1
|
Ramaekers BLT, Wolff RF, Pouwels X, Oosterhoff M, Van Giessen A, Worthy G, Noake C, Armstrong N, Kleijnen J, Joore MA. Ixekizumab for Treating Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics 2018; 36:917-927. [PMID: 29480455 PMCID: PMC6021474 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0629-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, the company manufacturing ixekizumab (tradename Taltz®), to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of ixekizumab. Ixekizumab was compared with tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab), ustekinumab, secukinumab, best supportive care and, if non-biological treatment or phototherapy is suitable, also compared with systemic non-biological therapies and phototherapy with ultraviolet B radiation for adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Center, was commissioned as the independent Evidence Review Group. This article presents a summary of the company submission, the Evidence Review Group report and the development of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance for the use of this drug in England and Wales by the Appraisal Committee. The Evidence Review Group produced a critical review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of ixekizumab based on the company submission. The company submission presented three randomised controlled trials identified in a systematic review. All randomised controlled trials were phase III, multicentre placebo-controlled trials including 3866 participants with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Two trials also included an active comparator (etanercept). All randomised controlled trials showed statistically significant increases in two primary outcomes, static Physician Global Assessment (0,1) and improvement of 75% from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. Ixekizumab was generally well tolerated in the randomised controlled trials, with similar discontinuation rates because of adverse events as placebo or etanercept. The most frequent adverse events of special interest were infections and injection-site reactions. The company submission also included a network meta-analysis of relevant comparators. The Evidence Review Group highlighted some issues regarding the systematic review process and an issue with the generalisability of the findings in that the trials failed to include patients with moderate psoriasis according to a widely used definition. This issue was considered by the Appraisal Committee and the population was deemed generalisable to patients in England and Wales. Based on the network meta-analysis, the Appraisal Committee concluded that ixekizumab was more clinically effective than adalimumab and ustekinumab, and agreed it was likely that ixekizumab was similarly effective compared with secukinumab and infliximab while tolerability was similar to other biological treatments approved for treating psoriasis. The Evidence Review Group's critical assessment of the company's economic evaluation highlighted a number of concerns, including (1) the use of relative outcomes such as Psoriasis Area and Severity Index response to model the cost effectiveness; (2) the exclusion of the consequences of adverse events; (3) the assumption of no utility gain in the induction phase; (4) equal annual discontinuation rates for all treatments; (5) the selection of treatment sequences for consideration in the analyses and; (6) the transparency of the Visual Basic for Applications code used to develop the model. Although some of these issues were adjusted in the Evidence Review Group base case, the Evidence Review Group could not estimate the impact of all of these issues, and thus acknowledges that there are still uncertainties concerning the cost-effectiveness evidence. In the Evidence Review Group base-case incremental analysis, the treatment sequence incorporating ixekizumab in the second line has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £25,532 per quality-adjusted life-year gained vs. the etanercept sequence. Ixekizumab in the first-line sequence has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £39,129 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with the treatment sequence incorporating ixekizumab in the second line. Consistent with its conclusion regarding clinical effectiveness, the Appraisal Committee concluded that the cost effectiveness of ixekizumab for treating moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis was similar to that of other biological treatments, already recommended in previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. The committee concluded that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was within the range that could be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bram L T Ramaekers
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Xavier Pouwels
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Marije Oosterhoff
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Anoukh Van Giessen
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Caro Noake
- Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, York, UK
| | | | - Jos Kleijnen
- Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, York, UK
- Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Manuela A Joore
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pouwels XGLV, Wolff R, Ramaekers BLT, Van Giessen A, Lang S, Ryder S, Worthy G, Duffy S, Armstrong N, Kleijnen J, Joore MA. Ticagrelor for Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Events After Myocardial Infarction: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics 2018; 36:533-543. [PMID: 29344794 PMCID: PMC5906512 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0607-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited AstraZeneca, the manufacturer of ticagrelor (Brilique®), to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily (BID) in combination with low-dose aspirin [acetylsalicylic acid (ASA)] compared with ASA only for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and who are at increased risk of atherothrombotic events. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned as the evidence review group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), the ERG report and the NICE guidance produced by the appraisal committee (AC) for the use of ticagrelor in England and Wales. The ERG critically reviewed the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS. The systematic review conducted as part of the CS identified one randomised controlled trial (RCT), PEGASUS-TIMI 54. This trial reported the time to first occurrence of any event from the composite of cardiovascular death, MI and stroke as the primary outcome (hazard ratio 0.84 ticagrelor 60 mg BID vs. placebo, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.95). The population addressed in the CS was a subgroup of the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial population, i.e. the 'base-case' population, which comprised patients who had experienced an MI between 1 and 2 years ago, whereas the full trial population included patients who had experienced an MI between 1 and 3 years ago. While the ERG believed the findings of this RCT to be robust, doubts concerning the applicability of the trial to UK patients were raised. The company submitted an individual patient simulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor 60 mg BID + ASA versus ASA only. Parametric time-to-event models were used to estimate the time to first and subsequent (cardiovascular) events, time to treatment discontinuation and time to adverse events. The company's base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £20,098 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The main issues surrounding the cost effectiveness of ticagrelor 60 mg BID + ASA were the use of parametric time-to-event models estimated based on the full trial population instead of being fitted to the 'label' population (the 'label' population comprised the 'base-case' population and patients who started ticagrelor 60 mg BID within 1 year of previous adenosine diphosphate inhibitor treatment), the incorrect implementation of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) of the individual patient simulation, and simplifications of the model structure that may have biased the health benefits and costs estimations of the intervention and comparator. The ERG believed the use of the full trial population to inform the parametric time-to-event models was not appropriate because the 'label' population was the main focus of the scope and CS. The ERG could not investigate the magnitude of the bias introduced by this assumption. The PSA of the individual patient simulation provided unreliable probabilistic results and underestimated the uncertainty surrounding the results because it was based on a single patient. The ERG used the cohort simulation presented in the cost-effectiveness model to perform its base-case and additional analyses and to obtain probabilistic results. The ERG amended the company cost-effectiveness model, which resulted in an ERG base-case ICER of £24,711 per QALY gained. In its final guidance, the AC recommended treatment with ticagrelor 60 mg BID + low-dose ASA for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in adults who have had an MI and are at increased risk of atherothrombotic events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xavier G L V Pouwels
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
- Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Bram L T Ramaekers
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Anoukh Van Giessen
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Shona Lang
- Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, York, UK
| | | | | | | | | | - Jos Kleijnen
- Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, York, UK
- Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Manuela A Joore
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|