Durable Efficacy of Switching From a 3- or 4-Drug Tenofovir Alafenamide-Based Regimen to the 2-Drug Regimen Dolutegravir/Lamivudine in the TANGO Study Through Week 196

BACKGROUND

Switching to the 2-drug regimen dolutegravir/lamivudine demonstrated durable non-inferior efficacy vs continuing 3- or 4-drug tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens for maintaining virologic suppression in people with HIV-1 through Week 144 in TANGO.

SETTING

134 centers, 10 countries.

METHODS

Adults with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL for >6 months and no history of virologic failure were randomized to switch from stable tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens to dolutegravir/lamivudine on Day 1 (early-switch group) for 196 weeks. Those randomized to continue tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens on Day 1 who maintained virologic suppression at Week 144 switched to dolutegravir/lamivudine at Week 148 (late-switch group). Efficacy, safety, and tolerability (including weight and biomarker changes) of dolutegravir/lamivudine in early-switch and late-switch groups were assessed through Week 196.

RESULTS

Overall, 369 participants switched to dolutegravir/lamivudine on Day 1 (early-switch) and 298 switched at Week 148 (late-switch). In the early-switch group, 83% (306/369) maintained virologic suppression through Year 4, and 3% (11/369) reported new adverse events between Weeks 144 and 196. The late-switch group at Week 196 and early-switch group at Week 48 had comparable proportions with virologic suppression (93% each) and similar safety profiles. No late-switch participants and 1 early-switch participant met confirmed virologic withdrawal criteria through Week 196, with no resistance-associated mutations observed. Treatment continued to be well tolerated long-term.

CONCLUSION

Switching from tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens to dolutegravir/lamivudine showed durable efficacy, high barrier to resistance, and good tolerability through 4 years. These results support dolutegravir/lamivudine as a robust treatment for maintaining virologic suppression.

Very-Low-Level Viremia, Inflammatory Biomarkers, and Associated Baseline Variables: Three-Year Results of the Randomized TANGO Study

Background

We compared proportions of participants with target detected, target not detected (TND), and elevated viral load (VL) and assessed baseline variables associated with week 144 inflammatory biomarker levels between dolutegravir-lamivudine (DTG/3TC) and tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens (TBRs) in the TANGO study (post hoc).

Methods

TANGO is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study that randomized adults with VL <50 copies/mL to switch to once-daily fixed-dose DTG/3TC or continue TBR. At baseline and each study visit, the VL was measured. Elevated VL event frequencies were assessed, including "blips." Interleukin 6, D-dimer, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, soluble CD14, and soluble CD163 were measured at baseline and at week 144. Loge-transformed week 144 biomarker levels were compared between treatment groups using an analysis of covariance model adjusting for baseline variables.

Results

High, comparable proportions of participants had VL <40 copies/mL and TND at week 144 (DTG/3TC, 279 of 369 [76%]; TBR, 267 of 372 [72%], intention-to-treat exposed Snapshot analysis; adjusted difference, 3.9% [95% confidence interval, -2.5% to 10.2%]), with similar TND proportions at all postbaseline visits (123 of 369 [33%] vs 101 of 372 [27%], respectively). Similar proportions of DTG/3TC participants had ≥1 postbaseline VL ≥50 copies/mL (28 of 369 [8%] vs 42 of 372 [11%] for TBR), primarily blips (18 of 369 [5%] and 26 of 372 [7%], respectively). Week 144 inflammatory biomarker levels were low and comparable between groups and associated with multiple demographic and baseline characteristics, including baseline biomarker levels, indicating a multifactorial inflammatory response.

Conclusions

Week 144 biomarker levels were low and generally comparable between treatment groups, reflecting similar, robust, and durable viral suppression observed using the stringent TND end point. Trial registration:  ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03446573.

Efficacy and Safety of Switching to the 2-Drug Regimen Dolutegravir/Lamivudine Versus Continuing a 3- or 4-Drug Regimen for Maintaining Virologic Suppression in Adults Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus 1 (HIV-1): Week 48 Results From the Phase 3, Noninferiority SALSA Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

In TANGO, switching to dolutegravir/lamivudine (DTG/3TC) demonstrated long-term noninferior efficacy vs continuing tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens in treatment-experienced adults with HIV-1. The phase 3 SALSA study evaluated efficacy and safety of switching to DTG/3TC compared with continuing various 3-/4-drug current antiretroviral regimens (CARs).

METHODS

Adults with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL and no previous virologic failure were randomized (1:1, stratified by baseline third agent class) to switch to once-daily fixed-dose combination DTG/3TC or continue CAR (primary endpoint: proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 48; Snapshot, intention-to-treat-exposed population, 5% noninferiority margin).

RESULTS

Overall, 493 adults (39% women; 39% aged ≥50 years; 19% African American/African heritage; 14% Asian) were randomized to switch to DTG/3TC (n = 246) or continue CAR (n = 247). At week 48, 1 (0.4%) participant in the DTG/3TC group and 3 (1.2%) in the CAR group had HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL (Snapshot), demonstrating noninferiority (adjusted difference, -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.4%, .8%). Zero participants met confirmed virologic withdrawal criteria; therefore, no resistance testing was performed. Drug-related adverse events were more frequent with DTG/3TC (20%) than CAR (6%) through week 48 but comparable post-week 24 (5% vs 2%, respectively). Proximal tubular renal function and bone turnover biomarkers improved with DTG/3TC. Both groups had generally minimal changes in lipids and inflammatory biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to DTG/3TC was noninferior to continuing CAR for maintaining virologic suppression at week 48 with no observed resistance, supporting the efficacy, good safety, and high barrier to resistance of DTG/3TC.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04021290.

Abacavir Hypersensitivity Reaction Reporting Rates During a Decade of HLA-B*5701 Screening as a Risk-Mitigation Measure

INTRODUCTION

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B*5701 screening identifies patients at increased risk for abacavir (ABC) hypersensitivity reaction (HSR). Screening was adopted in GlaxoSmithKline and ViiV Healthcare clinical trials in 2007 and human immunodeficiency virus treatment guidelines in 2008. Company meta-analyses of trials pre-HLA-B*5701 screening reported HSR rates of 4-8%. We analyzed the effectiveness of HLA-B*5701 screening on reducing HSR rates using clinical trial, Observational Pharmaco-Epidemiology Research & Analysis (OPERA) cohort, and spontaneous reporting data.

METHODS

A meta-analysis examined 12 trials in 3063 HLA-B*5701-negative patients receiving an ABC-containing regimen from April 9, 2007, to September 22, 2015. Potential cases were identified using prespecified Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) preferred terms (drug hypersensitivity, hypersensitivity, anaphylactic reaction, anaphylaxis) and adjudicated against a Company ABC HSR case definition. Investigator-diagnosed cases were identified and rates were calculated. In the OPERA cohort, 9619 patients initiating their first ABC-containing regimen from January 1, 1999, to January 1, 2016, were identified. Patients were observed from regimen start until the earliest-following censoring event: ABC discontinuation, loss to follow-up, death, or study end (July 31, 2016). OPERA physicians evaluated events against OPERA definitions for definite/probable cases of ABC HSR; rates were calculated pre- and post-2008. The Company case definition was used to identify spontaneously reported cases for four marketed ABC-containing products; reporting rates were calculated using estimated exposure from sales data, through December 31, 2016.

RESULTS

Suspected ABC HSR rates were 1.3% or less in the meta-analysis. In the OPERA cohort, the rate was 0.4% among patients initiating ABC post-2008 versus 1.3% pre-2008 (p<0.0001). Spontaneous reporting rates were low post-2008 (54 to 22 cases per 100,000 patient-years exposure [PYE]) versus pre-2008 (618 to 55 cases per 100,000 PYE).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically suspected ABC HSR rates were 1.3% or less in HLA-B*5701-negative patients. Recognizing their limitations, data from the OPERA cohort and spontaneous reporting indicate that HLA-B*5701 screening has reduced reporting rates of suspected HSR in clinical practice. Where screening for HLA-B*5701 is standard care, patients should be confirmed negative for this allele before starting ABC treatment.

Abacavir Use and Risk for Myocardial Infarction and Cardiovascular Events: Pooled Analysis of Data From Clinical Trials

Background

Some observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have suggested an association between abacavir (ABC) use and myocardial infarction (MI), whereas others have not.

Methods

This pooled analysis of 66 phase II–IV RCTs estimates exposure-adjusted incidence rates (IRs) and relative rates (RRs) of MI and cardiovascular events (CVEs) in participants receiving ABC- and non-ABC-containing combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). The primary analysis of MI included ABC-randomized trials with ≥48-week follow-up. Sensitivity analyses of MI and CVEs included non-ABC-randomized and <48-week follow-up trials.

Results

In 66 clinical trials, 13 119 adults (75% male, aged 18–85 years) were on ABC-containing cART and 7350 were not. Exposure-adjusted IR for MI was 1.5 per 1000 person-years (PY; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67–3.34) in the ABC-exposed group and 2.18 per 1000 PY (95% CI, 1.09–4.40) in the unexposed group. The IR for CVEs was 2.9 per 1000 PY (95% CI, 2.09–4.02) in the exposed group and 4.69 per 1000 PY (95% CI, 3.40–6.47) in the unexposed group with studies of ≥48 weeks of follow-up, with an RR of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.39–0.98). The inclusion of nonrandomized and shorter-duration trials did not significantly change the RR for MI or coronary artery disease.

Conclusions

This pooled analysis found comparable IRs for MI and CVEs among ABC-exposed and -unexposed participants, suggesting no increased risk for MI or CVEs following ABC exposure in a clinical trial population. Modifiable risk factors for MI and CVEs should be addressed when prescribing ART.

Corrigendum: Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Table 96 has been removed as it includes incorrect hazard ratios caused by a reversal of the hazard ratio calculations. However, this does not impact on any of the clinical or economic results reported.

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

Our aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of chemotherapy treatments currently licensed in Europe and recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for the first-line treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2001 to 2010 was carried out. Relative treatment effects for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using standard meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparison methodology. A total of 23 RCTs were included: 18 trials compared platinum-based chemotherapy, two compared pemetrexed and three compared gefitinib. There are no statistically significant differences in OS between any of the four third-generation chemotherapy regimens. There is statistically significant evidence that pemetrexed+platinum increases OS compared with gemcitabine+platinum. There are no statistically significant differences in OS between gefitinib and docetaxel+platinum or between gefitinib and paclitaxel+platinum. There is a statistically significant improvement in PFS with gefitinib compared with docetaxel+platinum and gefitinib compared with paclitaxel+platinum. Due to reduced generic pricing, third-generation chemotherapy regimens (except vinorelbine) are still competitive options for most patients. This research provides a comprehensive evidence base, which clinicians and decision-makers can use when deciding on the optimal first-line chemotherapy treatment regimen for patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Eribulin for the treatment of advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of eribulin (Eisai Ltd) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of eribulin as treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LABC/MBC) pre-treated with at least two chemotherapy regimens. This article summarizes the review of evidence by the Evidence Review Group (ERG) and provides a summary of the NICE Appraisal Committee's (AC's) decision. The clinical evidence was derived from a multi-centred, open-label, randomized, phase III study comparing eribulin with treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in 762 patients with LABC/MBC. Clinical effectiveness results were submitted for two populations: the overall intention-to-treat (ITT) population and a subset (n = 488) that included only patients from North America, Western Europe and Australia (Region 1). For the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS), a primary analysis (after 55 % of patients had died) and an updated analysis (after 77 % of patients had died) were conducted. In the ITT population, treatment with eribulin was associated with a significant improvement in median OS compared with TPC in both primary [difference in median OS 2.5 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.99] and updated analyses (2.7 months; HR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.67-0.96). A statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) was reported for eribulin compared with TPC when assessed by the investigator (difference in median PFS 1.48 months; HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.64-0.90), but not when assessed by the ERG (1.44 months; HR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.71-1.05). Gains in OS were greater for Region 1 patients than for the ITT population (3.1 vs. 2.7 months). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data suggested a benefit for eribulin responders, but was based on phase II studies. In the eribulin arm, serious adverse events included febrile neutropenia (4.2 %) and neutropenia (1.8 %), with peripheral neuropathy being the most common reason for treatment discontinuation. The manufacturer's economic evaluation using Patient Access Scheme costs reported a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for eribulin versus TPC (Region 1) of £46,050 per quality-adjusted life year gained (corrected to £45,106 when an erroneous data entry was removed). The ERG's revised ICERs were £61,804 for Region 1 and £76,110 for the overall population. The AC concluded that the evidence had not demonstrated sufficient benefit in OS, cost effectiveness or HRQoL and that eribulin was not recommended for use in this patient group.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued multiple guidance for the first-line management of patients with lung cancer and recommends different combinations of chemotherapy treatments. This review provides a synthesis of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence supporting current guidance.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy currently licensed in Europe and recommended by NICE, for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

DATA SOURCES

Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from 2001 to August 2010.

REVIEW METHODS

Trials that compared first-line chemotherapy currently licensed in Europe and recommended by NICE in chemotherapy-naive adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were included. Data on key outcomes including, but not limited to, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AEs) were extracted. For the assessment of cost-effectiveness, outcomes included incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Analyses were performed for three NSCLC subpopulations: patients with predominantly squamous disease, patients with predominantly non-squamous disease and patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive (M+) status. Meta-analysis and mixed-treatment comparison methodology were conducted where appropriate.

RESULTS

Twenty-three trials involving > 11,000 patients in total met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the trials was poor. In the case of patients with squamous disease, there were no statistically significant differences in OS between treatment regimes. The mixed-treatment comparison demonstrated that, in patients with non-squamous disease, pemetrexed (Alimta®, Eli Lilly and Company; PEM) + platinum (PLAT) increases OS statistically significantly compared with gemcitabine (Gemzar®, Eli Lilly and Company; GEM) + PLAT [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.98] and that paclitaxel (Abraxane®, Celgene Corporation; PAX) + PLAT increases OS statistically significantly compared with docetaxel (Taxotere®, Sanofi-aventis; DOC) + PLAT (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.93). None of the comparisons found any statistically significant differences in OS among patients with EGFR M+ status. Direct meta-analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in PFS with gefitinib (Iressa®, AstraZeneca; GEF) compared with DOC + PLAT and PAX + PLAT (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.73; and HR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.60, respectively). No papers related to UK decision-making were identified. A de novo economic model was developed. Using list prices (British National Formulary), cisplatin (CIS) doublets are preferable to carboplatin doublets, but this is reversed if electronic market information tool prices are used, in which case drug administration costs then become more important than drug acquisition costs. For patients with both squamous and non-squamous disease, moving from low to moderate willingness-to-pay thresholds, the preferred drugs are PAX → GEM → DOC. However, in patients with non-squamous disease, PEM + CIS resulted in increased OS and would be considered cost-effective up to £35,000 per QALY gained. For patients with EGFR M+, use of GEF compared with PAX or DOC yields very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Vinorelbine (Navelbine®, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceutical Inc.) was not shown to be cost-effective in any comparison.

LIMITATIONS

Poor trial quality and a lack of evidence for all drug comparisons complicated and limited the data analysis. Outcomes and adverse effects are not consistently combined across the trials. Few trials reported quality-of-life data despite their relevance to patients and clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this comprehensive review are unique to NSCLC and will assist clinicians to make decisions regarding the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. The design of future lung cancer trials needs to reflect the influence of factors such as histology, genetics and the new prognostic biomarkers that are currently being identified. In addition, trials will need to be adequately powered so as to be able to test for statistically significant clinical effectiveness differences within patient populations. New initiatives are in place to record detailed information on the precise chemotherapy (and targeted chemotherapy) regimens being used, together with data on age, cell type, stage of disease and performance status, allowing for very detailed observational audits of management and outcomes at a population level. It would be useful if these initiatives could be expanded to include the collection of health economics data.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Are health technology assessments of pharmacogenetic tests feasible? A case study of CYP2D6 testing in the treatment of breast cancer with tamoxifen

This paper reports the process and experience of the design and conduct of a UK-based health technology assessment (HTA) of CYP2D6 pharmacogenetic testing to inform the targeted use of tamoxifen for the treatment of breast cancer. Examples of particular challenges for conducting a HTA are highlighted. It is clear from the HTA process described here that a common finding of similar future HTAs will have gaps in the evidence base, particularly in relation to evidence to inform cost–effectiveness. The lack of evidence is likely to be sufficiently large to result in extreme uncertainty and possibly decisions not to recommend a pharmacogenetic test for use in clinical practice. This has clear negative implications, which may hamper moving pharmacogenetic tests from the research environment into clinical practice and requires attention from both manufacturers of pharmacogenetic tests and key decision-makers responsible for market authorization and reimbursement.

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.

Clinical effectiveness of first-line chemoradiation for adult patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has issued guidelines on the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and recommends that patients with stage IIIA-IIIB disease who are not amenable to surgery be treated with potentially curative chemoradiation (CTX-RT). This review was conducted as part of a larger systematic review of all first-line chemotherapy (CTX) and CTX-RT treatments for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. However, it was considered that patients with potentially curable disease (e.g. stage IIIA) are different from those with advanced disease, who are suitable for palliative treatment only, and therefore the results should be reported separately.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of first-line CTX in addition to radiotherapy (RT) (CTX-RT vs CTX-RT) for adult patients with locally advanced NSCLC who are suitable for potentially curative treatment.

DATA SOURCES

Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from January 1990 to September 2010.

REVIEW METHODS

Inclusion criteria comprised adult patients with locally advanced NSCLC, trials that compared any first-line CTX-RT therapy (induction, sequential, concurrent and consolidation) and outcomes of overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS). The results of clinical data extraction and quality assessment were summarised in tables and with narrative description. Direct meta-analyses using OS data were undertaken where possible: sequential CTX-RT compared with concurrent CTX-RT; sequential CTX-RT compared with concurrent/consolidation CTX-RT; and sequential CTX-RT compared with concurrent CTX-RT with or without consolidation. There were not sufficient data to perform meta-analysis on PFS.

RESULTS

Of the 240 potentially relevant studies that were published post 2000, 19 met the inclusion criteria and compared CTX-RT with CTX-RT. The results from the OS meta-analysis comparing sequential CTX-RT with concurrent CTX-RT appear to show an OS advantage for concurrent CTX-RT arms over sequential arms; this result is not statistically significant [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.25)]. The results from the OS meta-analysis comparing sequential CTX-RT with concurrent/consolidation CTX-RT appear to show a statistically significant OS advantage for concurrent/consolidation CTX-RT treatment over sequential treatment (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83). The results from the OS meta-analysis comparing sequential CTX-RT with concurrent CTX-RT with or without consolidation appear to show a statistically significant OS advantage for concurrent CTX-RT with or without consolidation over sequential treatment (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.84).

LIMITATIONS

This report provides a summary and critical appraisal of a comprehensive evidence base of CTX-RT trials; however, it is possible that additional trials have been reported since our last literature search. It is disappointing that the quality of the research in this area does not meet the accepted quality standards regarding trial design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified that the research conducted in the area of CTX-RT was generally of poor quality and suffered from a lack of reporting of all important clinical findings, including OS. The 19 trials included in the systematic review were too disparate to form any conclusions as to the effectiveness of individual CTX agents or types of RT. The focus of primary research should be good methodological quality; appropriate allocation of concealment and randomisation, and comprehensive reporting of key outcomes, will enable meaningful synthesis and conclusions to be drawn.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Influence of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 on patient response to warfarin: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Warfarin is a highly effective anticoagulant however its effectiveness relies on maintaining INR in therapeutic range. Finding the correct dose is difficult due to large inter-individual variability. Two genes, CYP2C9 and VKORC1, have been associated with this variability, leading to genotype-guided dosing tables in warfarin labeling. Nonetheless, it remains unclear how genotypic information should be used in practice. Navigating the literature to determine how genotype will influence warfarin response in a particular patient is difficult, due to significant variation in patient ethnicity, outcomes investigated, study design, and methodological rigor. Our systematic review was conducted to enable fair and accurate interpretation of which variants affect which outcomes, in which patients, and to what extent.

Methodology/Principal Findings

A comprehensive search strategy was applied and 117 studies included. Primary outcomes were stable dose, time to stable dose and bleeding events. Methodological quality was assessed using criteria of Jorgensen and Williamson and data synthesized in meta-analyses using advanced methods. Pooled effect estimates were significant in most ethnic groups for CYP2C9*3 and stable dose (mutant types requiring between 1.1(0.7–1.5) and 2.3 (1.6–3.0)mg/day). Effect estimates were also significant for VKORC1 and stable dose for most ethnicities, although direction differed between asians and non-asians (mutant types requiring between 0.8(0.4–1.3) and 1.5(1.1–1.8)mg/day more in asians and between 1.5(0.7–2.2) and 3.1(2.7–3.6)mg/day less in non-asians). Several studies were excluded due to inadequate data reporting. Assessing study quality highlighted significant variability in methodological rigor. Notably, there was significant evidence of selective reporting, of outcomes and analysis approaches.

Conclusions/Significance

Genetic associations with warfarin response vary between ethnicities. In order to achieve unbiased estimates in different populations, a high level of methodological rigor must be maintained and studies should report sufficient data to enable inclusion in meta-analyses. We propose minimum reporting requirements, suggest methodological guidelines and provide recommendations for reducing the risk of selective reporting.

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Pharmalgen® for the treatment of bee and wasp venom allergy

BACKGROUND

Each year in the UK, there are between two and nine deaths from anaphylaxis caused by bee and wasp venom. Anaphylactic reactions can occur rapidly following a sting and can progress to a life-threatening condition within minutes. To avoid further reactions in people with a history of anaphylaxis to bee and wasp venom, the use of desensitisation, through a process known as venom immunotherapy (VIT), has been investigated and is in use in the UK. VIT consists of subcutaneous injections of increasing amounts of purified bee and/or wasp venom extract. Pharmalgen® products (ALK Abelló) have had UK marketing authorisation for VIT (as well as diagnosis) of allergy to bee venom (using Pharmalgen Bee Venom) and wasp venom (using Pharmalgen Wasp Venom) since March 1995.

OBJECTIVE

This review assessed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Pharmalgen in providing immunotherapy to individuals with a history of type 1 [immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated] systemic allergic reaction to bee and wasp venom.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive search strategy using a combination of index terms (e.g. Pharmalgen) and free-text words (e.g. allerg$) was developed and used to interrogate the following electronic databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

Papers were included if they studied venom immunotherapy using Pharmalgen (PhVIT) in patients who had previously experienced a systemic reaction to a bee and/or a wasp sting. Comparators were any alternative treatment options available in the NHS without VIT. Included outcomes were systemic reactions, local reactions, mortality, anxiety related to the possibility of future allergic reactions, health-related quality of life (QoL) and adverse reactions (ARs) to treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Because of the small number of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs), no meta-analyses were conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of PhVIT plus high-dose antihistamine (HDA) plus adrenaline auto-injector (AAI) plus avoidance advice in relation to two comparators.

RESULTS

A total of 1065 citations were identified, of which 266 full-text papers were obtained. No studies were identified that compared PhVIT with any of the outlined comparators. When these criteria were widened to include different protocols and types of PhVIT administration, four RCTs and five quasi-experimental studies were identified for inclusion. The quality of included studies was poor, and none was conducted in the UK. Eight studies reported re-sting data (systemic reactions ranged from 0.0% to 36.4%) and ARs (systemic reactions ranged from 0.0% to 38.1% and none was fatal). No included studies reported quality of life. No published economic evidence relevant to the decision problem was identified. The manufacturer of PhVIT did not submit any clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness evidence to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in support of PhVIT. The results of the Assessment Group's (AG) base-case analysis show that the comparison of PhVIT + HDA + AAI versus AAI + HDA yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £18,065,527 per QALY gained; PhVIT + HDA + AAI versus avoidance advice only yields an ICER of £7,627,835 per QALY gained. The results of the sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses showed that the results of the base-case economic evaluation were robust for every plausible change in parameter made. The results of the 'High Risk of Sting Patients' subgroup analysis show that PhVIT + HDA + AAI dominates both AAI + HDA and avoidance advice only (i.e. is less expensive and more effective). The 'VIT Anxiety QoL Improvement' subgroup analysis shows that PhVIT + HDA + AAI versus HDA + AAI has an ICER of £23,868 per QALY gained, and PhVIT + HDA + AAI versus avoidance advice only yields an ICER of £25,661 per QALY gained.

LIMITATIONS

This review is limited to the use of Pharmalgen in the treatment of hymenoptera venom allergy and therefore does not assess the effectiveness of VIT in general.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of PhVIT in clinical practice in the NHS appears to be based on limited and poor-quality clinical effectiveness research. Available evidence indicates that sting reactions following the use of PhVIT are low and that the ARs related to treatment are minor and easily treatable. The results of the AG's de novo economic evaluation demonstrate that PhVIT + AAI + HDA compared with AAI + HDA and with avoidance advice only yields ICERs in the range of £8-20M per QALY gained. Two subgroups ('High Risk of Sting Patients' and 'VIT Anxiety QoL Improvement') were considered in the economic evaluation and the AG concludes that the use of PhVIT + AAI + HDA may be cost-effective in both groups. Future research should focus on clearly identifying groups of patients most likely to benefit from treatment and ensure that clinical practice is focussed on these groups. Furthermore, given the paucity of UK data in this area it would be informative if data could be collected routinely when VIT is administered in the NHS (e.g. rates of systemic adverse reactions to VIT, rates of systemic reactions to bee/wasp stings).

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Lapatinib and trastuzumab in combination with an aromatase inhibitor for the first-line treatment of metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer which over-expresses human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2): a systematic review and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the uncontrolled, abnormal growth of malignant breast tissue affecting predominantly women. Metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is an advanced stage of the disease when the disease has spread beyond the original organ. Hormone receptor status and human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) status are two predictive factors that are taken into consideration when estimating the prognosis of patients with breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence base for lapatinib (LAP) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) and trastuzumab (TRA) in combination with an AI for the first-line treatment of patients who have hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor 2-positive (HER2+) mBC.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant electronic databases and websites, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, were searched until May 2010. Further data were derived from the manufacturers' submissions for LAP + AI and TRA + AI.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LAP + AI and TRA + AI was undertaken. As it was deemed inappropriate to compare LAP + AI with TRA + AI, two separate assessments of cost-effectiveness versus AIs alone were undertaken.

RESULTS

Three trials were included in the systematic review [the patient populations of the efficacy and safety of lapatinib combined with letrozole (EGF30008) trial, the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab combined with anastrozole (TAnDEM) trial and the efficacy and safety of letrozole combined with trastuzumab (eLEcTRA) trial]. As a result of differences in the exclusion criteria and because one trial was halted prematurely, comparisons across trials were believed to be inappropriate and meta-analysis was not possible. Individually, however, the findings from the trials all suggest that LAP + AI or TRA + AI results in improved progression-free survival and/or time to progression when compared with AIs alone. The trials do not show a statistically significant benefit in terms of overall survival. Two separate economic analyses were conducted based on the completed trials; neither LAP + AI nor TRA + AI was found to be cost-effective when compared with AI monotherapy.

LIMITATIONS

Because of differences in the EGF30008 and the TAnDEM trials, the Assessment Group believes the indirect comparisons analyses conducted by the manufacturers are inappropriate and, for the same reason, chooses not to compare LAP + AI with TRA + AI in an economic evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

LAP + AI and TRA + AI appear to be clinically more effective than AI monotherapy, but neither is cost-effective compared with AIs alone. It was not possible to compare LAP + AI with TRA + AI. Future research should include research into treating mBC in the HR+/HER2+ population who are not TRA (or LAP) naive and into comparing the clinical effectiveness of AIs as monotherapy in patients with HER2+ and human epidermal growth factor 2-negative breast cancer.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Technology Assessment programme.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of genotyping for CYP2D6 for the management of women with breast cancer treated with tamoxifen: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women in the UK. Tamoxifen (TAM) is considered as the standard of care for many women with oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer. However, wide variability in the response of individuals to drugs at the same doses may occur, which may be a result of interindividual genetic differences (pharmacogenetics). TAM is known to be metabolised to its active metabolites N-desmethyl TAM and 4-hydroxytamoxifen by a number of CYP450 enzymes, including CYP2D6, CYP3A4, CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and CYP2B6. N-desmethyl TAM is further metabolised to endoxifen by CYP2D6. Endoxifen, which is also formed via the action of CYP2D6, is 30- to 100-fold more potent than TAM in suppressing oestrogen-dependent cell proliferation, and is considered an entity responsible for significant pharmacological effects of TAM. Thus, an association between the cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) genotype and phenotype (expected drug effects) is believed to exist and it has been postulated that CYP2D6 testing may play a role in optimising an individual's adjuvant hormonal treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not testing for cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) polymorphisms in women with early hormone receptor positive breast cancer leads to improvement in outcomes, is useful for health decision-making and is a cost-effective use of health-care resources.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant electronic databases and websites including MEDLINE, EMBASE and HuGENet [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Office of Public Health Genomics), Human Genome Epidemiology Network] were searched until July 2009. Further studies that became known to the authors via relevant conferences or e-mail alerts from an automatically updated search of the Scopus database were also included as the review progressed, up to March 2010.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CYP2D6 testing was undertaken. As it was not possible to conduct meta-analyses, data were extracted into structured tables and narratively discussed. An exploratory analysis of sensitivity and specificity was undertaken. A review of economic evaluations and models of CYP2D6 testing for patients treated with TAM was also carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 25 cohorts were identified which examined clinical efficacy (overall survival and relapse/recurrence), adverse events and endoxifen plasma concentrations by genotype/phenotype. Significantly, six cohorts suggest extensive metabolisers (Ems) appear to have better outcomes than either poor metabolisers (PMs) or PMs + intermediate metabolisers in terms of relapse/recurrence; however, three cohorts report apparently poorer outcomes for EMs (albeit not statistically significant). There was heterogeneity across the studies in terms of the patient population, alleles tested and outcomes used and defined. One decision model proposing a strategy for CYP2D6 testing for TAM was identified, but this was not suitable for developing a model to examine the cost-effectiveness of CYP2D6 testing. It was not possible to produce a de novo model because of a lack of data to populate it.

CONCLUSION

This is a relatively new area of research that is evolving rapidly and, although international consortia are collaborating, the data are limited and conflicting. Therefore, it is not possible to recommend pharmacogenetic testing in this patient population. Future research needs to focus on which alleles (including, or in addition to, those related to CYP2D6) reflect patient response, the link between endoxifen levels and clinical outcomes, and the appropriate pathways for implementation of such pharmacogenetic testing in patient care pathways.

Clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole for the prevention of occlusive vascular events (review of Technology Appraisal No. 90): a systematic review and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Occlusive vascular events such as myocardial infarction (MI), ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are the result of a reduction in blood flow associated with an artery becoming narrow or blocked through atherosclerosis and atherothrombosis. Peripheral arterial disease is the result of narrowing of the arteries that supply blood to the muscles and other tissues, usually in the lower extremities. The primary objective in the treatment of all patients with a history of occlusive vascular events and peripheral arterial disease is to prevent the occurrence of new occlusive vascular events.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole (MRD) alone or with aspirin (ASA) compared with ASA (and each other where appropriate) in the prevention of occlusive vascular events in patients with a history of MI, ischaemic stroke/TIA or established peripheral arterial disease. To consider the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in patients with multivascular disease. This review is an update of the evidence base for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance Technology Appraisal No. 90 (TA90) entitled Clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole for the prevention of occlusive vascular events (2005).

DATA SOURCES

Four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations. Submissions to NICE by the manufacturers of the interventions were also considered.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness was conducted. To manage heterogeneity between trials, indirect analysis (using a mixed-treatment methodology) was performed on selected clinical outcomes. A new economic model was developed to assess incremental costs per life-year gained [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)].

RESULTS

For evidence of clinical effectiveness, four RCTs were identified: CAPRIE (Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischaemic Events), ESPRIT (European/Australasian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia Trial), PRoFESS (Prevention Regimen For Effectively avoiding Second Strokes) and ESPS-2 (Second European Stroke Prevention Study). In CAPRIE (patients with MI, ischaemic stroke or peripheral arterial disease), statistically significant outcomes in favour of clopidogrel were noted for the primary outcome (first occurrence of ischaemic stroke, MI or vascular death) compared with ASA [relative risk reduction 8.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3% to 16.5%; p = 0.043]. In ESPRIT (patients with ischaemic stroke/TIA) for the primary outcome (first occurrence of death from all vascular causes, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal MI or major bleeding complication), the risk of event occurrence was statistically significantly lower in the MRD + ASA arm than in the ASA arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98], with no statistically significant difference in bleeding events between the two arms. In PRoFESS (patients with ischaemic stroke) the rate of recurrent stroke of any type (primary outcome) was similar in the MRD + ASA and clopidogrel groups, and the null hypothesis (that MRD + ASA was inferior to clopidogrel) could not be rejected. In ESPS-2 (patients with ischaemic stroke/TIA), on the primary outcome of stroke, statistically significant differences in favour of MRD + ASA were observed compared with ASA and MRD alone (relative risk 0.76; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93). The outcomes addressed in the mixed-treatment comparisons (limited by the available data) for the ischaemic stroke/TIA population confirmed the results of the direct comparisons. The 11 economic evaluations included in the review of cost-effectiveness indicated that for patients with previous peripheral arterial disease, ischaemic stroke or MI, clopidogrel is cost-effective compared with ASA, and for patients with previous ischaemic stroke/TIA, treatment with MRD + ASA is cost-effective compared with any other treatment in patients in the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events. The relevance of the review was limited as the economic evaluations were not based on the most current clinical data. Cost-effectiveness results generated from the Assessment Group's de novo economic model suggested that the most cost-effective approach for patients with ischaemic stroke/TIA is clopidogrel followed by MRD + ASA then ASA. For patients with MI, the most cost-effective approach is ASA followed by clopidogrel. For patients with established peripheral arterial disease, the most cost-effective approach is clopidogrel followed by ASA. For patients with multivascular disease, clopidogrel followed by ASA is the most cost-effective approach. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were also calculated for patients who are intolerant to ASA. Assuming that the branded price for clopidogrel is used and TA90 guidance is not applied, all of the ICERs range between £2189 and £13,558 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were fully consistent with these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that the most cost-effective treatment for patients with ischaemic stroke/TIA is clopidogrel followed by MRD + ASA followed by ASA; for patients with MI, ASA followed by clopidogrel; and for patients with established peripheral arterial disease or multivascular disease, clopidogrel followed by ASA.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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.

A randomised controlled trial of extended brief intervention for alcohol dependent patients in an acute hospital setting (ADPAC)

Background

Alcohol dependence affects approximately 3% of the English population, and accounts for significant medical and psychiatric morbidity. Only 5.6% of alcohol-dependent individuals ever access specialist treatment and only a small percentage ever seek treatment. As people who are alcohol dependent are more likely to have experienced health problems leading to frequent attendance at acute hospitals it would seem both sensible and practical to ensure that this setting is utilised as a major access point for treatment, and to test the effectiveness of these treatments.

Methods/Design

This is a randomised controlled trial with a primary hypothesis that extended brief interventions (EBI) delivered to alcohol-dependent patients in a hospital setting by an Alcohol Specialist Nurse (ASN) will be effective when compared to usual care in reducing overall alcohol consumption and improving on the standard measures of alcohol dependence. Consecutive patients will be screened for alcohol misuse in the Emergency Department (ED) of a district general hospital. On identification of an alcohol-related problem, following informed written consent, we aim to randomize 130 patients per group. The ASN will discharge to usual clinical care all control group patients, and plan a programme of EBI for treatment group patients. Follow-up interview will be undertaken by a researcher blinded to the intervention at 12 and 24 weeks. The primary outcome measure is level of alcohol dependence as determined by the Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire (SADQ) score. Secondary outcome measures include; Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score, quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption, health-related quality of life measures, service utilisation, and patient experience. The trial will also allow an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of EBI in an acute hospital setting. In addition, patient experience will be assessed using qualitative methods.

Discussion

This paper presents a protocol for a RCT of EBI delivered to alcohol dependent patients by an ASN within an ED. Importantly; the trial will also seek to understand patients' perceptions and experiences of being part of a RCT and of receiving this form of intervention.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN: ISRCTN78062794

Pemetrexed for the maintenance treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed for the maintenance treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The primary clinical outcome measure was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), time to worsening of symptoms, objective tumour response rate, adverse events and changes in lung cancer symptom scale. Data for two populations were presented: patients with non-squamous NSCLC histology and patients with adenocarcinoma histology. The clinical evidence was derived from a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial (RCT), the JMEN trial. The trial compared the use of pemetrexed + best supportive care (BSC ) as maintenance therapy, with placebo + BSC in patients with NSCLC (n = 663) who had received four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (CTX) and whose disease had not progressed. In the licensed population (patients with non-squamous histology), the trial demonstrated greater median PFS for patients treated with pemetrexed than for patients in the placebo arm [4.5 vs 2.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55, p < 0.00001]. Median OS was also greater for the pemetrexed- treated patients (15.5 vs 10.3 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.88, p = 0.002). In addition, tumour response and disease control rates were statistically significantly greater for patients who received pemetrexed. Patient survival rates at 1 year and 2 years were higher in the pemetrexed arm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) estimated by the manufacturer's model were 33,732 pounds per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) for the licensed nonsquamous population, and 39,364 pounds per QALY for the adenocarcinoma subgroup. Both of these ICERs were above the standard NICE willingness-to-pay range (20,000 pounds-30,000 pounds per QALY). The manufacturer also presented a case for pemetrexed to be considered as an end of life treatment. The ERG identified a number of problems in the economic model presented by the manufacturer; after correction, the base case ICER was re-estimated as 51,192 pounds per QALY gained and likely to exceed NICE's willingness-to-pay thresholds. Following a revised economic analysis submitted by the manufacturer, the AC accepted that an ICER of 47,000 pounds per QALY gained was most plausible. The AC also considered that maintenance treatment with pemetrexed fulfilled the end of life criteria.The guidance issued by NICE, on 20 June 20 2010, in TA190 as a result of the STA states that: People who have received pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy cannot receive pemetrexed maintenance treatment. 1.1 Pemetrexed is recommended as an option for the maintenance treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer other than predominantly squamous cell histology if disease has not progressed immediately following platinum-based chemotherapy in combination with gemcitabine, paclitaxel or docetaxel.

Gefitinib for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gefitinib for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The submitted clinical evidence consisted of the IRESSA Pan-ASian Study (IPASS); a phase III open-label randomised controlled trial conducted in 87 centres in East Asia which compared the use of gefitinib with paclitaxel/carboplatin in 1217 chemotherapy (CTX)-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The manufacturer's submission focused on a subgroup of patients in IPASS who were epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutation-positive (M+) (n = 261; 21% of the total IPASS population). The primary clinical outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival, clinically relevant improvement in quality of life and adverse events (AEs). Cost-effectiveness was measured in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In the overall population, PFS was significantly longer in patients treated with gefitinib than in those treated with paclitaxel/carboplatin (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.85; p < 0.0001). The manufacturer reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 20,744 pounds per QALY gained for the target population. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis illustrated that for patients who are EGFR M+, gefitinib compared with doublet CTX was not likely to be cost-effective at what would usually be considered standard levels of willingness to pay for an additional QALY; the mean ICER for gefitinib EGFR M+ versus doublet CTX EGFR M+ was reported as 35,700 pounds per QALY. Additional analysis by the ERG included amendments to the base-case analysis, including an alternative approach to projecting survival, inclusion of two important additional comparators, sensitivity to EGFR M+ prevalence, and AE costs and disutilities. The manufacturer's submission provides clinical evidence to support the use of gefitinib in EGFR M+ patients with adenocarcinoma histology only. Before patients can be offered first-line treatment with gefitinib they must undergo EGFR mutation status testing which is currently not routinely available in the NHS. At the time of writing, the guidance document issued by NICE on 28 July 2010 states that 'Gefitinib is recommended as an option for the first-line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) if they test positive for the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase (EGFR-TK) mutation and the manufacturer provides gefitinib at the fixed price agreed under the patient access scheme'.

Gefitinib for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gefitinib for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The submitted clinical evidence consisted of the IRESSA Pan-ASian Study (IPASS); a phase III open-label randomised controlled trial conducted in 87 centres in East Asia which compared the use of gefitinib with paclitaxel/carboplatin in 1217 chemotherapy (CTX)-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The manufacturer’s submission focused on a subgroup of patients in IPASS who were epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutation-positive (M+) (n = 261; 21% of the total IPASS population). The primary clinical outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival, clinically relevant improvement in quality of life and adverse events (AEs). Cost-effectiveness was measured in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In the overall population, PFS was significantly longer in patients treated with gefitinib than in those treated with paclitaxel/carboplatin (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.85; p < 0.0001). The manufacturer reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £20,744 per QALY gained for the target population. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis illustrated that for patients who are EGFR M+, gefitinib compared with doublet CTX was not likely to be cost-effective at what would usually be considered standard levels of willingness to pay for an additional QALY; the mean ICER for gefitinib EGFR M+ versus doublet CTX EGFR M+ was reported as £35,700 per QALY. Additional analysis by the ERG included amendments to the base-case analysis, including an alternative approach to projecting survival, inclusion of two important additional comparators, sensitivity to EGFR M+ prevalence, and AE costs and disutilities. The manufacturer’s submission provides clinical evidence to support the use of gefitinib in EGFR M+ patients with adenocarcinoma histology only. Before patients can be offered first-line treatment with gefitinib they must undergo EGFR mutation status testing which is currently not routinely available in the NHS. At the time of writing, the guidance document issued by NICE on 28 July 2010 states that ‘Gefitinib is recommended as an option for the first-line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) if they test positive for the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase (EGFR-TK) mutation and the manufacturer provides gefitinib at the fixed price agreed under the patient access scheme’.

Pemetrexed for the maintenance treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed for the maintenance treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The primary clinical outcome measure was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), time to worsening of symptoms, objective tumour response rate, adverse events and changes in lung cancer symptom scale. Data for two populations were presented: patients with non-squamous NSCLC histology and patients with adenocarcinoma histology. The clinical evidence was derived from a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial (RCT), the JMEN trial. The trial compared the use of pemetrexed + best supportive care (BSC ) as maintenance therapy, with placebo + BSC in patients with NSCLC (n = 663) who had received four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (CTX) and whose disease had not progressed. In the licensed population (patients with non-squamous histology), the trial demonstrated greater median PFS for patients treated with pemetrexed than for patients in the placebo arm [4.5 vs 2.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55, p < 0.00001]. Median OS was also greater for the pemetrexed- treated patients (15.5 vs 10.3 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.88, p = 0.002). In addition, tumour response and disease control rates were statistically significantly greater for patients who received pemetrexed. Patient survival rates at 1 year and 2 years were higher in the pemetrexed arm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) estimated by the manufacturer’s model were £33,732 per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) for the licensed nonsquamous population, and £39,364 per QALY for the adenocarcinoma subgroup. Both of these ICERs were above the standard NICE willingness-to-pay range (£20,000–£30,000 per QALY). The manufacturer also presented a case for pemetrexed to be considered as an end of life treatment. The ERG identified a number of problems in the economic model presented by the manufacturer; after correction, the base case ICER was re-estimated as £51,192 per QALY gained and likely to exceed NICE’s willingness-to-pay thresholds. Following a revised economic analysis submitted by the manufacturer, the AC accepted that an ICER of £47,000 per QALY gained was most plausible. The AC also considered that maintenance treatment with pemetrexed fulfilled the end of life criteria.The guidance issued by NICE, on 20 June 20 2010, in TA190 as a result of the STA states that: People who have received pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy cannot receive pemetrexed maintenance treatment. 1.1 Pemetrexed is recommended as an option for the maintenance treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer other than predominantly squamous cell histology if disease has not progressed immediately following platinum-based chemotherapy in combination with gemcitabine, paclitaxel or docetaxel.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in Belgium

BACKGROUND

The introduction of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV; types 6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine is expected to significantly reduce the burden of cervical cancer, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), genital warts and other HPV-related diseases.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost effectiveness of providing a quadrivalent (6,11,16,18) HPV vaccine programme in adolescent females aged 12 years in addition to the existing cervical cancer screening programme in Belgium.

METHODS

A Markov state-transition model was developed for the Belgian context in order to evaluate the long-term impact of vaccinating a cohort of girls aged 12 years alongside the existing screening programme. Women were followed until the age of 85 years. A vaccine that would prevent 100% of diseases associated with HPV-6, -11, -16 and -18, with lifetime duration of efficacy, 80% coverage, in conjunction with current screening, was compared with screening alone. For this analysis, 35% of cases of CIN-1, 55% of CIN-2/3, 75% of cervical cancer and 90% of genital warts were considered to be attributable to HPV-6, -11, -16 or -18. The model estimated lifetime risks and total lifetime healthcare costs, survival and QALYs for cervical cancer, CIN and genital warts. Outcomes validation was applied. Model outcomes also included incremental costs per life-year gained and incremental costs per QALY gained. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Belgian healthcare payer, and costs were in year 2006 values.

RESULTS

The model estimated a reduction in the lifetime risk of cervical cancer from 0.94% to 0.34%, therefore preventing 362 cases of cervical cancer and 131 related deaths in a cohort of 60,000 girls aged 12 years in Belgium. The base-case scenario suggests quadrivalent HPV vaccination in addition to current cervical screening in Belgium to be cost effective at euro 10,546 per QALY. This is within the accepted range of cost-effective interventions in Europe. This cost effectiveness is maintained for different parameter assumptions in the sensitivity analysis, with the exception of very high discount rates for costs and medical benefits, but, even in the worst case, ratios were still less than euro 50,000 per QALY. Even when a separate scenario modelled the requirement for a booster vaccination to sustain a lifetime duration of protection, the results remained cost effective at eruo 17,388 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination with a quadrivalent HPV vaccine appears to be a cost-effective public health intervention in conjunction with the existing screening programme in Belgium. The additional costs of introducing vaccination to the established screening programme would be offset by the potential savings from not having to treat the diseases caused by HPV-6, -11, -16 or -18.

Economic evaluation of fulvestrant as an extra step in the treatment sequence for ER-positive advanced breast cancer

Drug therapies for advanced breast cancer in hormone-receptor-positive disease include both hormonal and chemotherapies. Current UK practice is to minimise toxicity by using sequential hormonal agents for as long as clinically appropriate. A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost effectiveness of different sequences of therapies, particularly exploring the effects of adding an additional hormonal agent, fulvestrant, to the treatment pathway. A systematic review was undertaken and a panel of seven UK oncologists validated assumptions used for treatment efficacy, treatment pathways and resources used. Fulvestrant was found to be a cost-effective treatment option when added to the treatment sequence as a second- or third-line hormonal therapy for advanced disease. For a cohort of 1000 patients, fulvestrant as a second-line hormone therapy provided an additional 47 life years and 41 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at an additional cost of pound 301 359. This equated to pound 6500 per life years gained and pound 7500 per QALY. When used as a third-line option, the fulvestrant arm was dominant providing an increase in health benefit of 27 QALYs for the whole cohort, at a mean overall cost reduction of pound 430 per patient. Sensitivity analyses showed these results to be robust, demonstrating that fulvestrant is an economically viable additional endocrine option in the United Kingdom for the treatment of hormone responsive advanced breast cancer.

Cost-utility analysis of deferasirox compared to standard therapy with desferrioxamine for patients requiring iron chelation therapy in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the cost-utility of deferasirox (Exjade) compared to standard therapy using desferrioxamine (Desferal) for the control of iron overload in patients receiving frequent blood transfusions. The perspective adopted was that of the National Health Service in the UK.

METHODS

Phase II/III clinical trials have shown deferasirox in the recommended doses of 20-30 mg/kg per day to have similar efficacy to desferrioxamine at equivalent doses in the control of chronic iron overload. The main difference between them is in the mode of administration. Desferrioxamine is administered parenterally as a slow subcutaneous infusion typically infused 8-12 hours a day for 5-7 days a week. In comparison, deferasirox provides 24 hour chelation via a once daily oral tablet dispersed in water or juice. An excel based economic model was developed to evaluate the annual healthcare costs and quality of life, or utility, benefits associated with differences in mode of administration, using beta-thalassaemia as the reference case. A community utility study using time trade-off methods was performed to determine utility outcomes associated with iron chelation therapy (ICT) mode of administration.

RESULTS

In the reference case (patient mean weight 42 kg), deferasirox 'dominated' desferrioxamine, i.e. resulted in lower net costs and higher quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Drug dose and cost is patient weight related. Incremental cost per QALY gained was pound 7775 for patients with a mean weight of 62 kg.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-utility analysis did not take drug compliance into account. However, Deferasirox is cost-effective compared to standard iron chelation therapy with desferrioxamine, due to the cost and quality of life benefits derived from a simpler and more convenient oral mode of administration.