mortality in children, the potential small gain in QALYs associated with omalizumab was not sufficient to compensate for the high treatment cost even under the most favourable scenario analyses. The Appraisal Committee recommended that omalizumab should not be routinely provided for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6-11 years.

Eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of eltrombopag (GlaxoSmithKline) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of patients with chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), as part of the their Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Aberdeen Technology Assessment Review (TAR) Group, commissioned to act as the evidence review group (ERG), critically reviewed and supplemented the submitted evidence. This paper describes the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The ERG critically appraised the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by the manufacturer, independently searched for relevant literature, conducted a critical appraisal of the submitted economic models and explored the impact of altering some of the key model assumptions as well as combining relevant sensitivity analyses. Three trials were used to inform the safety and efficacy aspects of this submission; however, one high-quality randomized controlled trial (RAISE study) was the principal source of evidence and was used to inform the economic model. Eltrombopag had greater odds of achieving the primary outcome of a platelet count between 50 × 10^⁹/L and 400 × 10^⁹/L during the 6-month treatment period than placebo (odds ratio [OR] 8.2, 99% CI 3.6, 18.7). In the eltrombopag group, 50/83 (60%) of non-splenectomized patients and 18/49 (37%) of splenectomized patients achieved this outcome. The median duration of response was 10.9 weeks for eltrombopag (splenectomized 6 and non-splenectomized 13.4) compared with 0 for placebo. Eltrombopag patients required less rescue medication and had lower odds of bleeding events for both the splenectomized and the non-splenectomized patients. For a watch-and-rescue strategy of care, the comparator was placebo and the ERG found that substantial reductions in the cost of eltrombopag are needed before the incremental cost per QALY is less than £30,000. There was significant uncertainty, with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) reported varying from £33,561 to £103,500 per QALY (splenectomized) and £39,657 to £150,245 per QALY (non-splenectomized). All costs are presented in £, year 2008 values, as this was the costing year for the manufacturer's model. Other than bleeding, no adverse events were modelled. In relation to the long-term treatment model, the ERG questioned the robustness of the use of non-randomized non-comparative data. The base-case results restricting the time horizon to 2 years and prescribing eltrombopag as second-line treatment post-rituximab were found to be favourable towards eltrombopag. As rituximab is not a licensed treatment for ITP, the ERG were concerned that its inclusion may not be reflective of clinical practice. None of the treatment sequences resulted in an ICER approaching the recommended threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. Eltrombopag appears to be a safe treatment for ITP (although long-term follow-up studies are awaited) and has short-term efficacy. However, NICE found based on the evidence submitted and reviewed that there was no robust evidence on the long-term efficacy or cost effectiveness of eltrombopag and a lack of direct evidence for eltrombopag tested against other relevant comparators.

Golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of golimumab (Schering-Plough/Centocor) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who have responded inadequately to previous disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) to critically appraise the evidence presented by the manufacturer. This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance. 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 a single phase III randomized controlled trial (GO-REVEAL) that compared golimumab with placebo for the treatment of active and progressive patients who were symptomatic despite the use of previous DMARDs or NSAIDs. The 14-week data showed that, compared with placebo, golimumab 50 mg significantly improved joint disease response as measured by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 (relative risk [RR] 5.73, 95% CI 3.24, 10.56) and Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) [RR 3.45, 95% CI 2.49, 4.87], and significantly improved skin disease response as measured by Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 (RR 15.95, 95% CI 4.62, 59.11). The 24-week absolute data showed that these treatment benefits were maintained. There was a significant improvement in patients' functional status as measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire change from baseline at 24 weeks (-0.33; p < 0.001). The open-label extension data showed that these beneficial effects were also maintained at 52 and 104 weeks. The ERG identified several issues relating to the clinical effectiveness results. Analyses of the 24-week data were less robust, failing to adjust for treatment contamination due to patient crossover at week 16. It was also unclear if these results were generalizable to clinical practice. No randomized controlled trial compared the effectiveness of different biologic therapies head-to-head. To compare the effectiveness of the biologics etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab, the manufacturer conducted a network meta-analysis, including the comparator palliative care (usual care including use of NSAIDs or DMARDs). The ERG considered the assumption of exchangeability between the trials for the purpose of the network meta-analysis to be acceptable and the statistical approach to be reliable. The results indicated somewhat lower efficacy with golimumab than with comparator biologics. The ERG identified a number of issues relating to the cost-effectiveness results. The manufacturer calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) incorrectly by comparing golimumab with palliative care instead of the most cost-effective alternative (etanercept). Despite the manufacturer's claim that golimumab was a cost-effective treatment option, the manufacturer's own model showed that golimumab was unlikely to be cost effective, relative to currently accepted thresholds, when the ICERs were correctly calculated using an incremental analysis (i.e. comparing each treatment to the next best alternative). None of the sensitivity analyses carried out by the manufacturer or the ERG regarding uncertainty in the estimates of clinical effectiveness, the acquisition and administration cost of drugs, the cost of treating psoriasis and the utility functions estimated to generate health outcomes changed this conclusion. However, a key area in determining the cost effectiveness of biologics was whether they should be treated as a class. The ERG concluded that if all biologics were considered equally effective, then etanercept, adalimumab and golimumab had almost equal costs and equal QALYs, and all had an ICER of about £15 000 per QALY versus palliative care, whilst infliximab, with a higher acquisition cost, was dominated by the other biologics. The Appraisal Committee altered its position between the Appraisal Consultation Document and the Final Appraisal Determination. It ultimately recommended that golimumab be provided as an option for the treatment of active and progressive PsA in adults only if (i) it is used as described for other tumour necrosis factor inhibitor treatments in 'Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis' (NICE clinical guideline 199); and (ii) the manufacturer provides the 100 mg dose of golimumab at the same cost as the 50 mg dose.

Dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing elective hip or knee surgery: a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, the manufacturer of dabigatran etexilate (DBG), to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adult patients who have undergone total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, as part of NICE's single technology appraisal process. The comparators were enoxaparin and fondaparinux, as identified in the scope issued by NICE. The School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. Clinical-effectiveness evidence for DBG versus enoxaparin was derived from two randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trials, one for THR and the other for TKR. Clinical-effectiveness evidence for DBG versus fondaparinux was taken from a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) and from one study. The results presented show that DBG at the licensed dose of 220 mg and 150 mg once daily was noninferior to enoxaparin (40 mg once daily) in terms of the primary efficacy outcome of total VTE and all-cause mortality. In the MTC, fondaparinux was found to be more effective than DBG; the level of statistical significance was not reported. The manufacturer's cost-effectiveness model estimated that at a dose of 220 mg once a day, DBG dominated enoxaparin in both THR and TKR. At a dose of 150 mg daily, DBG dominated enoxaparin in THR, while enoxaparin dominated DBG in TKR. At a dose of 220 mg daily, DBG was less cost effective than fondaparinux in THR. The cost per QALY gained for fondaparinux versus DBG was £11,111 (year 2008 values). At a dose of 150 mg daily, DBG was less cost effective than fondaparinux in THR. The cost per QALY gained for fondaparinux versus DBG was £6857 (year 2008 values). In TKR, both DBG doses were dominated by fondaparinux. There was some evidence that DBG was more cost effective than enoxaparin; however, these results were based on only one trial each in THR and TKR. Fondaparinux appeared to be more cost effective than DBG; however, this was based on indirect comparisons. NICE concluded that although there was uncertainty in the evidence base, DBG was very likely to be of equivalent clinical and cost effectiveness to enoxaparin or fondaparinux in the prevention of VTE. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) acknowledged that oral administration of DBG, without the need for monitoring, would reduce administration costs and that it may support adherence to treatment. Therefore, the AC concluded that DBG should be recommended as an option in the circumstances in which enoxaparin (or fondaparinux as an alternative) may be offered.

Dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of dronedarone (Multaq®, Sanofi-Aventis Limited, UK) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics, both 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 NICE's subsequent decisions regarding the use of dronedarone within the UK NHS. The ERG review comprised a critique of the submitted evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of dronedarone. The ERG examined the search strategy used to obtain relevant evidence, the selection of studies included in the assessment, outcome measures chosen and statistical methods employed. The ERG also validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model and used it to explore the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results to key assumptions. The main clinical effectiveness evidence supporting the use of dronedarone as a treatment for AF came from four randomized controlled trials. These trials were compared with a broader set of trials examining the effectiveness of other AADs for AF: amiodarone, sotalol and class 1c agents (flecainide and propafenone). The evidence suggested that all AADs decreased the recurrence of AF but dronedarone had the smallest effect. A mixed treatment comparison analysis of the trials showed that dronedarone was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality than other AADs, but this was highly uncertain. There was limited evidence to assess the effect of dronedarone on stroke, and no statistically significant differences between dronedarone and other AADs were found for treatment discontinuation. From the evidence presented by the manufacturer, dronedarone appeared highly cost effective in each of the population groups examined compared with using standard baseline therapy alone as first-line treatment, or compared with sotalol or amiodarone as first-line AAD, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below £20,000 per QALY gained. The ICER for dronedarone relative to class 1c agents was around £19,000 per QALY. Although the evidence presented by the manufacturer indicated that dronedarone was cost effective, the estimates of treatment effect relative to other AADs and safety in the longer term were highly uncertain. The NICE Appraisal Committee in its preliminary guidance did not recommend the use of dronedarone for AF. However, following the response from a large number of consultees and commentators, NICE revised its preliminary guidance to allow the use of the drug in a specific subgroup of AF patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors.

Erlotinib monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of non-small cell lung cancer after previous platinum-containing chemotherapy: a NICE single technology appraisal

The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of erlotinib (Roche) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of erlotinib as monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and stable disease following previous treatment with four cycles of platinum-containing therapy. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) for this appraisal. The ERG reviewed the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in two stages and in accordance with the decision problem defined by NICE. The analysis of the submitted models assessed the appropriateness of the approach taken by the manufacturer in modelling the decision problem. Analysis also included 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 have substantial impact on the base-case cost-effectiveness results. Clinical evidence was derived from a multi-centre, double-blind, randomized, phase III study designed to address the overall population of NSCLC patients. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The recruited population was mainly from outside of Western Europe and no patients in the pivotal trial had received pemetrexed as a first-line therapy, which is now accepted clinical practice in the UK. The evidence considered in this article includes only the population for whom marketing authorizations has been received--that is, patients with stable disease following first-line therapy. The trial reported a small but statistically significant increase in both PFS and OS in patients with stable disease receiving erlotinib compared with placebo. However, no significant difference was identified in OS when patients with non-squamous disease and stable disease were considered as a subgroup. The economic evidence was focussed on the ERG's assessment of three economic models that related to patients with stable disease and compared erlotinib with placebo in the squamous and non-squamous populations and erlotinib with pemetrexed in the non-squamous population. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported by the manufacturer were £39,936 per QALY gained (stable disease, all); £35,491 per QALY gained (stable disease, squamous); and £40,020 per QALY gained (stable disease, non-squamous). In comparison with pemetrexed, in the cases where erlotinib was considered to be superior or equivalent, erlotinib dominated. In the cases where erlotinib was considered to be slightly inferior, then the ICERs ranged between £91,789 and £511,351 per QALY gained; these ICERs appear in the south-west corner of a cost-effectiveness plane, i.e. erlotinib is cheaper but less effective than pemetrexed. The ERG recalculated the base-case cost-effectiveness results in the manufacturer's submission, considering nine key areas where corrections and/or adjustments were required, related to time horizon, discounting logic, costs of erlotinib and pemetrexed, cost of second-line chemotherapy, unit costs, utility values, PFS and OS. This resulted in ERG-revised ICERs for the stable disease squamous population of £44,812 per QALY gained, in the stable disease non-squamous population of £68,120 per QALY gained, and, when erlotinib was compared with pemetrexed, the result was £84,029 per QALY gained. All values were above NICE's perceived willingness-to-pay threshold. After the second Appraisal Committee meeting, the Committee did not recommend the use of erlotinib in this patient population.

Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in post-menopausal women: a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of denosumab (Amgen Inc., UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of denosumab for the prevention of fragility fractures in post-menopausal women, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The University of Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group were commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG); the role of the ERG being to appraise the manufacturer's submission and to produce an independent report. This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The manufacturer considered that denosumab would be appropriate for patients unable to take, comply with or tolerate oral bisphosphonates. Comparator treatments selected for the submission were, therefore, 'no treatment', raloxifene, strontium ranelate, intravenous zoledronic acid, intravenous ibandronate and teriparatide. The main effectiveness evidence for denosumab was derived from a large randomized controlled trial comparing denosumab with placebo. Given by subcutaneous injection at 6-monthly intervals for 3 years, denosumab reduced the incidence of hip fracture by 40%, and reduced the incidence of clinical vertebral fracture by 69%. An indirect treatment comparison was used to derive adjusted relative risk (RR) estimates for different types of fracture for each comparator versus placebo. The RRs (95% CI) applied for denosumab were 0.316 (0.208, 0.478) for clinical vertebral fracture, 0.605 (0.373, 0.983) for hip fracture and 0.842 (0.638, 1.110) for wrist fracture. Despite a number of concerns surrounding the methodology of the indirect comparison, the ERG was satisfied with the robustness of the effect estimates. The RR estimates were applied in a good-quality Markov model that took account of drug costs, administration and monitoring costs, costs associated with fractures, and long-term nursing home costs. Utility weights were used to adjust time spent in fracture states, allowing QALYs to be estimated. The base-case analysis was conducted for women aged 70 years with a T-score of -2.5 or less and no prior fracture, and women aged 70 years with a T-score of -2.5 or less with a prior fragility fracture. Subgroup analyses based on T-score and independent clinical risk factors were also undertaken. Applying a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £30 000 per QALY, the manufacturer's results suggested that denosumab would offer a cost-effective alternative to all treatment comparators for the primary and secondary prevention of fractures. The ERG was concerned about an assumption that denosumab would be administered in general practice at the average cost of two standard GP visits a year. As a result, the ERG requested some further sensitivity analysis and undertook some further modelling, applying an assumption that denosumab would be provided primarily in secondary care. This modification altered the cost effectiveness of denosumab versus 'no treatment' (in women with no prior fragility fracture) and zoledronic acid. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that, as a treatment option for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures, denosumab should be recommended only in post-menopausal women at increased risk of fracture who cannot comply with the special instructions for administering oral bisphosphonates, or have an intolerance of, or contraindication to, those treatments. For primary prevention, the Appraisal Committee also stipulated specific levels of fracture risk at which denosumab is recommended.

Role of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare centralized reimbursement/coverage decision-making processes for health technologies in 23 European countries, according to: mandate, authority, structure, and policy options; mechanisms for identifying, selecting, and evaluating technologies; clinical and economic evidence expectations; committee composition, procedures, and factors considered; available conditional reimbursement options for promising new technologies; and the manufacturers' roles in the process.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of publicly available information from peer-reviewed literature (using a variety of bibliographic databases) and gray literature (eg, working papers, committee reports, presentations, and government documents) was conducted. Policy experts in each of the 23 countries were also contacted. All information collected was reviewed by two independent researchers.

RESULTS

Most European countries have established centralized reimbursement systems for making decisions on health technologies. However, the scope of technologies considered, as well as processes for identifying, selecting, and reviewing them varies. All systems include an assessment of clinical evidence, compiled in accordance with their own guidelines or internationally recognized published ones. In addition, most systems require an economic evaluation. The quality of such information is typically assessed by content and methodological experts. Committees responsible for formulating recommendations or decisions are multidisciplinary. While criteria used by committees appear transparent, how they are operationalized during deliberations remains unclear. Increasingly, reimbursement systems are expressing interest in and/or implementing reimbursement policy options that extend beyond the traditional "yes," "no," or "yes with restrictions" options. Such options typically require greater involvement of manufacturers which, to date, has been limited.

CONCLUSION

Centralized reimbursement systems have become an important policy tool in many European countries. Nevertheless, there remains a lack of transparency around critical elements, such as how multiple factors or criteria are weighed during committee deliberations.