Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of MRI-based technologies for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies are non-invasive diagnostic tests that can be used to assess non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Objectives: The study objectives were to assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of two magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies (LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography) for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for whom advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis had not been diagnosed and who had indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, or for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse was unsuitable, or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing. Data sources: The data sources searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using established methods. Diagnostic test accuracy estimates were calculated using bivariate models and a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated using a hierarchical model. A simple decision-tree model was developed to generate cost-effectiveness results. Results: The diagnostic test accuracy review (13 studies) and the clinical impact review (11 studies) only included one study that provided evidence for patients who had indeterminate or discordant results from fibrosis testing. No studies of patients for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse were unsuitable were identified. Depending on fibrosis level, relevant published LiverMultiScan diagnostic test accuracy results ranged from 50% to 88% (sensitivity) and from 42% to 75% (specificity). No magnetic resonance elastography diagnostic test accuracy data were available for the specific population of interest. Results from the clinical impact review suggested that acceptability of LiverMultiScan was generally positive. To explore how the decision to proceed to biopsy is influenced by magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies, the External Assessment Group presented cost-effectiveness analyses for LiverMultiScan plus biopsy versus biopsy only. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained results for seven of the eight diagnostic test strategies considered showed that LiverMultiScan plus biopsy was dominated by biopsy only; for the remaining strategy (Brunt grade ≥2), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained was £1,266,511. Results from threshold and scenario analyses demonstrated that External Assessment Group base-case results were robust to plausible variations in the magnitude of key parameters. Limitations: Diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness data for magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies for the population that is the focus of this assessment were limited. Conclusions: Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies may be useful to identify patients who may benefit from additional testing in the form of liver biopsy and those for whom this additional testing may not be necessary. However, there is a paucity of diagnostic test accuracy and clinical impact data for patients who have indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse are unsuitable or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing. Given the External Assessment Group cost-effectiveness analyses assumptions, the use of LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography for assessing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for patients with inconclusive results from previous fibrosis testing is unlikely to be a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources compared with liver biopsy only. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021286891. Funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Evidence Synthesis Programme of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease includes a range of conditions that are caused by a build-up of fat in the liver, and not by alcohol consumption. This build-up of fat can cause inflammation. Persistent inflammation can cause scar tissue (fibrosis) to develop. It is important to identify patients with fibrosis because severe fibrosis can cause permanent liver damage (cirrhosis), which can lead to liver failure and liver cancer. In the National Health Service, patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease undergo tests to determine whether they have fibrosis. The test results are not always accurate and multiple tests can give conflicting results. Some of the tests may not be suitable for patients who have a very high body mass index. In the National Health Service, a liver biopsy may be offered to patients with inconclusive or conflicting test results or to those patients for whom other tests are unsuitable. However, liver biopsy is expensive, and is associated with side-effects such as pain and bleeding. Magnetic resonance imaging-based testing could be used as an extra test to help clinicians assess non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and identify patients who may need a liver biopsy. We assessed two magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnostic tests, LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography. LiverMultiScan is imaging software that is used alongside magnetic resonance imaging to measure markers of liver disease. Magnetic resonance elastography is used in some National Health Service centres to assess liver fibrosis; however, magnetic resonance elastography requires more equipment than just an magnetic resonance imaging scanner. We reviewed all studies examining how well LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography assess patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. We also built an economic model to estimate the costs and benefits of using LiverMultiScan to identify patients who should be sent for a biopsy. Results from the model showed that LiverMultiScan may not provide good value for money to the National Health Service.

Onasemnogene Abeparvovec for Treating Pre-symptomatic Spinal Muscular Atrophy: An External Assessment Group Perspective of the Partial Review of NICE Highly Specialised Technology Evaluation 15.

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) highly specialised technology (HST) evaluation programme, Novartis submitted evidence to support the use of onasemnogene abeparvovec as a treatment option for patients with pre-symptomatic 5q spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with a bi-allelic mutation in the survival of motor neuron (SMN) 1 gene and up to three copies of the SMN2 gene. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the External Assessment Group (EAG). This article summarises the EAG's review of the evidence submitted by the company and provides an overview of the NICE Evaluation Committee's final decision, published in April 2023. The primary source of evidence for this evaluation was the SPR1NT trial, a single-arm trial including 29 babies. The EAG and committee considered that the SPR1NT trial results suggested that onasemnogene abeparvovec is effective in treating pre-symptomatic SMA; however, long-term efficacy data were unavailable and efficacy in babies aged over 6 weeks remained uncertain. Cost-effectiveness analyses conducted by the company and the EAG (using a discounted price for onasemnogene abeparvovec) explored various assumptions; all analyses generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) that were less than £100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The committee recommended onasemnogene abeparvovec as an option for treating pre-symptomatic 5q SMA with a bi-allelic mutation in the SMN1 gene and up to three copies of the SMN2 gene in babies aged ≤ 12 months only if the company provides it according to the commercial arrangement (i.e. simple discount patient access scheme).

Pegcetacoplan for Treating Paroxysmal Nocturnal Haemoglobinuria: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Apellis Pharmaceuticals/Sobi to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of pegcetacoplan versus eculizumab and pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab for treating paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria (PNH) in adults whose anaemia is uncontrolled after treatment with a C5 inhibitor. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). The company pursued a low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) Fast Track Appraisal (FTA). This was a form of STA processed in a shorter time frame and designed for technologies with company base-case ICER < £10,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and most plausible ICER < £20,000 per QALY gained. This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission, and the NICE Appraisal Committee's (AC's) final decision. The company presented clinical evidence from the PEGASUS trial that assessed the efficacy of pegcetacoplan versus eculizumab. At Week 16, patients in the pegcetacoplan arm had statistically significantly greater change from baseline in haemoglobin levels and a higher rate of transfusion avoidance than patients in the eculizumab arm. Using the PEGASUS trial and Study 302 data (a non-inferiority trial that assessed ravulizumab versus eculizumab), the company conducted an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to indirectly estimate the efficacy of pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab. The company identified key differences between trial designs and populations that could not be adjusted for using anchored MAIC methods. The company and ERG agreed that the anchored MAIC results were not robust and should not inform decision making. In the absence of robust indirect estimates, the company assumed that ravulizumab had equivalent efficacy to eculizumab in the PEGASUS trial population. Results from the company base-case cost-effectiveness analysis showed that treatment with pegcetacoplan dominated eculizumab and ravulizumab. The ERG considered that the long-term effectiveness of pegcetacoplan was uncertain and ran a scenario assuming that after 1 year the efficacy of pegcetacoplan would be the same as eculizumab; treatment with pegcetacoplan continued to dominate eculizumab and ravulizumab. The AC noted that treatment with pegcetacoplan had lower total costs than treatment with eculizumab or ravulizumab because it is self-administered and reduces the need for blood transfusions. If the assumption that ravulizumab has equivalent efficacy to eculizumab does not hold, then this will affect the estimate of the cost effectiveness of pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab; however, the AC was satisfied that the assumption was reasonable. The AC recommended pegcetacoplan as an option for the treatment of PNH in adults who have uncontrolled anaemia despite treatment with a stable dose of a C5 inhibitor for ≥ 3 months. Pegcetacoplan was the first technology recommended by NICE via the low ICER FTA process.

Trastuzumab Deruxtecan for Treating HER2-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Breast Cancer After Two or More Anti-HER2 Therapies: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides guidance to improve health and social care in England and Wales. NICE invited Daiichi Sankyo to submit evidence for the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for treating human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer (UBC/MBC) after two or more anti-HER2 therapies, in accordance with NICE's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, part of the University of Liverpool, was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the evidence submitted by the company and provides an overview of the NICE Appraisal Committee's (AC's) final decision made in May 2021. Results from the company's base-case fully incremental analysis showed that, compared with T-DXd, eribulin and vinorelbine were dominated and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained versus capecitabine was £47,230. The ERG scenario analyses generated a range of ICERs, with the highest being a scenario relating to a comparison of T-DXd versus capecitabine (£78,142 per QALY gained). The ERG considered that due to a lack of appropriate clinical effectiveness evidence, the relative effectiveness of T-DXd versus any comparator treatment could not be determined with any degree of certainty. The NICE AC agreed that the modelling of overall survival was highly uncertain and concluded that treatment with T-DXd could not be recommended for routine use within the National Health Service (NHS). T-DXd was, however, recommended for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund, provided Managed Access Agreement conditions were followed.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain in England From 2010 to 2020: A Hospital Episode Statistics Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recognized intervention for the management of chronic neuropathic pain. The United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Care Excellence has recommended SCS as a management option for chronic neuropathic pain since 2008. The aim of this study is to undertake an assessment of SCS uptake across the National Health Service in England up to 2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics were obtained for patients with neuropathic pain potentially eligible for SCS and patients receiving an SCS-related procedure. Data were retrieved nationally and per region from the years 2010-2011 to 2019-2020. RESULTS: There were 50,288 adults in England attending secondary care with neuropathic pain in 2010-2011, increasing to 66,376 in 2019-2020. The number of patients with neuropathic pain with an SCS procedure increased on a year-to-year basis until 2018-2019. However, less than 1% of people with neuropathic pain received an SCS device with no evidence of an increase over time when considering the background increase in neuropathic pain prevalence. CONCLUSION: Only a small proportion of patients in England with neuropathic pain potentially eligible for SCS receives this intervention. The recommendation for routine use of SCS for management of neuropathic pain has not resulted in an uptake of SCS over the last decade.

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin Have Clinical Utility (TRIAL-STIM)? 36-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening trials before full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation device are recommended by clinical guidelines and regulators, although there is limited evidence for their use. The TRIAL-STIM study showed that a screening trial strategy does not provide superior patient pain outcome at 6-month follow-up compared with not doing a screening trial and that it was not cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To report the long-term follow-up results of the TRIAL-STIM study. METHODS: The primary outcome of this pragmatic randomized controlled trial was pain intensity as measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS) and secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months, health-related quality of life, and complication rates. RESULTS: Thirty patients allocated to the "Trial Group" (TG) and 36 patients allocated to the "No Trial Group" (NTG) completed outcome assessment at 36-month follow-up. Although there was a reduction in NRS pain and improvements in utility scores from baseline to 36 months in both groups, there was no difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity NRS between TG and NTG (adjusted mean difference: -0.60, 95% CI: -1.83 to 0.63), EuroQol-5 Dimension utility values (adjusted mean difference: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.10), or proportion of pain responders (33% TG vs 31% NTG). No differences were observed between the groups for the likelihood of spinal cord stimulation device explant or reporting an adverse advent up to 36-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The long-term results show no patient outcome benefit in undertaking an SCS screening trial.

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain in England-A budget impact analysis.

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) prior to full implantation of a device are recommended by expert guidelines and international regulators. The current study sought to estimate the budget impact of a screening trial of SCS and the costs or savings of discontinuing the use of a screening trial. A budget impact analysis was performed considering a study population that reflects the size and characteristics of a patient population with neuropathic pain in England eligible for SCS. The perspective adopted was that of the NHS with a 5-year time horizon. The base case analysis indicate that a no screening trial strategy would result in cost-savings to the NHS England of £400,000-£500,000 per year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate different scenarios. If ≥5% of the eligible neuropathic pain population received a SCS device, cost-savings would be >£2.5 million/year. In contrast, at the lowest assumed cost of a screening trial (£1,950/patient), a screening trial prior to SCS implantation would be cost-saving. The proportion of patients having an unsuccessful screening trial would have to be ≥14.4% for current practice of a screening trial to be cost-saving. The findings from this budget impact analysis support the results of a recent UK multicenter randomized controlled trial (TRIAL-STIM) of a policy for the discontinuation of compulsory SCS screening trials, namely that such a policy would result in considerable cost-savings to healthcare systems.

Encorafenib with Binimetinib for the Treatment of Patients with BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Pierre Fabre to submit evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with binimetinib (Enco + Bini) versus dabrafenib with trametinib (Dab + Tram) as a first-line treatment for advanced (unresectable or metastatic) BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission (CS), and the Appraisal Committee's (AC's) final decision. The main clinical evidence in the CS was derived from the COLUMBUS trial and focused on the efficacy of Enco + Bini (encorafenib 450 mg per day plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily) compared to vemurafenib. The company conducted network meta-analyses (NMAs) to indirectly estimate the relative effects of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for Enco + Bini versus Dab + Tram. None of the results from the NMAs demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the treatment regimens for any outcomes. The ERG advised caution when interpreting the results from the company's NMAs due to limitations relating to the methods. The ERG considered that use of the OS and PFS hazard ratios (HRs) generated by the company's NMAs to model the relative effectiveness of Enco + Bini versus Dab + Tram in the company model was inappropriate as these estimates were not statistically significantly different. The ERG amended the company's economic model to include estimates of equivalent efficacy, safety and HRQoL for Enco + Bini and Dab + Tram. The ERG considered use of different estimates of relative dose intensity to be inappropriate and used the same estimate for both drug combinations. The ERG also concluded that as only the prices of drug combinations were different, a cost comparison was an appropriate method of economic analysis. Using this approach (combined with confidential discounted drug prices for Enco + Bini and Dab + Tram), treatment with Enco + Bini was more cost effective than treatment with Dab + Tram. The AC raised concerns that an absence of evidence of a difference in outcomes between Enco + Bini and Dab + Tram did not constitute evidence of absence. However, as the numerical differences in outcomes generated by the company's networks were small, the AC did not have a preferred approach and considered that both the company's and the ERG's methods of incorporating outcome estimates into the economic model were suitable for decision making. The NICE AC recommended Enco + Bini as a first-line treatment for unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation.

To Trial or Not to Trial Before Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: The Patients' View From the TRIAL-STIM Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objectives Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Although a temporary SCS screening trial is widely used to determine suitability for a permanent implant, its evidence base is limited. The recent TRIAL-STIM study (a randomized controlled trial at three centers in the United Kingdom) found no evidence that an SCS screening trial strategy provides superior patient outcomes as compared with a no trial approach. As part of the TRIAL-STIM study, we undertook a nested qualitative study to ascertain patients' preferences in relation to undergoing a screening trial or not. Materials and Methods We interviewed 31 patients sampled from all three centers and both study arms (screening trial/no trial) prior to SCS implantation, and 23 of these patients again following implantation (eight patients were lost to follow-up). Interviews were undertaken by telephone and audio-recorded, then transcripts were subject to thematic analysis. In addition, participants were asked to state their overall preference for a one-stage (no screening trial) versus two-stage (screening trial) implant procedure on a five-point Likert scale, before and after implantation. Results Emergent themes favoured the option for a one-stage SCS procedure. Themes identified include: saving time (off work, in hospital, attending appointments), avoiding the worry about having "loose wires" in the two-stage procedure, having only one period of recovery, and saving NHS resources. Participants' rated preferences show similar support for a one-stage procedure without a screening trial. Conclusions Our findings indicate an overwhelming preference among participants for a one-stage SCS procedure both before and after the implant, regardless of which procedure they had undergone. The qualitative study findings further support the TRIAL-STIM RCT results.

A systematic review of health state utility values for thyroid cancer.

PURPOSE: Health state utility values are commonly used to inform economic evaluations and determine the cost-effectiveness of an intervention. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the utility values available to represent the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with thyroid cancer. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched from January 1999 to April 2019 for studies which included assessment of HRQoL for patients with thyroid cancer. Utility estimates derived from multiple sources (EuroQol questionnaire 5-dimension (EQ-5D), time trade-off [TTO] and standard gamble [SG] methods) were extracted. In addition, utility estimates were generated by mapping from SF-36 and EORTC QLQ-30 to the EQ-5D-3L UK value set using published mapping algorithms. RESULTS: Searches identified 33 eligible studies. Twenty-six studies reported HRQoL for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer and seven studies for patients with general thyroid cancer. We identified studies which used different methods and tools to quantify the HRQoL in patients with thyroid cancer, such as the EQ-5D-3L, SF-36, EORTC QLQ-30 and SG and TTO techniques to estimate utility values. Utility estimates range from 0.205 (patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer) to utility values approximate to the average UK population (following successful thyroidectomy surgery and radioiodine treatment). Utility estimates for different health states, across thyroid cancer sub-types and interventions are presented. CONCLUSION: A catalogue of utility values is provided for use when carrying out economic modelling of thyroid cancer; by including mapped values, this approach broadens the scope of health states that can be considered within cost-effectiveness modelling.

Does a screening trial for spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic pain of neuropathic origin have clinical utility and cost-effectiveness (TRIAL-STIM)? A randomised controlled trial.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Although a temporary SCS screening trial is widely used to determine whether a patient should receive permanent SCS implant, its evidence base is limited. We aimed to establish the clinical utility, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of an SCS screening trial. A multicentre single-blind, parallel two-group randomised controlled superiority trial was undertaken at 3 centres in the United Kingdom. Patients were randomised 1:1 to either SCS screening trial strategy (TG) or no trial screening strategy (NTG). Treatment was open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome measure was numerical rating scale (NRS) pain at 6-month follow-up. Between June 2017 and September 2018, 105 participants were enrolled and randomised (TG = 54, NTG = 51). Mean numerical rating scale pain decreased from 7.47 at baseline (before SCS implantation) to 4.28 at 6 months in TG and from 7.54 to 4.49 in NTG (mean group difference: 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.2 to 0.9, P = 0.89). We found no difference between TG and NTG in the proportion of pain responders or other secondary outcomes. Spinal cord stimulation screening trial had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 78-100) and specificity of 8% (95% CI: 1-25). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of TG vs NTG was £78,895 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. In conclusion, although the SCS screening trial may have some diagnostic utility, there was no evidence that an SCS screening TG provides superior patient outcomes or is cost-effective compared to a no trial screening approach.

Brentuximab Vedotin for Treating Relapsed or Refractory CD30-Positive Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited Takeda UK Ltd to submit clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence for brentuximab vedotin (BV) for treating relapsed or refractory CD30-positive (CD30+) cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the evidence review group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's submission for BV and the appraisal committee (AC) decision. The principal clinical evidence was derived from a subgroup of patients with advanced-stage CD30+ mycosis fungoides (MF) or primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (pcALCL) in the phase III ALCANZA randomised controlled trial (RCT). This trial compared BV versus physician's choice (PC) of methotrexate or bexarotene. Evidence from three observational studies was also presented, which included patients with other CTCL subtypes. The ERG's main concerns with the clinical evidence were the lack of RCT evidence for CTCL subtypes other than MF or pcALCL, lack of robust overall survival data (data were immature and confounded by subsequent treatment and treatment crossover on disease progression) and lack of conclusive results from analyses of health-related quality-of-life data. The ERG noted that many areas of uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analysis were related to the clinical data, arising from the rarity of the condition and its subtypes and the complexity of the treatment pathway. The ERG highlighted that the inclusion of allogeneic stem-cell transplant (alloSCT) as an option in the treatment pathway was based on weak evidence and generated more uncertainty in a disease area that, because of its rarity and diversity, was already highly uncertain. The ERG also lacked confidence in the company's modelling of the post-progression pathway and was concerned that it may not produce reliable results. Results from the company's base-case comparison (including a simple discount patient access scheme [PAS] for BV) showed that treatment with BV dominated PC. The ERG's revisions and scenario analyses highlighted the high level of uncertainty around the company base-case cost-effectiveness results, ranging from BV dominating PC to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained of £494,981. The AC concluded that it was appropriate to include alloSCT in the treatment pathway even though data were limited. The AC recommended BV as an option for treating CD30+ CTCL after at least one systemic therapy in adults if they have MF, stage IIB or higher pcALCL or Sézary syndrome and if the company provides BV according to the commercial arrangement (i.e. simple discount PAS).

Lenvatinib and sorafenib for differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid cancer is a rare cancer, accounting for only 1% of all malignancies in England and Wales. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) accounts for ≈94% of all thyroid cancers. Patients with DTC often require treatment with radioactive iodine. Treatment for DTC that is refractory to radioactive iodine [radioactive iodine-refractory DTC (RR-DTC)] is often limited to best supportive care (BSC). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany) for the treatment of patients with RR-DTC. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched (date range 1999 to 10 January 2017; searched on 10 January 2017). The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. REVIEW METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, prospective observational studies and economic evaluations of lenvatinib or sorafenib. In the absence of relevant economic evaluations, we constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib with that of BSC. RESULTS: Two RCTs were identified: SELECT (Study of [E7080] LEnvatinib in 131I-refractory differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid) and DECISION (StuDy of sorafEnib in loCally advanced or metastatIc patientS with radioactive Iodine-refractory thyrOid caNcer). Lenvatinib and sorafenib were both reported to improve median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo: 18.3 months (lenvatinib) vs. 3.6 months (placebo) and 10.8 months (sorafenib) vs. 5.8 months (placebo). Patient crossover was high (≥ 75%) in both trials, confounding estimates of overall survival (OS). Using OS data adjusted for crossover, trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with lenvatinib compared with those given placebo (SELECT) but not for patients treated with sorafenib compared with those given placebo (DECISION). Both lenvatinib and sorafenib increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and dose reductions were required (for > 60% of patients). The results from nine prospective observational studies and 13 systematic reviews of lenvatinib or sorafenib were broadly comparable to those from the RCTs. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected only in DECISION. We considered the feasibility of comparing lenvatinib with sorafenib via an indirect comparison but concluded that this would not be appropriate because of differences in trial and participant characteristics, risk profiles of the participants in the placebo arms and because the proportional hazard assumption was violated for five of the six survival outcomes available from the trials. In the base-case economic analysis, using list prices only, the cost-effectiveness comparison of lenvatinib versus BSC yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £65,872, and the comparison of sorafenib versus BSC yields an ICER of £85,644 per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analyses show that none of the variations lowered the base-case ICERs to < £50,000 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: We consider that it is not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo/BSC, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib results in an improvement in PFS, objective tumour response rate and possibly OS, but dose modifications were required to treat AEs. Both treatments exhibit estimated ICERs of > £50,000 per QALY gained. Further research should include examination of the effects of lenvatinib, sorafenib and BSC (including HRQoL) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and the positioning of treatments in the treatment pathway. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055516. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM?: Differentiated thyroid cancer is a common type of thyroid cancer. For many patients, radioactive iodine is an effective treatment; however, for some patients, the treatment stops working or becomes unsafe. Two new drugs, lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany), may be new treatment options. WHAT DID WE DO?: We reviewed the clinical evidence of lenvatinib and sorafenib. We also estimated the costs and benefits of treatment. WHAT DID WE FIND?: Compared with no treatment, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib may increase the time that people live with thyroid cancer before their disease gets worse; however, both drugs are expensive and may have unpleasant side effects. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: At their published (undiscounted) prices, lenvatinib or sorafenib may not be considered to provide good value for money to the NHS.

A systematic review of lenvatinib and sorafenib for treating progressive, locally advanced or metastatic, differentiated thyroid cancer after treatment with radioactive iodine.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with radioactive iodine is effective for many patients with progressive, locally advanced or metastatic, differentiated thyroid cancer. However, some patients become refractory to treatment. These types of patients are considered to have radioactive iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). METHODS: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library from January 1999 through January 2017. Reference lists of included studies and ongoing trial registries were also searched. Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective observational studies, and systematic reviews/indirect comparisons were eligible for inclusion. In the absence of direct clinical trial evidence comparing lenvatinib versus sorafenib, we assessed the feasibility of conducting an indirect comparison to obtain estimates of the relative efficacy and safety of these two treatments. RESULTS: Of 2364 citations, in total, 93 papers reporting on 2 RCTs (primary evidence), 9 observational studies and 13 evidence reviews (supporting evidence) were identified. Compared to placebo, RCT evidence demonstrated improvements with lenvatinib or sorafenib in median progression-free survival (PFS) and objective tumour response rate (ORR). Overall survival (OS) was confounded by high treatment crossover (≥75%) in both trials. Adverse events (AEs) were more common with lenvatinib or sorafenib than with placebo but the most common AEs associated with each drug differed. Primarily due to differences in the survival risk profiles of patients in the placebo arms of the RCTs, we considered it inappropriate to indirectly compare the effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib. ORR and AE findings for lenvatinib and sorafenib from the supporting evidence were broadly in line with RCT evidence. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib and sorafenib are more efficacious than placebo (a proxy for best supportive care) for treating RR-DTC. Uncertainty surrounds the extent of the impact on OS and HRQoL. Lenvatinib could not reliably be compared with sorafenib. Choice of treatment is therefore likely to depend on an individual patient's circumstances.

What Is the Evidence from Past National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Single-Technology Appraisals Regarding Company Submissions with Base-Case Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios of Less Than £10,000/QALY?

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recently proposed that company submissions with a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than £10,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) might be eligible for a "fast-track" appraisal. OBJECTIVES: To explore outcomes relating to previously conducted single-technology appraisals (STAs) with base-case ICERs of less than £10,000/QALY. METHODS: All STAs with published guidance from 2009 to 2016 were included; those with company base-case ICERs of less than £10,000/QALY were identified and analyzed. A secondary analysis was also conducted for those with a company base-case ICER of £10,000 to £15,000/QALY. Relevant data were extracted and presented in a narrative and in tables. RESULTS: In total, 15% (26 of 171) of STAs included a company submission with a base-case ICER of less than £10,000/QALY. Of these, 73% (19 of 26) were given positive recommendations after the first Appraisal Committee (AC) meeting, whereas 27% (7 of 26) were initially given a Minded No before receiving a positive recommendation in the final appraisal determination, albeit with restricted recommendations for three technologies. Five STAs had company base-case ICERs of £10,000 to £15,000/QALY and all received a positive recommendation after the first AC meeting. CONCLUSIONS: Most previous STAs with a company base-case ICER of £10,000 or even £15,000/QALY received a positive recommendation after the first AC meeting, but a number of them proved more complicated and required detailed appraisal, which influenced the final recommendation. This finding might have implications for the proposed fast-track process of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Evaluating the use of plerixafor in stem cell mobilisation - an economic analysis of the PHANTASTIC trial.

Plerixafor is an effective haematopoietic stem cell mobilising agent in candidates for autologous transplantation, including patients with myeloma and lymphoma. Here we compare 98 plerixafor recipients in the PHANTASTIC trial with 151 historic controls mobilised by conventional chemotherapy (each with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, G-CSF). Seventy (71.4%) plerixafor-mobilised patients achieved the composite primary endpoint of ≥4 × 10(6) CD34+ cells kg(-1) in ≤2 aphereses and no clinically significant neutropenia, compared to 48 (31.8%) historic controls (P < 0.001), and this significant advantage was maintained in scenario analyses testing components of this composite endpoint. A patient-level cost analysis was undertaken for 249 patients, which included the cost of remobilising patients where initial mobilisation had failed. Combined mean treatment cost for plerixafor mobilised patients was £12,679 compared with £11,694 for historical controls. However, plerixafor produces an average saving of £3,828 per lymphoma patient but average cost increase by £5,245 per myeloma patient. The present data demonstrate cost-effectiveness for plerixafor as a first line mobilisation agent, certainly for lymphoma patients, where substantial resource savings and achievement of the primary endpoint are likely. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:434-442, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.