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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Evaluation of Committee on Safety of Medicines yellow card reports on oral contraceptive-drug interactions with anticonvulsants and antibiotics

1. We have searched the adverse reactions register for the years 1968-84 in an attempt to evaluate data relating to reported pregnancies in women on oral contraceptive steroids (OCS) who concurrently received either an antiepileptic drug or an antibiotic. 2. A total of 43 pregnancies were reported in women on OC therapy who concurrently received antiepileptic drugs and 63 pregnancies in women receiving antibiotics. In addition the number of prescriptions for both antiepileptics and antibiotics in England are reported for the years 1973-84.