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 risk assessment strategies for populations at high risk of engaging in violent behaviour: update 2002-8

BACKGROUND

This review systematically examines the research literature published in the period 2002-8 on structured violence risk assessment instruments designed for use in mental health services or the criminal justice system. It adopted much broader inclusion criteria than previous reviews in the same area in order to capture and summarise data on the widest possible range of available instruments.

OBJECTIVES

To address two questions: (1) what study characteristics are associated with a risk assessment instrument score being significantly associated with a violent outcome? and (2) which risk assessment instruments have the highest level of predictive validity for a violent outcome?

DATA SOURCES

Nineteen bibliographic databases were searched from January 2002 to April 2008, including PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Education Resources Information Centre, The Cochrane Library and Web of Knowledge.

REVIEW METHODS

Inclusion criteria for studies were (1) evaluation of a structured risk tool; (2) outcome measure of interpersonal violence; (3) participants aged 17 years or over; and (4) participants with a mental disorder and/or at least one offence and/or at least one indictable offence. A series of bivariate analyses using either a chi-squared test or Spearman's rank-order correlation were conducted to explore associations between study characteristics and outcomes. Data from a subset of studies reporting area under the curve (AUC) analysis were combined to provide estimates of mean validity.

RESULTS

For the overall set of included studies (n = 959), over three-quarters (77%) were conducted in the USA, Canada or the UK. Two-thirds of all studies were conducted with offenders who had either no formal mental health diagnosis (43%) or forensic samples with a formal diagnosis (25%). The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised was tested in the largest number of studies (n = 192). Most studies (78%) reported a statistically significant (p < 0.05) relationship between the instrument score and a violent outcome. Prospective data collection (chi-squared = 4.4, p = 0.035), number of people recruited (U = 27.8, p = 0.012) and number of participants at end point (U = 26.9, p = 0.04) were significantly associated with predictive validity. For those instruments tested in five or more studies reporting AUC values, the General Statistical Information on Recidivism instrument had the highest mean AUC (0.73).

LIMITATIONS

Agreement between pairs of reviewers in the initial pilot exercises was good but less than perfect, so discrepancies may be present given the complexity and subjectivity of some aspects of violence research. Only five of the seven calendar years (2003-7) are completely covered, with partial coverage of 2002 and 2008. There is no weighting for sample or effect sizes when results from studies are aggregated.

CONCLUSIONS

A very large number of studies examining the relationship between a structured instrument and a violent outcome were published in this relatively short 7-year period. The general quality of the literature is weak in places (e.g. over-reliance on cross-sectional designs) and a vast range of distinct instruments have been tested to varying degrees. However, there is evidence of some convergence around a small number of high-performing instruments and identification of the components of a high-quality evaluation approach, including AUC analysis. The upper limits (AUC ≥ 0.85) of instrument-based prediction have probably been achieved and are unlikely to be exceeded using instruments alone.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment and Research for Patient Benefit programmes.

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.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary stroke prevention in children with sickle cell disease: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a recessive genetic blood disorder, caused by a mutation in the β-globin gene. For children with SCD, the risk of stroke is estimated to be up to 250 times higher than in the general childhood population. Transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasonography is a non-invasive technique which measures local blood velocity in the proximal portions of large intracranial arteries. Screening with TCD ultrasonography identifies individuals with high cerebral blood velocity; these children are at the highest risk of stroke. A number of primary stroke prevention strategies are currently used in clinical practice in the UK including blood transfusion, treatment with hydroxycarbamide and bone marrow transplantation (BMT). No reviews have yet assessed the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of primary stroke prevention strategies in children with SCD identified to be at high risk of stroke using TCD ultrasonography.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary stroke prevention treatments for children with SCD who are identified (using TCD ultrasonography) to be at high risk of stroke.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched from inception up to May 2011, including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), EMBASE, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, ISI Web of Science Proceedings, ISI Web of Science Citation Index, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and MEDLINE.

REVIEW METHODS

The assessment was conducted according to accepted procedures for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and economic evaluations. A de novo Markov model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of TCD ultrasonography and blood transfusion, where clinically appropriate, in patients with SCD.

RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria involving a study population of 209 participants. One compared blood transfusion with standard care for children who are identified as being at high risk of stroke using TCD ultrasonography. In this trial, one patient in the transfusion group had a stroke (1/63) compared with 11 children in the standard care group (11/67). The other trial assessed the impact of halting chronic transfusion in patients with SCD. Sixteen patients in the transfusion-halted group had an event (16/41) (two patients experienced stroke and 14 reverted to abnormal TCD velocity); there were no events in the continued-transfusion group (0/38). No meta-analyses of these trials were undertaken. No relevant economic evaluations were identified for inclusion in the review. The de novo modelling suggests that blood transfusions plus TCD scans (compared with just TCD scans) for patients with SCD at high risk of stroke, aged ≥ 2 years, may be good value for money. The intervention has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £24,075 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and helps avoid 68 strokes over the lifetime of a population of 1000 patients. The intervention costs an additional £13,751 per patient and generates 0.6 extra years of life in full health per patient. The data available for the economic analysis are limited. Sensitivity analyses and validation against existing data and expert opinion provide some reassurance that the conclusion of the model is reliable but further research is required to validate these findings.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations relate to the availability of published clinical data; no completed randomised controlled trials were identified which evaluated the efficacy of either BMT or hydroxycarbamide for primary stroke prevention. Both the clinical and cost data available for use in the economic analysis are limited. Sensitivity analyses and validation against existing data and expert opinion provide some reassurance that the conclusions of the model are reliable, but further research is required to validate these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of TCD ultrasonography to identify children at high risk of stroke, and treating these children with prophylactic blood transfusions, appears to be both clinically effective and cost-effective compared with TCD ultrasonography only. However, given the limitations in the data available, further research is required to verify this conclusion. Several research recommendations can be proposed from this review. Clinically, more research is needed to assess the effects and optimal duration of long-term blood transfusion and the potential role of hydroxycarbamide in primary stroke prevention. From an economics perspective, further research is required to generate more robust data on which to base estimates of cost-effectiveness or against which model outputs can be calibrated. More data are required to explain how utility weights vary with age, transfusions and strokes. Research is also needed around the cost of paediatric stroke in the UK.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42011001496.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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.

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.

A systematic review of prevention and intervention strategies for populations at high risk of engaging in violent behaviour: update 2002-8

BACKGROUND

It has been estimated that violence accounts for more than 1.6 million deaths worldwide each year and these fatal assaults represent only a fraction of all assaults that actually occur. The problem has widespread consequences for the individual and for the wider society in physical, psychological, social and economic terms. A wide range of pharmacological, psychosocial and organisational interventions have been developed with the aim of addressing the problem. This review was designed to examine the effectiveness of these interventions when they are developed in mental health and criminal justice populations.

OBJECTIVE

To update a previous review that examined the evidence base up to 2002 for a wide range of pharmacological, psychosocial and organisational interventions aimed at reducing violence, and to identify the key variables associated with a significant reduction in violence.

DATA SOURCES

Nineteen bibliographic databases were searched from January 2002 to April 2008, including PsycINFO (CSA) MEDLINE (Ovid), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), British Nursing Index/Royal College of Nursing, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)/International ERIC, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane reviews, other reviews, clinical trials, methods studies, technology assessments, economic evaluations), Web of Science [Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI)].

REVIEW METHODS

The assessment was carried out according to accepted procedures for conducting and reporting systematic reviews, including identification of studies, application of inclusion criteria, data extraction and appropriate analysis. Studies were included in meta-analyses (MAs) if they followed a randomised control trial (RCT) design and reported data that could be converted into odds ratios (ORs). For each MA, both a fixed-effects model and a random-effects model were fitted, and both Q statistic and I2 estimates of heterogeneity were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 198 studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria; of these, 51 (26%) were RCTs. Bivariate analyses exploring possible sources of variance in whether a study reported a statistically significant result or not, identified six variables with a significant association. An outcome was less likely to be positive if the primary intervention was something other than a psychological or pharmacological intervention, the study was conducted in an penal institution, the comparator was another active treatment or treatment as usual and if a between-groups design had been used. An outcome was more likely to be positive if it was conducted with people with a mental disorder. The variation attributable to these variables when added to a binary logistic regression was not large (Cox and Snell R(2) = 0.12), but not insignificant given the small number of variables included. The pooled results of all included RCTs suggested a statistically significant advantage for interventions over the various comparators [OR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.65, fixed effects; OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.49 random effects, 40 studies]. However, there was high heterogeneity {I(2) = 86, Q = 279 [degrees of freedom (df) = 39], p < 0.0001}, indicating the need for caution in interpreting the observed effect. Analysis by subgroups showed that most results followed a similar pattern, with statistically significant advantages of treatments over comparators being suggested in fixed- and/or random-effects models but in the context of large heterogeneity. Three exceptions were atypical antipsychotic drugs [OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.27, fixed effects; OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.43, random effects; 10 studies, I(2) = 72.2, Q = 32.4 (df = 9), p < 0.0001], psychological interventions [OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.83, fixed effects; OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93, random effects; nine studies, I(2) = 62.1, Q = 21.1 (df = 8), p = 0.007] and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as a primary intervention [OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.88, fixed effects; OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.99, random effects; seven studies, I(2) = 21.6, Q = 7.65 (df = 6), p = 0.26].

LIMITATIONS

The heterogenity of the included studies inhibits both robust MA and the clear application of findings to establishing improvements in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this review show small-to-moderate effects for CBT, for all psychological interventions combined, and larger effects for atypical antipsychotic drugs, with relatively low heterogeneity. There is also evidence that interventions targeted at mental health populations, and particularly male groups in community settings, are well supported, as they are more likely to achieve stronger effects than interventions with the other groups. Future work should focus on improving the quality of evidence available and should address the issue of heterogenity in the literature.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and the Research for Patient Benefit 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.

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'.

Pemetrexed 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 pemetrexed for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from Eli Lilly Ltd to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The majority of the efficacy evidence described in the manufacturer's submission is derived from a phase III open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) known as the JMDB trial. The trial achieved its primary objective to demonstrate non-inferiority of pemetrexed/cisplatin to gemcitabine/cisplatin for overall survival in all patients with NSCLC. Because no other studies were found comparing pemetrexed/cisplatin with any other relevant comparator, additional efficacy evidence was presented from two phase III RCTs comparing gemcitabine/cisplatin with gemcitabine/carboplatin and docetaxel/cisplatin. The manufacturer's submission reported from its indirect comparisons' analysis that median overall survival and progression-free survival and tumour response rates were more favourable for pemetrexed/cisplatin than for any other comparator. The manufacturer did not identify any published cost-effectiveness analyses of pemetrexed for the first-line treatment of patients with NSCLC. Therefore economic evidence was derived solely from a de novo economic model developed by the manufacturer. A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed/cisplatin compared to gemcitabine/cisplatin, docetaxel/cisplatin and gemcitabine/carboplatin. The clinical data used in the economic evaluation were primarily generated from the JMDB trial, with additional data from the two further trials used in the indirect comparisons analysis. The ERG identified a series of problems with this economic model. As a result, three different versions of the model were submitted to NICE and considered by the ERG. The ICERs estimated by this final version of the model ranged from 8056 pounds to 33,065 pounds per QALY, depending on the comparator, the population and the application of a continuation rule. The ERG considered that the model required extensive modification and redesign, and should be subjected to thorough validation against the JMDB trial results. A full quality audit was also required as it was likely that further model inconsistencies may be present that had not yet been identified. The manufacturer subsequently included evidence in the form of three cost effectiveness analyses (two models and an 'in-trial' analysis), stating that a thorough validation process had been followed according to the NICE request. The very short time available to the ERG to consider the new evidence precluded a comprehensive assessment. Instead, the ERG chose to present a simple exploratory analysis combining its own survival projections with key cost estimates obtained from the JMDB trial individual patient data. Compared to gemcitabine, this resulted in ICERs ranging from 17,162 pounds to 30,142 pounds per QALY, depending on the patient population, the maximum number of cycles of chemotherapy and whether a cycle based efficacy adjustment was applied or not. The guidance issued by NICE in September 2009 states that pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin is recommended as an option for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC only if the histology of the tumour has been confirmed as adenocarcinoma or large-cell carcinoma.

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.

Cetuximab for the treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab for recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission's evidence came from a single reasonably high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) [EXTREME (Erbitux in First-Line Treatment of Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer); n = 442] comparing cetuximab plus chemotherapy (CTX) with CTX alone. Cetuximab plus CTX had significant effects compared with CTX alone on the primary outcome of overall survival (10.1 versus 7.4 months respectively) and the secondary outcomes of progression-free survival (PFS) (5.6 versus 3.3 months), best overall response to therapy (35.6% versus 19.5%), disease control rate (81.1% versus 60%) and time-to-treatment failure (4.8 versus 3.0 months), but not on duration of response (5.6 months versus 4.7 months). No safety issues with cetuximab arose beyond those already previously documented. The manufacturer developed a two-arm state-transition Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus CTX versus CTX alone, using clinical data from the EXTREME trial. The ERG recalculated the base-case cost-effectiveness results taking changes in parameters and assumptions into account. Subgroup and threshold analyses were also explored. The manufacturer reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 121,367 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and an incremental cost per life-year gained of 92,226 pounds. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that varying the cost of day-case infusion and the utility values in the stable/response health state of the cetuximab plus CTX arm had the greatest impact on the ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis illustrated that cetuximab plus CTX is unlikely to be cost-effective for patients with recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN, even at what would usually be considered very high levels of willingness to pay for an additional QALY. With regard to the economic model the appropriateness and reliability of parametric survival projection beyond the duration of trial data could not be fully explored because of lack of information. The ERG also questioned the appropriateness of economic modelling in this STA as evidence is available only from a single RCT. In conclusion, the ERG considers that patients with metastatic SCCHN were not shown to receive a significant survival benefit from cetuximab plus CTX compared with CTX alone and that even setting a lower price for cetuximab would not strengthen the manufacturer's case for cost-effectiveness.

Pemetrexed 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 pemetrexed for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from Eli Lilly Ltd to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The majority of the efficacy evidence described in the manufacturer’s submission is derived from a phase III open label randomised controlled trial (RCT) known as the JMDB trial. The trial achieved its primary objective to demonstrate non-inferiority of pemetrexed/cisplatin to gemcitabine/cisplatin for overall survival in all patients with NSCLC. Because no other studies were found comparing pemetrexed/cisplatin with any other relevant comparator, additional efficacy evidence was presented from two phase III RCTs comparing gemcitabine/cisplatin with gemcitabine/carboplatin and docetaxel/cisplatin. The manufacturer’s submission reported from its indirect comparisons’ analysis that median overall survival and progression-free survival and tumour response rates were more favourable for pemetrexed/cisplatin than for any other comparator. The manufacturer did not identify any published cost-effectiveness analyses of pemetrexed for the first-line treatment of patients with NSCLC. Therefore economic evidence was derived solely from a de novo economic model developed by the manufacturer. A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed/cisplatin compared to gemcitabine/cisplatin, docetaxel/cisplatin and gemcitabine/carboplatin. The clinical data used in the economic evaluation were primarily generated from the JMDB trial, with additional data from the two further trials used in the indirect comparisons analysis. The ERG identified series problems with this economic model. As a result, three different versions of the model were submitted to NICE and considered by the ERG. The ICERs estimated by this final version of the model ranged from £8056 to £33,065 per QALY, depending on the comparator, the population and the application of a continuation rule. The ERG considered that the model required extensive modification and redesign, and should be subjected to thorough validation against the JMDB trial results. A full quality audit was also required as it was likely that further model inconsistencies may be present that had not yet been identified. The manufacturer subsequently included evidence in the form of three cost effectiveness analyses (two models and an ‘in-trial’ analysis), stating that a thorough validation process had been followed according to the NICE request. The very short time available to the ERG to consider the new evidence precluded a comprehensive assessment. Instead, the ERG chose to present a simple exploratory analysis combining its own survival projections with key cost estimates obtained from the JMDB trial individual patient data. Compared to gemcitabine, this resulted in ICERs ranging from £17,162 to £30,142 per QALY, depending on the patient population, the maximum number of cycles of chemotherapy and whether a cycle based efficacy adjustment was applied or not. The guidance issued by NICE in September 2009 states that pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin is recommended as an option for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC only if the histology of the tumour has been confirmed as adenocarcinoma or large-cell carcinoma.

Prasugrel for the treatment of acute coronary artery syndromes with percutaneous coronary intervention

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prasugrel for the treatment of coronary artery syndromes with percutaneous coronary intervention, based upon the evidence submission from Eli Lilly to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The submitted clinical evidence was based on a phase III double-blind, double-dummy randomised controlled trial which compared the use of prasugrel with clopidogrel. The primary clinical outcome measure was a composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) or non-fatal stroke at 15 months. Secondary outcomes included the primary end point at 30 days and 90 days; a composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal MI or urgent target vessel revascularisation; a composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke or rehospitalisation due to a cardiac ischaemic event; and stent thrombosis. For the overall trial cohort during the 15 month follow-up period, the results of the trial demonstrated a statistically significant benefit of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel on the primary outcome. The efficacy difference between treatment groups was, in the main, due to a statistically significant lower incidence of non-fatal MIs in the prasugrel group than in the clopidogrel group. No statistically significant differences were found for death from cardiovascular causes or non-fatal stroke. For the fully licensed and target populations, there was a statistically significant lower incidence of non-fatal MIs in the prasugrel group than in the clopidogrel group; there was no statistically significant difference in bleeding rates. The ERG recalculated the base-case cost-effectiveness results taking changes in parameters and assumptions into account: for example, revised drug costs, mid-cycle correction, amended relative risk mortality. Subgroup and threshold analyses were also explored by the ERG. For the fully licensed population (i.e. excluding patients with prior stroke or TIA), the manufacturer reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £159,358 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 12 months and an ICER of £3,220 per QALY gained at 40 years. Considering the 15-month clinical trial data available for the fully licensed and target populations and current practice in England and Wales, the evidence was considered insufficient to support the conclusion that prasugrel is clinically more effective than clopidogrel or vice versa. Assuming that there is no evidence to distinguish between prasugrel and clopidogrel in terms of clinical effectiveness in the short term for this population, equipoise between prasugrel and clopidogrel at year 1 is achieved by a 20% reduction in the acquisition cost of prasugrel (approximately £120 per patient). At the time of writing, the guidance/has not yet been published by NICE.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of testing for cytochrome P450 polymorphisms in patients with schizophrenia treated with antipsychotics: a systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether testing for cytochrome P450 (CYP) polymorphisms in adults entering antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia leads to improvement in outcomes, is useful in medical, personal or public health decision-making, and is a cost-effective use of health-care resources.

DATA SOURCES

The following electronic databases were searched for relevant published literature: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment database, ISI Web of Knowledge, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Economic Evaluation Database, Cost-effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry and the Centre for Health Economics website. In addition, publicly available information on various genotyping tests was sought from the internet and advisory panel members.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review of analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility of CYP testing was undertaken. Data were extracted into structured tables and narratively discussed, and meta-analysis was undertaken when possible. A review of economic evaluations of CYP testing in psychiatry and a review of economic models related to schizophrenia were also carried out.

RESULTS

For analytical validity, 46 studies of a range of different genotyping tests for 11 different CYP polymorphisms (most commonly CYP2D6) were included. Sensitivity and specificity were high (99-100%). For clinical validity, 51 studies were found. In patients tested for CYP2D6, an association between genotype and tardive dyskinesia (including Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale scores) was found. The only other significant finding linked the CYP2D6 genotype to parkinsonism. One small unpublished study met the inclusion criteria for clinical utility. One economic evaluation assessing the costs and benefits of CYP testing for prescribing antidepressants and 28 economic models of schizophrenia were identified; none was suitable for developing a model to examine the cost-effectiveness of CYP testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Tests for determining genotypes appear to be accurate although not all aspects of analytical validity were reported. Given the absence of convincing evidence from clinical validity studies, the lack of clinical utility and economic studies, and the unsuitability of published schizophrenia models, no model was developed; instead key features and data requirements for economic modelling are presented. Recommendations for future research cover both aspects of research quality and data that will be required to inform the development of future economic models.

Rituximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group's critical review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rituximab for the treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following failure of previous therapy, including one or more tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi), compared with current standards of care, based upon the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission's clinical evidence came from one randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial (REFLEX--Random Evaluation of Long-term Efficacy of Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis) comparing rituximab plus methotrexate (MTX) with placebo plus MTX in 517 patients with long-standing refractory RA. Rituximab plus MTX was more effective than placebo plus MTX across a range of primary and secondary outcome measures, e.g. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). However, this evidence cannot be used directly to address the manufacturer's analysis of the decision problem because, in the REFLEX trial, rituximab was not compared with a relevant comparator (e.g. leflunomide or second or third TNFi). Long-term efficacy data for retreatment with rituximab are favourable, with an estimated mean time to retreatment of 307 days (n = 164). Evidence from a further five trials is presented as the basis for indirect comparisons with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs); however, it is not clear that all relevant clinical studies have been included in the indirect comparison exercise, the rationale for the choice of indirect comparison method adopted is unclear and the indirect comparison method used to adjust the ACR responses only uses a single value for the reference placebo. The submitted microsimulation Markov model was based upon the REFLEX trial. For the 'NICE-recommended' scenario and the 'sequential TNFi' scenario, the original submission reports incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 14,690 pounds and 11,601 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained respectively. After model assumptions were adjusted to more realistic estimates by the ERG, the ICERs for the NICE-recommended scenario and the sequential use of TNFi range from 37,002 pounds to 80,198 pounds per QALY gained and from 28,553 pounds to 65,558 pounds per QALY gained respectively. The guidance issued by NICE in August 2007 states that rituximab in combination with methotrexate is recommended as an option for the treatment of adults with severe active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to or intolerance of other DMARDs including treatment with at least one TNFi therapy.

Cetuximab for the treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab for recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) based upon a review of the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission’s evidence came from a single reasonably high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) [EXTREME (Erbitux in First-Line Treatment of Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer); n = 442] comparing cetuximab plus chemotherapy (CTX) with CTX alone. Cetuximab plus CTX had significant effects compared with CTX alone on the primary outcome of overall survival (10.1 versus 7.4 months respectively) and the secondary outcomes of progression-free survival (PFS) (5.6 versus 3.3 months), best overall response to therapy (35.6% versus 19.5%), disease control rate (81.1% versus 60%) and time-totreatment failure (4.8 versus 3.0 months), but not on duration of response (5.6 months versus 4.7 months). No safety issues with cetuximab arose beyond those already previously documented. The manufacturer developed a two-arm state-transition Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus CTX versus CTX alone, using clinical data from the EXTREME trial. The ERG recalculated the base-case cost-effectiveness results taking changes in parameters and assumptions into account. Subgroup and threshold analyses were also explored. The manufacturer reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £121,367 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and an incremental cost per life-year gained of £92,226. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that varying the cost of day-case infusion and the utility values in the stable/response health state of the cetuximab plus CTX arm had the greatest impact on the ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis illustrated that cetuximab plus CTX is unlikely to be cost-effective for patients with recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN, even at what would usually be considered very high levels of willingness to pay for an additional QALY. With regard to the economic model the appropriateness and reliability of parametric survival projection beyond the duration of trial data could not be fully explored because of lack of information. The ERG also questioned the appropriateness of economic modelling in this STA as evidence is available only from a single RCT. In conclusion, the ERG considers that patients with metastatic SCCHN were not shown to receive a significant survival benefit from cetuximab plus CTX compared with CTX alone and that even setting a lower price for cetuximab would not strengthen the manufacturer’s case for cost-effectiveness.

Erlotinib for the treatment of relapsed non-small cell lung cancer

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib for the treatment of relapsed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to its licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from Roche Products to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submitted clinical evidence includes one randomised controlled trial (RCT) (BR21) investigating the effect of erlotinib versus placebo, which demonstrates that erlotinib significantly increases median overall survival, progression-free survival and response rate compared with placebo. The majority of patients in the trial experienced non-haematological drug-related adverse effects. Currently there are no trials that directly compare erlotinib with any other second-line chemotherapy agent. For the purposes of indirect comparison, the manufacturer's submission provides a narrative discussion of data from 11 RCTs investigating the use of docetaxel. From these data the manufacturer concludes that erlotinib has similar clinical efficacy levels to docetaxel but results in fewer serious haematological adverse events; however, it is difficult to compare the results of BR21 with those of the docetaxel trials or with current UK clinical practice because, for example, the BR21 patient population is younger than that expected to present in UK clinical practice and almost half of the BR21 participants received erlotinib as third-line chemotherapy, with third-line chemotherapy being rare in the UK. The manufacturer's submission included a three-state model comparing erlotinib with docetaxel, reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 1764 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for erlotinib compared with docetaxel. Rerunning the manufacturer's economic model with varied parameters and assumptions increases the ICER to in excess of 52,000 pounds per QALY gained. There is still a large amount of unquantifiable uncertainty in the model and it is unlikely that erlotinib could be considered to be cost-effective compared with docetaxel at a willingness to pay of 30,000 pounds and there may even be the potential for docetaxel to dominate erlotinib. Because of the limitations of the indirect analysis undertaken by the manufacturer and the subsequent economic modelling exercise there is a need for a head-to-head trial comparing erlotinib with docetaxel. The guidance issued by NICE in February 2007 as a result of the STA states that erlotinib is not recommended for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Rituximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group’s critical review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rituximab for the treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following failure of previous therapy, including one or more tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNFi), compared with current standards of care, based upon the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission’s clinical evidence came from one randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial (REFLEX – Random Evaluation of Long-term Efficacy of Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis) comparing rituximab plus methotrexate (MTX) with placebo plus MTX in 517 patients with long-standing refractory RA. Rituximab plus MTX was more effective than placebo plus MTX across a range of primary and secondary outcome measures, e.g. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). However, this evidence cannot be used directly to address the manufacturer’s analysis of the decision problem because, in the REFLEX trial, rituximab was not compared with a relevant comparator (e.g. leflunomide or second or third TNFi). Long-term efficacy data for retreatment with rituximab are favourable, with an estimated mean time to retreatment of 307 days (n = 164). Evidence from a further five trials is presented as the basis for indirect comparisons with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs); however, it is not clear that all relevant clinical studies have been included in the indirect comparison exercise, the rationale for the choice of indirect comparison method adopted is unclear and the indirect comparison method used to adjust the ACR responses only uses a single value for the reference placebo. The submitted microsimulation Markov model was based upon the REFLEX trial. For the ‘NICE-recommended’ scenario and the ‘sequential TNFi’ scenario, the original submission reports incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £14,690 and £11,601 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained respectively. After model assumptions were adjusted to more realistic estimates by the ERG, the ICERs for the NICE-recommended scenario and the sequential use of TNFi range from £37,002 to £80,198 per QALY gained and from £28,553 to £65,558 per QALY gained respectively. The guidance issued by NICE in August 2007 states that rituximab in combination with methotrexate is recommended as an option for the treatment of adults with severe active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to or intolerance of other DMARDs including treatment with at least one TNFi therapy.

Rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III/IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III/IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (FNHL) based upon the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The manufacturer's scope restricts the intervention to rituximab in combination with CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisolone) (R-CVP); the only comparator used was CVP alone. The evidence from the one included randomised controlled trial (RCT) suggests that the addition of rituximab to a CVP chemotherapy regimen has a positive effect on the outcomes of time to treatment failure, disease progression, overall tumour response, duration of response and time to new lymphoma treatment in patients with stage III/IV FNHL compared with CVP alone. Adverse events were comparable between the two arms. This study was confirmed as the only relevant RCT. The economic analyses provided by the manufacturer were modelled using a three-state Markov model with with the health states being defined as progression-free survival (PFS), progressed (in which patients have relapsed) and death (which is an absorbing state). The model generated results for a cohort of patients with an initial age of 53 and makes no distinction between men and women. The model is basic in design, with several serious design flaws and key parameter values that are probably incompatible. Attempting to rectify the identified errors and limitations of the model did not increase the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) above 30,000 pounds. Although the cost-effectiveness results obtained appear to be compelling in support of R-CVP compared with CVP for the trial population the results may not be so convincing for a more representative population. The results of the ERG analysis on the impact of age suggest that ICERs increase steadily with age, as the proportion of PFS that can be converted to overall survival (OS) is diminished by rising mortality rates in the general population. For the most extreme scenario (no OS gain) the ICER appears to remain below 30,000 pounds per QALY gained. On balance the evidence indicates that R-CVP is more cost-effective than CVP. The guidance issued by NICE in July 2006 as a result of the STA states that rituximab within its licensed indication (in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisolone) is recommended as an option for the treatment of symptomatic stage III/IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in previously untreated patients.

Erlotinib for the treatment of relapsed non-small cell lung cancer

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib for the treatment of relapsed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to its licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from Roche Products to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submitted clinical evidence includes one randomised controlled trial (RCT) (BR21) investigating the effect of erlotinib versus placebo, which demonstrates that erlotinib significantly increases median overall survival, progression-free survival and response rate compared with placebo. The majority of patients in the trial experienced non-haematological drug-related adverse effects. Currently there are no trials that directly compare erlotinib with any other second-line chemotherapy agent. For the purposes of indirect comparison, the manufacturer’s submission provides a narrative discussion of data from 11 RCTs investigating the use of docetaxel. From these data the manufacturer concludes that erlotinib has similar clinical efficacy levels to docetaxel but results in fewer serious haematological adverse events; however, it is difficult to compare the results of BR21 with those of the docetaxel trials or with current UK clinical practice because, for example, the BR21 patient population is younger than that expected to present in UK clinical practice and almost half of the BR21 participants received erlotinib as third-line chemotherapy, with third-line chemotherapy being rare in the UK. The manufacturer’s submission included a three-state model comparing erlotinib with docetaxel, reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of –£1764 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for erlotinib compared with docetaxel. Rerunning the manufacturer’s economic model with varied parameters and assumptions increases the ICER to in excess of £52,000 per QALY gained. There is still a large amount of unquantifiable uncertainty in the model and it is unlikely that erlotinib could be considered to be cost-effective compared with docetaxel at a willingness to pay of £30,000 and there may even be the potential for docetaxel to dominate erlotinib. Because of the limitations of the indirect analysis undertaken by the manufacturer and the subsequent economic modelling exercise there is a need for a head-to-head trial comparing erlotinib with docetaxel. The guidance issued by NICE in February 2007 as a result of the STA states that erlotinib is not recommended for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III/IV follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III/IV follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (FNHL) based upon the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The manufacturer’s scope restricts the intervention to rituximab in combination with CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisolone) (R-CVP); the only comparator used was CVP alone. The evidence from the one included randomised controlled trial (RCT) suggests that the addition of rituximab to a CVP chemotherapy regimen has a positive effect on the outcomes of time to treatment failure, disease progression, overall tumour response, duration of response and time to new lymphoma treatment in patients with stage III/IV FNHL compared with CVP alone. Adverse events were comparable between the two arms. This study was confirmed as the only relevant RCT. The economic analyses provided by the manufacturer were modelled using a three-state Markov model with with the health states being defined as progression-free survival (PFS), progressed (in which patients have relapsed) and death (which is an absorbing state). The model generated results for a cohort of patients with an initial age of 53 and makes no distinction between men and women. The model is basic in design, with several serious design flaws and key parameter values that are probably incompatible. Attempting to rectify the identified errors and limitations of the model did not increase the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) above £30,000. Although the cost-effectiveness results obtained appear to be compelling in support of R-CVP compared with CVP for the trial population the results may not be so convincing for a more representative population. The results of the ERG analysis on the impact of age suggest that ICERs increase steadily with age, as the proportion of PFS that can be converted to overall survival (OS) is diminished by rising mortality rates in the general population. For the most extreme scenario (no OS gain) the ICER appears to remain below £30,000 per QALY gained. On balance the evidence indicates that R-CVP is more cost-effective than CVP. The guidance issued by NICE in July 2006 as a result of the STA states that rituximab within its licensed indication (in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisolone) is recommended as an option for the treatment of symptomatic stage III/IV follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in previously untreated patients.

Deferasirox for the treatment of iron overload associated with regular blood transfusions (transfusional haemosiderosis) in patients suffering with chronic anaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of deferasirox for the treatment of iron overload associated with regular blood transfusions in patients with chronic anaemia such as beta-thalassaemia major (beta-TM) and sickle cell disease (SCD).

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched up to March 2007.

REVIEW METHODS

Methods followed accepted procedures for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and economic evaluations.

RESULTS

A total of 14 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a study population of 1480 (ranging from 13 to 586) met the inclusion criteria. There was a high degree of heterogeneity between trials in terms of trial design and outcome reporting. As such it was only possible to meta-analyse serum ferritin data from six trials making comparisons between deferiprone and DFO and combination therapy and DFO. Only one of the results was statistically significant, favouring combination therapy over DFO alone for serum ferritin at 12 months. How this translates into iron loading in organs such as the heart is unclear, nor was it possible to determine the long-term benefits of chelation therapy. Eight full economic evaluations (one full paper; seven abstracts) were included in the review. The results were generally consistent and appear to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of deferasirox compared with DFO for the treatment of iron overload in a number of different patient populations and study locations. However, a number of assumptions and, in the case of the long-term studies, extrapolation from short-term RCT data were required, which render the results highly speculative at best. Because of the paucity of long-term data we developed a simple, short-term (1 year) model to assess the costs and benefits of deferasirox, deferiprone and DFO in patients with beta-TM and SCD from an NHS perspective. A number of assumptions were required to generate results and, as such, they should be interpreted as indicative rather than factual. Our model suggests that deferasirox may be a cost-effective strategy compared with DFO, at a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) below 30,000 pounds per year, for patients with beta-TM and SCD. However, this is highly dependent upon the age of the patient and the use and benefits of balloon infusers to administer DFO. Deferasirox compared with deferiprone is likely to be cost-effective only for young children. Furthermore, if deferiprone is proven to offer the same health benefits as deferasirox, the latter will not be cost-effective for any patient compared with deferiprone.

CONCLUSIONS

In the short term there is little clinical difference between any of the three chelators in terms of removing iron from the blood and liver. Deferasirox may be cost-effective compared with DFO in patients with beta-TM and SCD, but it is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with deferiprone. Elucidating the long-term benefits of chelation therapy, including issues of adverse events and adherence, should be the primary focus for future research. Future work should aim for consistency and transparency in reporting study design and results to aid decision-making when making comparisons across trials.

Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

DATA SOURCES

Major electronic databases were searched up to November 2005. Unpublished evidence such as conference abstracts, reviews of published economic evaluations, and company submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) were also reviewed.

REVIEW METHODS

The assessment was conducted according to accepted procedures for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and economic evaluations. Full economic evaluations that compared two or more options for treatment and considered both costs and consequences were eligible for inclusion in the economic literature review.

RESULTS

Nine placebo controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the review of clinical effects. These included two studies of adalimumab, five of etanercept and two of infliximab in comparison with placebo (along with conventional management). No RCTs directly comparing anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) agents were identified. Meta-analyses were conducted for data on Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) (20, 50 and 70% improvement), mean change in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and mean change in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) at 12 weeks following initiation of anti-TNF-alpha therapy or placebo for all three drugs. Meta-analyses were also conducted at 24 weeks for etanercept and infliximab. Each meta-analysis of anti-TNF-alpha therapy demonstrated statistically significant advantages over placebo, although there was no significant difference between individual anti-TNF-alpha agents. At 12 weeks, ASAS 50% responses were 3.6-fold more likely with anti-TNF-alpha treatment than placebo. Compared with baseline, BASDAI scores were reduced by close to 2 points at 12 weeks. Functional scores (BASFI) were reduced at 12 weeks. Six full economic evaluations (two peer-reviewed published papers, four abstracts) were included in the review. The conclusions among economic evaluations were mixed, although the balance of evidence indicates that over short time-frames anti-TNF-alpha therapies are unlikely to be considered cost-effective. The limitations of the clinical outcome data impose restrictions on the economic assessment of cost-effectiveness. Direct unbiased RCT evidence is only available in the short term. Current assessment tools are limited and at present BASDAI and BASFI are the best available, although not designed for, or ideal for, use in economic evaluations. The review of the three models submitted to NICE identified a number of inherent flaws and errors. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of etanercept and adalimumab were roughly similar, falling below an assumed willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 pounds. The ICER for infliximab was in the range of 40,000-50,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The short-term (12-month) model developed by this report's authors confirmed the large front-loading of costs with a result that none of the three anti-TNF-alpha agents appears cost-effective at the current acceptable threshold, with infliximab yielding much poorer economic results (57,000-120,000 pounds per QALY). The assumptions of the short-term model were used to explore the cost-effectiveness of the use of anti-TNF-alpha agents in the long term. This model is far more speculative than the first since trends and parameter values must be projected far beyond the available evidence. Sensitivity analyses reveal wide variations in estimates of cost over the long term although it is considered unlikely that costs will decrease over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The review of clinical data related to the three drugs (including conventional treatment) compared with conventional treatment plus placebo indicates that in the short term (12-24 weeks), the three treatments are clinically effective in relation to assessment of ASAS, BASDAI and BASFI. Indirect comparisons of treatments were limited and did not show a significant difference in effectiveness between the three agents. The short-term economic assessment indicates that none of the three anti-TNF-alpha agents is likely to be considered cost-effective at current acceptability thresholds, with infliximab consistently the least favourable option. There is an absence of evidence concerning a number of limiting factors related to patients suffering from AS, the disease itself and its treatment. In order to obtain robust estimates of the longer term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF-alpha agents for AS, clinical trials that aim to address these limiting factors need to be conducted.

Pemetrexed disodium for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed disodium in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of unresectable pleural mesothelioma in chemotherapy-naive patients.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched up to May 2005.

REVIEW METHODS

The systematic review was conducted following accepted guidelines. An assessment of the economic submission received from the manufacturer of pemetrexed was also carried out. This comprised two sections, each employing an economic model. One of these models was then reformulated in order to carry out a separate exploration of economic performance.

RESULTS

One randomised controlled trial comparing pemetrexed and cisplatin with cisplatin alone, and involving a total study population of 448 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin in this trial showed a 2.8-month gain in median survival compared with cisplatin alone in an intention-to-treat (ITT) population (12.1 and 9.3 months, respectively, p = 0.020, hazard ratio of 0.77). During the trial, increased reporting of severe toxicity in the pemetrexed arm led to a change in the protocol to add folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation to therapy. For fully supplemented patients (n = 331) the hazard ratio for median survival in favour of pemetrexed plus cisplatin was also comparable (0.75), but of borderline significance between treatment arms (p = 0.051). The trial inclusion criteria restricted recruitment to those with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or greater (equivalent to ECOG/WHO 0 or 1 scales more widely used in the UK). Quality of life scores using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale demonstrated significantly greater improvement for pain and dyspnoea for patients in the combination group compared with those in the cisplatin group. In the ITT population, the incidence of serious toxicities with pemetrexed plus cisplatin was higher compared with cisplatin alone. However, the grade 3/4 toxicities of the combination arm, particularly leucopenia, neutropenia and diarrhoea, were found to be greatly improved by the addition of vitamin B12 and folic acid. The existing published economic literature was very limited. The economic evaluation conducted by the study (and that submitted by the manufacturer) suggested that pemetrexed is unlikely to be considered cost-effective at conventionally accepted thresholds in the UK for all patients, mainly because of the high cost of pemetrexed itself compared with cisplatin. These findings were better for some patient subgroups, e.g. especially for fully supplemented (FS) patients with good performance status (0/1) and advanced disease (AD). These findings seem robust. The estimated cost-effectiveness results were for the FS population, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained = pound59,600; for the FS with AD population, ICER per QALY = pound47,600; for the FS with performance status 0/1 population, ICER per QALY = pound49,800; and for the FS with performance status 0/1 and AD population, ICER per QALY = pound36,700.

CONCLUSIONS

The new therapy examined in this document demonstrates an extension of life expectancy and palliation, as measured by time to progression of disease and other end-points. However, the absolute benefit obtained is small, and it needs to be weighed against the benefits of effective palliative care services. The limited benefit was also at the expense of considerable toxicity to patients. The economic evaluation conducted in this study and that of the manufacturers suggest that pemetrexed is not cost-effective at conventional thresholds for all patients. Cost-effectiveness seems better for some patient subgroups, e.g. especially for patients with good performance status and with advanced diseases, where it is estimated the ICER per QALY would be pound36,700. Given the relatively small number of patients with mesothelioma, albeit increasing, the overall budget impact of pemetrexed would be unlikely to be more than pound5 million per year at present costs. Much more research is needed into the optimum chemotherapy for patients with mesothelioma and a clear definition of what constitutes best supportive care.

Pemetrexed disodium in combination with cisplatin versus other cytotoxic agents or supportive care for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive malignancy whose incidence is expected to increase in the United Kingdom, Western Europe, and Australia over the next 20 years as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos fibres. Surgery is feasible in only a small proportion of cases, and radiotherapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy are used in palliation. Pemetrexed is the first and only chemotherapy agent that has been granted a marketing approval for use in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of chemo-naïve patients with unresectable MPM.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence on the clinical effectiveness of pemetrexed disodium used in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma in chemotherapy naïve patients compared with other cytotoxic agents used alone or in combination, or supportive care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CENTRAL (Issue 2, 2005), EMBASE (1980-2005), MEDLINE (1980-2005), HTA database (1990-2005), Web of Knowledge (1990-2005) and handsearching (including reference lists of retrieved articles and the pharmaceutical company submission to to NICE), up to October 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) where the use of pemetrexed disodium in combination with cisplatin is compared with other cytotoxic agents, or supportive care for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (or non-RCTs, in the absence of RCT data ).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Outcomes included overall survival, tumour response, progression-free survival, toxicity and quality of life. Data extraction and quality assessment of included trials was completed independently. Trial data and quality assessment were tabulated and presented narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

One RCT involving 448 patients and comparing pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone for the treatment of unresectable malignant mesothelioma was included in the review. In the intention-to-treat study population, the median survival was statistically significantly longer in the combination arm of pemetrexed plus cisplatin when compared with the cisplatin alone arm. (12.1 and 9.3 months, respectively, p=0.002). The incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities was higher in the combination arm compared with the cisplatin alone arm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pemetrexed disodium in combination with cisplatin and with folic acid and vitamin B(12 )supplementation may improve survival when used in combination with cisplatin in good performance status patients. Further studies including patients with poor performance status are needed in order to generalise the treatment findings. Further studies are also needed into the optimum chemotherapy, and a clear definition of what constitutes best supportive care.

Comparison of conference abstracts and presentations with full-text articles in the health technology assessments of rapidly evolving technologies

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent of use of data from conference abstracts and presentations in health technology assessments (HTAs) provided as part of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) appraisal process. Also to assess the methodological quality of trials from conference abstracts and presentations, the consistency of reporting major outcomes between these sources and subsequent full-length publications, the effect of inclusion or exclusion of data from these sources on the meta-analysis pooled effect estimates, and the timeliness of availability of data from these sources and full articles in relation to the development of technology assessment reviews (TARs).

DATA SOURCES

A survey of seven TAR groups. An audit of published TARs: included all NICE TARs published between January 2000 and October 2004. Case studies of selected TARs.

REVIEW METHODS

Analyses of the results of the survey and audit were presented as a descriptive summary and in a tabular format. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to compare the effect of inclusion of data from abstracts and presentations on the meta-analysis pooled effect estimates by including data from both abstracts/presentations and full papers, and data from only full publications, included in the original TAR. These analyses were then compared with meta-analysis of data from trials that have subsequently been published in full.

RESULTS

All seven TAR groups completed and returned the survey. Five out of seven groups reported a general policy that included searching for and including studies available as conference abstracts/presentations. Five groups responded that if they included data from these sources they would carry out methodological quality assessment of studies from these sources using the same assessment tools as for full publications, and manage the data from these sources in the same way as fully published reports. All groups reported that if relevant outcome data were reported in both an abstract/presentation and a full publication, they would only consider the data in the full publication. Conversely, if data were only available in conference abstract/presentation, all but two groups reported that they would extract and use the data from the abstract/presentation. In total, 63 HTA reports for NICE were identified. In 20 of 63 TARs (32%) explicit statements were made with regards to inclusion and assessment of data from abstracts/presentations. Thirty-eight (60%) identified at least one randomised controlled trial (RCT) available as a conference abstract or presentation. Of these, 26 (68%) included trials available as abstracts/presentations. About 80% (20/26) of the 26 TARs that included RCTs in abstract/presentation form carried out an assessment of the methodological quality of such trials. In 16 TARs full reports of these trials were used for quality assessment where both abstracts/presentations and subsequent full publications were available. Twenty-three of 63 TARs (37%) carried out a quantitative analysis of results. Of these, ten (43%) included trials that were available as abstracts/presentations in the review; however, only 60% (6/10) of these included data from abstracts/presentations in the data analysis of results. Thirteen TARs evaluated rapidly evolving technologies and only three of these identified and included trial data from conference abstracts/presentations and carried out a quantitative analysis where abstract/presentation data were used. These three TARs were used as case studies. In all three case studies the overall quality of reporting in abstracts/presentations was generally poor. In all case studies abstracts and presentations failed to describe the method of randomisation or allocation concealment. Overall, there was no mention of blinding in 66% (25/38) of the abstracts and in 26% (7/27) of the presentations included in case studies, and one presentation (4%) explicitly stated use of intention-to-treat analysis. Results from one case study demonstrated discrepancies in data made available in abstracts or online conference presentations. Not only were discrepancies evident between these sources, but also comparison of conference abstracts/presentations with subsequently published full-length articles demonstrates data discrepancies in reporting of results. Sensitivity analyses based on one case study indicated a change in significance of effect in two outcome measures when only full papers published to date were included.

CONCLUSIONS

There are variations in policy and practice across TAR groups regarding searching for and inclusion of studies available as conference abstracts/presentations. There is also variation in the level of detail reported in TARs regarding the use of abstracts/presentations. Therefore, TAR teams should be encouraged to state explicitly their search strategies for identifying conference abstracts and presentations, their methods for assessing these for inclusion, and where appropriate how the data were used and their effect on the results. Comprehensive searching for trials available as conference abstracts/presentations is time consuming and may be of questionable value. However, there may be a case for searching for and including abstract/presentation data if, for example, other sources of data are limited. If conference abstracts/presentations are to be included, the TAR teams need to allocate additional time for searching and managing data from these sources. Incomplete reporting in conference abstracts and presentations limits the ability of reviewers to assess confidently the methodological quality of trials. Where conference abstracts and presentations are considered for inclusion in the review, the TAR teams should increase their efforts to obtain further study details by contacting trialists. Where abstract/presentation data are included, reviewers should discuss the effect of including data from these sources. Any data discrepancies identified across sources in TARs should be highlighted and their impact discussed in the review. In addition, there is a need to carry out, for example, a sensitivity analysis with and without abstract/presentation data in the analysis. There is a need for research into the development of search strategies specific to identification of studies available as conference abstracts and presentations in TARs. Such strategies may include guidance with regard to identification of relevant electronic databases and appropriate conference sites relevant to certain clinical areas. As there are limited case studies included in this report, analyses should be repeated as more TARs accrue, or include the work of other international HTA groups.

Comparative efficacy of thrombolytics in acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The comparative clinical effectiveness of new (reteplase, tenecteplase) vs. older (alteplase, streptokinase) thrombolytic agents in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction is uncertain.

AIM

To examine 30-35 day mortality and major adverse effects of thrombolytic agents in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction.

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical efficacy of included drug regimens.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index/Web of Science from 1980 to December 2001, and the Cochrane Library (2001, Issue 4). Reference lists of included studies and a number of medical journals were hand searched. Randomized controlled trials that compared any two of the included drugs provided to patients in the early stages of acute myocardial infarction, were included. Outcome measures included: mortality, bleeding, stroke, reinfarction, allergy and anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

We found 14 studies, total study population 142 907. For available comparisons (all alteplase vs. streptokinase, reteplase vs. streptokinase or alteplase, tenecteplase vs. alteplase), meta-analysis showed no significant differences in mortality at 30-35 days. The GUSTO-I study showed an apparent benefit of accelerated alteplase over streptokinase, but its inclusion or exclusion made little difference. Total stroke and haemorrhagic stroke rates were lower for streptokinase than for all alteplase combined (total stroke, OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.13-1.46; haemorrhagic stroke OR 1.83, 95%CI 1.14-2.93).

DISCUSSION

All thrombolytic drugs appear to be of similar efficacy in reducing mortality, and the apparent benefits of accelerated alteplase in GUSTO-I are consistent with this. Whether accelerated alteplase is sufficiently different from other regimens of administering alteplase to be excluded from a meta-analysis, and whether more weight should be placed on a meta-analysis than on a single trial, are matters for debate.