The Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin for the Treatment of Adult Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Pfizer, the manufacturer of inotuzumab ozogamicin (henceforth inotuzumab), to submit clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence for inotuzumab as part of NICE's single technology appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics, both at the University of York, were commissioned as the independent evidence review group (ERG). The clinical-effectiveness data were from a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared inotuzumab with standard of care (SoC), where SoC was the investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Inotuzumab demonstrated statistically significant improvements in response rates or in the proportion of patients progressing to haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) but failed to meet the second primary objective of longer overall survival. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more frequent in the SoC arm, except veno-occlusive disease, which was more frequent in the inotuzumab arm. The company's economic model split patients into three post-hoc subgroups and used a partitioned survival approach within each group, with a cure assumption 3 years after receiving HSCT. In contrast with the trial results, the economic model estimated substantial improvement in survival with inotuzumab compared with SoC, providing an additional 5.2 life-years and 2.2 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using a discount rate of 1.5% per annum. The ERG's critique highlighted a number of concerns, including the use of a post-hoc post-randomisation patient subset for extrapolation, the choice of a 1.5% discount rate, the complexity of the parametric modelling, the assumption of further treatment benefit post-HSCT, the nature of the cure assumption, and the length of inpatient stay while receiving treatment. The combination of the ERG's adjustments resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £122,174 per QALY gained using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and £114,078 per QALY gained with parametric survival models fit to the trial data. The final determination of the appraisal followed four NICE Appraisal Committee meetings, an appeal by the company and other stakeholders, two patient access schemes, and a company response to each appraisal consultation. The final ICER post-consultation was between £33,749 and £37,497 per QALY gained compared with SoC (excluding the confidential discount for blinatumomab received as subsequent therapy). The Appraisal Committee concluded that the ICER for inotuzumab was within the range usually considered cost effective for end-of-life care and recommended inotuzumab within its licensed indication.

Adjunctive colposcopy technologies for assessing suspected cervical abnormalities: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic Spectral Imaging System (DySIS)map (DySIS Medical Ltd, Edinburgh, UK) and ZedScan (Zilico Limited, Manchester, UK) can be used adjunctively with conventional colposcopy, which may improve the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cancer. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and implementation of DySISmap and ZedScan as adjuncts to standard colposcopy, and to develop a cost-effectiveness model. METHODS: Four parallel systematic reviews were performed on diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness issues, implementation and economic analyses. In January 2017 we searched databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) for studies in which DySISmap or ZedScan was used adjunctively with standard colposcopy to detect CIN or cancer in women referred to colposcopy. Risk of bias was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using bivariate and other regression models when appropriate. Other outcomes were synthesised narratively. A patient-level state-transition model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DySISmap and ZedScan under either human papillomavirus (HPV) triage or the HPV primary screening algorithm. The model included two types of clinics ['see and treat' and 'watchful waiting' (i.e. treat later after confirmatory biopsy)], as well as the reason for referral (low-grade or high-grade cytological smear). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included in the diagnostic review (nine of DySISmap and two of ZedScan), three were included in the clinical effectiveness review (two of DySISmap and one of ZedScan) and five were included in the implementation review (four of DySISmap and one of ZedScan). Adjunctive DySISmap use was found to have a higher sensitivity for detecting CIN grade 2+ (CIN 2+) lesions [81.25%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 72.2% to 87.9%] than standard colposcopy alone (57.91%, 95% CI 47.2% to 67.9%), but with a lower specificity (70.40%, 95% CI 59.4% to 79.5%) than colposcopy (87.41%, 95% CI 81.7% to 91.5%). (Confidential information has been removed.) The base-case cost-effectiveness results showed that adjunctive DySISmap routinely dominated standard colposcopy (it was less costly and more effective). The only exception was for high-grade referrals in a watchful-waiting clinic setting. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ZedScan varied between £272 and £4922 per quality-adjusted life-year. ZedScan also dominated colposcopy alone for high-grade referrals in see-and-treat clinics. These findings appeared to be robust to a wide range of sensitivity and scenario analyses. LIMITATIONS: All but one study was rated as being at a high risk of bias. There was no evidence directly comparing ZedScan with standard colposcopy. No studies directly compared DySIS and ZedScan. CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjunctive DySIS increases the sensitivity for detecting CIN 2+, so it increases the number of high-grade CIN cases that are detected. However, it also reduces specificity, so that more women with no or low-grade CIN will be incorrectly judged as possibly having high-grade CIN. The evidence for ZedScan was limited, but it appears to increase sensitivity and decrease specificity compared with colposcopy alone. The cost-effectiveness of both adjunctive technologies compared with standard colposcopy, under both the HPV triage and primary screening algorithms, appears to be favourable when compared with the conventional thresholds used to determine value in the NHS. FUTURE WORK: More diagnostic accuracy studies of ZedScan are needed, as are studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy for women referred to colposcopy as part of the HPV primary screening programme. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017054515. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Does Health Insurance Encourage the Rise in Medical Prices? A Test on Balance Billing in France.

We evaluate the causal impact of an improvement in insurance coverage on patients' decisions to consult physicians who charge more than the regulated fee. We use a French panel data set of 43,111 individuals observed from 2010 to 2012. At the beginning of the period, none of them were covered for balance billing; by the end, 3819 had switched to supplementary insurance contracts that cover balance billing. Using instrumental variables to deal with possible non-exogeneity of the decision to switch, we find evidence that better coverage increases demand for specialists who charge high fees, thereby contributing to the rise in medical prices. People whose coverage improves increased their average amount of balance billing per consultation by 32%. However, the impact of the coverage shock depends on the supply of physicians. For people residing in areas where few specialists charge the regulated fee, better coverage increases not only prices but also the number of consultations, a finding that suggests that balance billing might limit access to care. Conversely, in areas where patients have a genuine choice between specialists who balance bill and those who do not, we find no evidence of a response to better coverage. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.