Pralsetinib for RET Fusion-Positive Advanced Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Roche) of pralsetinib (Gavreto®), as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pralsetinib for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with a RET inhibitor. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with University Medical Center Groningen, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarizes the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS reported data from the ARROW trial. ARROW is a single-arm, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, multi-cohort study in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and other advanced solid tumors. The CS included both untreated and pre-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients, among other disease types. The comparators in the untreated population were pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The comparators for the pre-treated population were docetaxel monotherapy, docetaxel + nintedanib, and platinum-based chemotherapy ± pemetrexed. As no comparators were included in ARROW, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate relative effectiveness. The ERG's concerns included the immaturity of data, small sample size, and lack of comparative safety evidence. The ERG considers the clinical evidence presented to be insufficiently robust to inform the economic model. Even when all the ERG preferred assumptions were implemented in the model, uncertainty remained on a number of issues, such as the appropriateness of the hazard ratios and the methods and data used to derive them, long-term efficacy of pralsetinib, and direct evidence for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). NICE did not recommend pralsetinib within its marketing authorization for treating RET fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults who have not had a RET inhibitor before. The uncertainty of the clinical evidence and the estimates of cost effectiveness were too high to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Therefore, pralsetinib was not recommended for routine use.

Value-based health care in Western countries: a scoping review on the implementation of patient-reported-outcomes sets for hospital-based interventions.

INTRODUCTION: For implementation of the value-based health-care (VBHC) concept, use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), and clinical outcomes is crucial. The aim of this study was to summarize published studies on implemented PROMs, PREMs, and clinical-outcomes sets in health-care practice. AREAS COVERED: A scoping review was conducted by using PubMed and Embase. Our study focused on implementation examples of patient-reported outcome sets in Western countries' hospitals. Included papers were analyzed on content, in particular concerning PROMs, PREMs, and clinical outcomes. We also assessed differences between diseases, categorized as patient-reported outcomes in curative, chronic, and palliative treatments in the hospital. EXPERT OPINION: A total of 20 studies were found that presented VBHC implementation examples. Results illustrate the disconnection between the development of PROMs and PREMs and the implementation phase, with implementation still in infancy. Hospital organizations should enhance organization for the implementation of VBHC. It is crucial that leading examples of successful VBHC serve as blueprints for implementation, with the participation of all relevant stakeholders. Affordability and sustainability of health care can be enhanced by scaling up successful VBHC-interventions on population levels.

Cost-effectiveness of screening smokers and ex-smokers for lung cancer in the Netherlands in different age groups.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening smokers and ex-smokers for lung cancer in the Netherlands. METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the health effects and costs of lung cancer screening from the healthcare perspective. The effects and costs of ten screening scenarios with different start and stop ages of screening were examined across a lifetime horizon in a cohort of 100,000 smokers and ex- smokers 50 years and older. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of screening smokers and ex-smokers aged 50-60 years, 50-70 years, and 50 years and older are below the cost-effectiveness threshold of € 20,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Screening 50-60-year-old smokers and ex-smokers was the most cost-effective scenario with an ICER of € 14,094 per QALY gained. However, screening smokers and ex-smokers 50 years and older yielded the highest QALYs and resulted in an ICER of € 16,594 per QALY, which is below the threshold of € 20,000 per QALY. All screening scenarios compared to no screening resulted in CERs between the € 14,000 and € 16,000 per QALY gained. The efficiency frontier showed that screening smokers and ex-smokers in the age groups 70 years and older, 60-70 years, 60 years and older are excluded by extended dominance by no screening, screening smokers and ex-smokers aged 50-60 years and 50-70 years. CONCLUSION: This study showed that lung cancer screening is cost-effective in the Netherlands.

Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus screening, and subsequent monitoring or treatment among pregnant women in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of diagnosed chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among pregnant women in the Netherlands is 0.26%, yet many cases remain undiagnosed. HCV screening and treatment of pregnant HCV carriers could reduce the burden of disease and limit vertical transmission from mother to child. We assessed the impact of HCV screening and subsequent treatment with new direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) among pregnant women in the Netherlands. METHODS: An HCV natural history Markov transition state model was developed, to evaluate the public-health and economic impact of HCV screening and treatment. Besides all 179,000 pregnant women in the Netherlands (cohort 1), we modelled 3 further cohorts: all 79,000 first-time pregnant women (cohort 2), 33,000 pregnant migrant women (cohort 3) and 16,000 first-time pregnant migrant women (cohort 4). Each cohort was analyzed in various scenarios: i no intervention, i.e., the current practice, ii screen-and-treat, i.e., the most extensive approach involving treatment of all individuals found HCV-positive, and iii screen-and-treat/monitor, i.e., a strategy involving treatment of symptomatic (F1-F4) patients and follow-up of asymptomatic (F0) HCV carriers with subsequent treatment only at progression. RESULTS: For all cohorts, comparison between scenarios (ii) and (i) resulted in ICERs between €9,306 and €10,173 per QALY gained and 5 year budget impacts varying between €6,283,830 and €19,220,405. For all cohorts, comparison between scenarios (iii) and (i) resulted in ICERs between €1,739 and €2,749 per QALY gained and budget impacts varying between €1,468,670 and €5,607,556. For all cohorts, the ICERs (scenario iii versus ii) involved in delayed treatment of asymptomatic (F0) HCV carriers varied between €56,607 and €56,892, well above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €20,000 per QALY gained and even above a threshold of €50,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Universal screening for HCV among all pregnant women in the Netherlands is cost-effective. However, it would be reasonable to consider smaller risk groups in view of the budget impact of the intervention.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Virus Screening Strategies among Recently Arrived Migrants in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening strategies among recently arrived migrants in the Netherlands. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the health effects and costs of HCV screening from the healthcare perspective. A cohort of 50,000 recently arrived migrants was used. In this cohort, three HCV screening strategies were evaluated: (i) no screening, (ii) screening of migrants from HCV-endemic countries and (iii) screening of all migrants. RESULTS: Strategy (ii) screening of migrants from HCV-endemic countries compared to strategy (i) no screening, yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €971 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Strategy (iii) screening of all migrants compared with strategy (ii) screening of migrants from HCV-endemic countries yielded an ICER of €1005 per QALY gained. The budget impact of strategy (ii) screening of migrants from HCV-endemic countries and strategy (iii) screening of all migrants was €13,752,039 and €20,786,683, respectively. CONCLUSION: HCV screening is cost-effective. However, the budget impact may have a strong influence on decision making.