Transporting Comparative Effectiveness Evidence Between Countries: Considerations for Health Technology Assessments.

Internal validity is often the primary concern for health technology assessment agencies when assessing comparative effectiveness evidence. However, the increasing use of real-world data from countries other than a health technology assessment agency's target population in effectiveness research has increased concerns over the external validity, or "transportability", of this evidence, and has led to a preference for local data. Methods have been developed to enable a lack of transportability to be addressed, for example by accounting for cross-country differences in disease characteristics, but their consideration in health technology assessments is limited. This may be because of limited knowledge of the methods and/or uncertainties in how best to utilise them within existing health technology assessment frameworks. This article aims to provide an introduction to transportability, including a summary of its assumptions and the methods available for identifying and adjusting for a lack of transportability, before discussing important considerations relating to their use in health technology assessment settings, including guidance on the identification of effect modifiers, guidance on the choice of target population, estimand, study sample and methods, and how evaluations of transportability can be integrated into health technology assessment submission and decision processes.

Transportability of Overall Survival Estimates From US to Canadian Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Implications for Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment.

Importance: The external validity of survival outcomes derived from clinical practice data from US patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known and is of potential importance because it may be used to support regulatory decision-making and health technology assessment outside of the US. Objective: To evaluate whether overall survival (OS) estimates for a selected group of patients with advanced NSCLC from a large US clinical practice database are transportable to Canadian patients receiving the same systemic therapies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective multicenter cohort study used transportability analysis to assess whether adjustment for pretreatment characteristics of eligible patient cohorts could reliably approximate OS estimated from US-based samples to Canadian populations. A total of 17 432 eligible adult patients who were diagnosed de novo with advanced NSCLC on or after January 1, 2011, were included in the analysis and followed up until September 30, 2020. Because data on race and ethnicity were available in the US database but not the Canadian database and because racial and ethnic distribution was likely to be similar between US and Canadian patients, these characteristics were not analyzed. Exposures: Initiation of platinum-doublet chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line systemic treatment for advanced NSCLC. Main Outcomes and Measures: OS measured from the time of initiation of the respective treatment regimen. Results: Among 17 432 eligible patients, 15 669 patients from the US and 1763 patients from Canada were included in the analysis. Of those, 11 863 patients (sample size-weighted estimates of mean [SD] age, 68.0 [9.3] years; 6606 [55.7%] male; 10 100 from the US and 1763 from Canada) were included in the subset of patients with complete data for baseline covariates. A total of 13 532 US patients received first-line chemotherapy, and 2137 received first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy. Of those, 8447 patients (62.4%) in the first-line chemotherapy group and 1653 patients (77.3%) in the first-line pembrolizumab group had complete data on baseline covariates for outcome model estimation. A total of 1476 Canadian patients who received first-line chemotherapy and 287 patients who received first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy were identified from the target population. After standardization to baseline patient covariates in the Canadian cohorts, transported OS estimates revealed a less than 5% mean absolute difference from the observed OS in the target population (0.56% over 60 months of follow-up in the first-line chemotherapy group and 4.54% over 30 months of follow-up in the first-line pembrolizumab group). Negative control analysis using a mismatched outcome model revealed a 6.64% discrepancy and an incompatible survival curve shape. The results were robust to assumptions of random missingness for baseline covariates, to unadjusted differences in baseline metastases and comorbidities, and to differences in the standard of care between the US and Canada related to administration of second-line anti-programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 immunotherapy for patients who initiated first-line chemotherapy. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study suggest that, under specific circumstances, OS estimates from US clinical practice data can be adjusted using baseline clinical characteristics to closely approximate OS in selected groups of Canadian patients with advanced NSCLC. These results may have implications for regulatory decision-making and health technology assessment in target populations outside of the US.

Application of quantitative bias analysis for unmeasured confounding in cost-effectiveness modelling.

Due to uncertainty regarding the potential impact of unmeasured confounding, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies often disregard evidence from nonrandomized studies when considering new technologies. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) methods provide a means to quantify this uncertainty but have not been widely used in the HTA setting, particularly in the context of cost-effectiveness modelling (CEM). This study demonstrated the application of an aggregate and patient-level QBA approach to quantify and adjust for unmeasured confounding in a simulated nonrandomized comparison of survival outcomes. Application of the QBA output within a CEM through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and under different scenarios of knowledge of an unmeasured confounder demonstrates the potential value of QBA in HTA.

Comparative Effectiveness of Atezolizumab, Nivolumab, and Docetaxel in Patients With Previously Treated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: Evidence regarding real-world effectiveness of therapies for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors are resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy is lacking. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab (programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitor) and nivolumab (programmed cell death 1 inhibitor) and the chemotherapy drug docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study compared patients aged 18 years or older with advanced NSCLC who initiated atezolizumab, docetaxel, or nivolumab and who had previously been exposed to platinum-based chemotherapy using nationally representative real-world data from more than 280 US cancer clinics. Patients were followed-up from May 2011 to March 2020. Data analysis was performed between April and June 2021. Comparisons of interest were between atezolizumab vs docetaxel and atezolizumab vs nivolumab. Exposures: Initiation of atezolizumab, nivolumab, or docetaxel monotherapy. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 3336 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.1 [9.49] years; 1820 [54.6%] men and 1516 [45.4%] women) were assessed in the main analysis, including 206 patients receiving atezolizumab, 500 receiving docetaxel, and 2630 receiving nivolumab. Patients receiving atezolizumab were older than those treated with docetaxel (mean age [SD], 68.3 [9.4] years vs 65.6 [9.5] years), and were more likely to have been treated in an academic setting (39 patients [18.9%]) than those receiving docetaxel (49 patients [9.8%]) and nivolumab (128 patients [4.9%]). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, atezolizumab was associated with a significantly longer OS compared with docetaxel (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97). No significant difference in OS was observed between atezolizumab and nivolumab (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.89-1.28). These findings were consistent across all patient subgroups tested, and robust to plausible deviations from random missingness for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status in real-world data (eg, the tipping point for loss of a significantly beneficial effect for atezolizumab vs docetaxel was achieved if patients in the docetaxel group missing baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status had a mean performance status of 1.43 higher than expected). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study, atezolizumab was superior to docetaxel and matched nivolumab in prolonging OS in a real-world cohort of patients with advanced NSCLC who previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.

Assessment of Alectinib vs Ceritinib in ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Phase 2 Trials and in Real-world Data.

Importance: Quantitative assessment of bias from unmeasured confounding and missing data can help evaluate uncertainty in findings from indirect comparisons using real-world data (RWD). Objective: To compare the effectiveness of alectinib vs ceritinib in terms of overall survival (OS) in patients with ALK-positive, crizotinib-refractory, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to assess the sensitivity of these findings to unmeasured confounding and missing data assumptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness research study compared patients from 2 phase 2 alectinib trials and real-world patients. Patients were monitored from June 2013 to March 2020. Comparisons of interest were between alectinib trial data vs ceritinib RWD and alectinib RWD vs ceritinib RWD. RWD treatment groups were selected from nationally representative cancer data from US cancer clinics, the majority from community centers. Participants were ALK-positive patients aged 18 years or older with advanced NSCLC, prior exposure to crizotinib, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (PS) of 0 to 2. Data analysis was performed from October 2020 to March 2021. Exposures: Initiation of alectinib or ceritinib therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was OS. Results: In total, there were 355 patients: 183 (85 men [46.4%]) in the alectinib trial, 91 (43 men [47.3%]) in the ceritinib RWD group, and 81 (38 men [46.9%]) in the alectinib RWD group. Patients in the alectinib trial were younger (mean [SD] age, 52.53 [11.18] vs 57.97 [11.71] years), more heavily pretreated (mean [SD] number of prior therapy lines, 1.95 [0.72] vs 1.47 [0.81]), and had more favorable baseline ECOG PS (ECOG PS of 0 or 1, 165 patients [90.2%] vs 37 patients [77.1%]) than those in the ceritinib RWD group. The alectinib RWD group (mean [SD] age, 58.69 [11.26] years) had more patients with favorable ECOG PS (ECOG PS of 0 or 1, 49 patients [92.4%] vs 37 patients [77.1%]) and more White patients (56 patients [72.7%] vs 53 patients [62.4%]) compared with the ceritinib group. Compared with ceritinib RWD, alectinib-exposed patients had significantly longer OS in alectinib trials (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.75; P < .001) and alectinib RWD (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29-0.63; P < .001) after adjustment for baseline confounders. For the worst-case HR estimate of 0.59, residual confounding by a hypothetical confounder associated with mortality and treatment by a risk ratio greater than 2.24 was required to reverse the findings. Conclusions were robust to plausible deviations from random missingness for missing ECOG PS and underrecorded comorbidities and central nervous system metastases in RWD. Conclusions and Relevance: Alectinib exposure was associated with longer OS compared with ceritinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, and only substantial levels of bias examined reversed the findings. These findings suggest that quantitative bias analysis can be a useful tool to address uncertainty of findings for decision-makers considering RWD.

The value of innovation: association between improvements in survival of advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and targeted and immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Significant improvements in mortality among patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the USA over the past two decades have been reported based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data. The timing of these improvements led to suggestions that they result from the introduction of new treatments; however, few studies have directly investigated this. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which population level improvements in survival of advanced and/or metastatic NSCLC (admNSCLC) patients were associated with changes in treatment patterns. METHODS: We utilized a de-identified database to select three cohorts of patients with admNSCLC: (1) patients with non-oncogene (EGFR/ALK/ROS1/BRAF) positive tumors, (2) patients with ALK-positive (ALK+) tumors, and (3) patients with EGFR-positive (EGFR+) tumors. All patients were diagnosed with admNSCLC between 2012 and 2019. Multivariable Cox models adjusting for baseline characteristics and receipt of targeted and immunotherapy were utilized to explore the relationship between these variables and changes in the hazard of death by calendar year in each cohort. RESULTS: We included 28,154 admNSCLC patients with non-oncogene positive tumors, 598 with ALK+ tumors, and 2464 with EGFR+ tumors eligible for analysis. After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, the hazard of death in patients who had non-oncogene positive tumors diagnosed in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 ,and 2019 was observed to be 12%, 11%, 17%, 20%, and 21% lower respectively than that for those diagnosed in 2012. Upon additionally adjusting for receipt of first line or second line immunotherapy, the decrease in the hazard of death by calendar year was no longer observed, suggesting improvements in survival observed over time may be explained by the introduction of these treatments. Similarly, decreases in the hazard of death were only observed in patients with ALK+ tumors diagnosed between 2017 and 2019 relative to 2012 but were no longer observed following adjustment for the use of 1st and later generation ALK inhibitors. Among patients with EGFR+ tumors, the hazard of death did not improve significantly over time. CONCLUSION: Our findings expand on the SEER data and provide additional evidence suggesting improvements in survival of patients with advanced and metastatic NSCLC over the past decade could be explained by the change in treatment patterns over this period.

Small-molecule inhibitors targeting Polycomb repressive complex 1 RING domain.

Polycomb repressive complex 1 (PRC1) is an essential chromatin-modifying complex that monoubiquitinates histone H2A and is involved in maintaining the repressed chromatin state. Emerging evidence suggests PRC1 activity in various cancers, rationalizing the need for small-molecule inhibitors with well-defined mechanisms of action. Here, we describe the development of compounds that directly bind to RING1B-BMI1, the heterodimeric complex constituting the E3 ligase activity of PRC1. These compounds block the association of RING1B-BMI1 with chromatin and inhibit H2A ubiquitination. Structural studies demonstrate that these inhibitors bind to RING1B by inducing the formation of a hydrophobic pocket in the RING domain. Our PRC1 inhibitor, RB-3, decreases the global level of H2A ubiquitination and induces differentiation in leukemia cell lines and primary acute myeloid leukemia (AML) samples. In summary, we demonstrate that targeting the PRC1 RING domain with small molecules is feasible, and RB-3 represents a valuable chemical tool to study PRC1 biology.

Mixture Cure Models in Oncology: A Tutorial and Practical Guidance.

Novel cancer therapies are associated with survival patterns that differ from established therapies, which may include survival curves that plateau after a certain follow-up time point. A fraction of the patient population is then considered statistically cured and subject to the same mortality experience as the cancer-free general population. Mixture cure models have been developed to account for this characteristic. As compared to standard survival analysis, mixture cure models can often lead to profoundly different estimates of long-term survival, required for health economic evaluations. This tutorial is designed as a practical introduction to mixture cure models. Step-by-step instructions are provided for the entire implementation workflow, i.e., from gathering and combining data from different sources to fitting models using maximum likelihood estimation and model results interpretation. Two mixture cure models were developed to illustrate (1) an "uninformed" approach where the cure fraction is estimated from trial data and (2) an "informed" approach where the cure fraction is obtained from an external source (e.g., real-world data) used as an input to the model. These models were implemented in the statistical software R, with the freely available code on GitHub. The cure fraction can be estimated as an output from ("uninformed" approach) or used as an input to ("informed" approach) a mixture cure model. Mixture cure models suggest presumed estimates of long-term survival proportions, especially in instances where some fraction of patients is expected to be statistically cured. While this type of model may initially seem complex, it is straightforward to use and interpret. Mixture cure models have the potential to improve the accuracy of survival estimates for treatments associated with statistical cure, and the present tutorial outlines the interpretation and implementation of mixture cure models in R. This type of model will likely become more widely used in health economic analyses as novel cancer therapies enter the market.

Comparative effectiveness of trastuzumab emtansine versus lapatinib plus chemotherapy for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer.

Aim: To investigate the comparative effectiveness of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in a real-world population of HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients. Materials & methods: The Flatiron Health database was used to identify a cohort of HER2+ mBC patients who received first-line trastuzumab treatment and T-DM1 or lapatinib plus chemotherapy as second-line treatment. Overall survival was compared between the two groups. Results: A total of 278 patients with HER2+ mBC received second-line T-DM1 and 34 lapatinib plus chemotherapy. Overall survival was longer in patients treated with T-DM1 than those treated with lapatinib plus chemotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38-0.85). Conclusion: Real-world data supports the effectiveness of T-DM1 in the second-line treatment of HER2+ mBC patients.

Lay abstract EMILIA was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) ­ a type of study designed to test whether a treatment works in a particular disease, using methods to remove possible bias. The study showed that a treatment called trastuzumab emtansine (shortened to T-DM1) improved the survival of patients with a particular type of breast cancer, known as HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC). However, as clinical trials are run under controlled conditions, they do not fully reflect results under normal circumstances. In this study, we looked at the effect of treating a 'real' population of HER2+ mBC patients with T-DM1 in the USA. We found that T-DM1 still improved survival in these 'real-world' patients. Studies in the 'real world' can have some bias, as they are not controlled like RCTs; however, taking the results of the EMILIA RCT, along with the results of our study, supports the use of T-DM1 as a treatment option for HER2+ mBC patients.

Prospective utility study of patients with multiple cardiovascular events.

OBJECTIVES: The effects of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and the time dependency of these effects are unknown. This study aimed to characterize health utilities in ACS patients to aid development of future economic models estimating the cost per quality-adjusted life-year impact of ACS events and potential treatments. METHODS: Multi-center, non-interventional, longitudinal evaluation of health utility in patients experiencing ACS or stroke events. EuroQol-5 dimension 3 level (EQ-5D-3L) surveys were sent to patients (≥18 years) from three UK centers, 1 month after hospital discharge for myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina (UA), or stroke. Patient demographics, lifestyle, and baseline utility score were collected in the first survey. Follow-up surveys were sent at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months to prospectively capture utility and subsequent health events. Two methods of patient identification were adopted-prospective, where the patient's qualifying events occurred after the study index date, and retrospective, where the patient's qualifying event occurred prior to the study index date. General healthy population utility values were assumed for pre-event HRQoL. RESULTS: Between January 2011 and March 2014, 2,103 prospectively (n = 1,350)/retrospectively (n = 753) identified patients (mean age = 68.3 years; 67.9% male) responded: MI = 55.9% (n = 1,176), UA = 42.7% (n = 898), stroke = 1.4% (n = 29); 24% had type 2 diabetes. Post-event utility values were lower than general healthy population values, although significant differences in utility between subsequent 6 (n = 1,031, change = -0.002), 12 (n = 1,096, change = -0.008), 18 (n = 1,246, change = -0.007), and 24 (n = 1,277, change = -0.004) month timepoints were not detected. Through multivariate regression analyses, wheelchair use, current smoking, and secondary mental and joint health events were associated with the greatest statistically significant utility decrements. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that health utility decreases following a cardiovascular event and, although some improvement occurs over the subsequent 24 months, general healthy population utility is not necessarily attained.

Accounting for Uncertainty in Decision Analytic Models Using Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time Modeling: Application to Parametric Survival Models.

OBJECTIVES: Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time models are one of the most commonly used statistical methods to adjust for treatment switching in oncology clinical trials. The method is often applied in a decision analytic model without appropriately accounting for additional uncertainty when determining the allocation of health care resources. The aim of the study is to describe novel approaches to adequately account for uncertainty when using a Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time model in a decision analytic model. METHODS: Using two examples, we tested and compared the performance of the novel Test-based method with the resampling bootstrap method and with the conventional approach of no adjustment. In the first example, we simulated life expectancy using a simple decision analytic model based on a hypothetical oncology trial with treatment switching. In the second example, we applied the adjustment method on published data when no individual patient data were available. RESULTS: Mean estimates of overall and incremental life expectancy were similar across methods. However, the bootstrapped and test-based estimates consistently produced greater estimates of uncertainty compared with the estimate without any adjustment applied. Similar results were observed when using the test based approach on a published data showing that failing to adjust for uncertainty led to smaller confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Both the bootstrapping and test-based approaches provide a solution to appropriately incorporate uncertainty, with the benefit that the latter can implemented by researchers in the absence of individual patient data.

Mapping to Estimate Health-State Utility from Non-Preference-Based Outcome Measures: An ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force Report.

Economic evaluation conducted in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) provides information that decision makers find useful in many parts of the world. Ideally, clinical studies designed to assess the effectiveness of health technologies would include outcome measures that are directly linked to health utility to calculate QALYs. Often this does not happen, and even when it does, clinical studies may be insufficient for a cost-utility assessment. Mapping can solve this problem. It uses an additional data set to estimate the relationship between outcomes measured in clinical studies and health utility. This bridges the evidence gap between available evidence on the effect of a health technology in one metric and the requirement for decision makers to express it in a different one (QALYs). In 2014, ISPOR established a Good Practices for Outcome Research Task Force for mapping studies. This task force report provides recommendations to analysts undertaking mapping studies, those that use the results in cost-utility analysis, and those that need to critically review such studies. The recommendations cover all areas of mapping practice: the selection of data sets for the mapping estimation, model selection and performance assessment, reporting standards, and the use of results including the appropriate reflection of variability and uncertainty. This report is unique because it takes an international perspective, is comprehensive in its coverage of the aspects of mapping practice, and reflects the current state of the art.

Cost-Effectiveness Model for Chemoimmunotherapy Options in Patients with Previously Untreated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Unsuitable for Full-Dose Fludarabine-Based Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil (GClb) in untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia unsuitable for full-dose fludarabine-based therapy. METHODS: A Markov model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of GClb versus other chemoimmunotherapy options. The model comprised three mutually exclusive health states: "progression-free survival (with/without therapy)", "progression (refractory/relapsed lines)", and "death". Each state was assigned a health utility value representing patients' quality of life and a specific cost value. Comparisons between GClb and rituximab plus chlorambucil or only chlorambucil were performed using patient-level clinical trial data; other comparisons were performed via a network meta-analysis using information gathered in a systematic literature review. To support the model, a utility elicitation study was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. RESULTS: There was good agreement between the model-predicted progression-free and overall survival and that from the CLL11 trial. On incorporating data from the indirect treatment comparisons, it was found that GClb was cost-effective with a range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and remained so during deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses under various scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: GClb was estimated to increase both quality-adjusted life expectancy and treatment costs compared with several commonly used therapies, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below commonly referenced UK thresholds. This article offers a real example of how to combine direct and indirect evidence in a cost-effectiveness analysis of oncology drugs.

The value of innovation under value-based pricing.

OBJECTIVE: The role of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in incentivizing innovation is controversial. Critics of CEA argue that its use for pricing purposes disregards the 'value of innovation' reflected in new drug development, whereas supporters of CEA highlight that the value of innovation is already accounted for. Our objective in this article is to outline the limitations of the conventional CEA approach, while proposing an alternative method of evaluation that captures the value of innovation more accurately. METHOD: The adoption of a new drug benefits present and future patients (with cost implications) for as long as the drug is part of clinical practice. Incidence patients and off-patent prices are identified as two key missing features preventing the conventional CEA approach from capturing 1) benefit to future patients and 2) future savings from off-patent prices. The proposed CEA approach incorporates these two features to derive the total lifetime value of an innovative drug (i.e., the value of innovation). RESULTS: The conventional CEA approach tends to underestimate the value of innovative drugs by disregarding the benefit to future patients and savings from off-patent prices. As a result, innovative drugs are underpriced, only allowing manufacturers to capture approximately 15% of the total value of innovation during the patent protection period. In addition to including the incidence population and off-patent price, the alternative approach proposes pricing new drugs by first negotiating the share of value of innovation to be appropriated by the manufacturer (>15%?) and payer (<85%?), in order to then identify the drug price that satisfies this condition. CONCLUSION: We argue for a modification to the conventional CEA approach that integrates the total lifetime value of innovative drugs into CEA, by taking into account off-patent pricing and future patients. The proposed approach derives a price that allows manufacturers to capture an agreed share of this value, thereby incentivizing innovation, while supporting health-care systems to pursue dynamic allocative efficiency. However, the long-term sustainability of health-care systems must be assessed before this proposal is adopted by policy makers.

Severe acute pancreatitis in pregnancy.

This is a case of a pregnant lady at 8 weeks of gestation, who presented with acute abdomen. She was initially diagnosed with ruptured ectopic pregnancy and ruptured corpus luteal cyst as the differential diagnosis. However she then, was finally diagnosed as acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis with spontaneous complete miscarriage. This is followed by review of literature on this topic. Acute pancreatitis in pregnancy is not uncommon. The emphasis on high index of suspicion of acute pancreatitis in women who presented with acute abdomen in pregnancy is highlighted. Early diagnosis and good supportive care by multidisciplinary team are crucial to ensure good maternal and fetal outcomes.

Maintenance erlotinib in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: cost-effectiveness in EGFR wild-type across Europe.

BACKGROUND: First-line maintenance erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has demonstrated significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefits compared with best supportive care plus placebo, irrespective of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status (SATURN trial). The cost-effectiveness of first-line maintenance erlotinib in the overall SATURN population has been assessed and published recently, but analyses according to EGFR mutation status have not been performed yet, which was the rationale for assessing the cost-effectiveness of first-line maintenance erlotinib specifically in EGFR wild-type metastatic NSCLC. METHODS: The incremental cost per life-year gained of first-line maintenance erlotinib compared with best supportive care in patients with EGFR wild-type stable metastatic NSCLC was assessed for five European countries (the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy) with an area-under-the-curve model consisting of three health states (progression-free survival, progressive disease, death). Log-logistic survival functions were fitted to Phase III patient-level data (SATURN) to model progression-free survival and overall survival. The first-line maintenance erlotinib therapy cost (modeled for time to treatment cessation), medication cost in later lines, and cost for the treatment of adverse events were included. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation (1000 iterations) were performed. RESULTS: According to the model simulations, first-line maintenance erlotinib compared with best supportive care in EGFR wild-type stable metastatic NSCLC resulted in 4.57 months of life gained (17.82 months for erlotinib versus 13.24 months for best supportive care) and 1.14 months of life without progression gained (erlotinib 4.29 versus best supportive care 3.15), and incremental total costs of erlotinib from €7897 (UK) to €9580 (Germany). The corresponding mean incremental cost per life-year gained of erlotinib ranged between €20,711 (UK) and €25,124 (Germany). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. CONCLUSION: First-line erlotinib maintenance treatment is cost-effective compared with best supportive care in EGFR wild-type stable metastatic NSCLC, irrespective of the country setting.

A systematic review and critical assessment of health state utilities: weight change and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to conduct a systematic literature search to identify health state utilities for weight change in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and to review those values for appropriateness for inclusion in a submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). METHODS: The search was conducted using keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms designed to exhaustively capture health state utility values across a variety of known economic, health technology assessment and peer-reviewed publication databases. The values were then critically reviewed from the perspective of the NICE reference case (2008 methods guide). RESULTS: The search resulted in a large number of repeat references across databases suggesting good sensitivity. Thirty-three articles were selected for inclusion and subjected to a critical review including their methodological quality, symmetry with the NICE reference case, sample size and country source. This critical review led to a shortlist of nine utility studies, all of which had potential for inclusion in cost-utility models or a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively large number of utilities have been collected in weight change and T2DM. Many of these utility values are not suitable for inclusion in a NICE submission. A better way of reviewing the methodological quality of utilities is needed.

Cross-market cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with stable non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-doublet, first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is limited to 4-6 cycles. An alternative strategy used to prolong the duration of first-line treatment and extend survival in metastatic NSCLC is first-line maintenance therapy. Erlotinib was approved for first-line maintenance in a stable disease population following results from a randomized, controlled Phase III trial comparing erlotinib with best supportive care. We aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of erlotinib 150 mg/day versus best supportive care when used as first-line maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and stable disease. METHODS: An economic decision model was developed using patient-level data for progression-free survival and overall survival from the SATURN (SequentiAl Tarceva in UnResectable NSCLC) study. An area under the curve model was developed; all patients entered the model in the progression-free survival health state and, after each month, moved to progression or death. A time horizon of 5 years was used. The model was conducted from the perspective of national health care payers in France, Germany, and Italy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Treatment with erlotinib in first-line maintenance resulted in a mean life expectancy of 1.39 years in all countries, compared with a mean 1.11 years with best supportive care, which represents 0.28 life-years (3.4 life-months) gained with erlotinib versus best supportive care. In the base-case analysis, the cost per life-year gained was €39,783, €46,931, and €27,885 in France, Germany, and Italy, respectively. CONCLUSION: Erlotinib is a cost-effective treatment option when used as first-line maintenance therapy for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.