Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued multiple guidance for the first-line management of patients with lung cancer and recommends different combinations of chemotherapy treatments. This review provides a synthesis of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence supporting current guidance. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy currently licensed in Europe and recommended by NICE, for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). DATA SOURCES: Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from 2001 to August 2010. REVIEW METHODS: Trials that compared first-line chemotherapy currently licensed in Europe and recommended by NICE in chemotherapy-naive adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were included. Data on key outcomes including, but not limited to, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AEs) were extracted. For the assessment of cost-effectiveness, outcomes included incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Analyses were performed for three NSCLC subpopulations: patients with predominantly squamous disease, patients with predominantly non-squamous disease and patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive (M+) status. Meta-analysis and mixed-treatment comparison methodology were conducted where appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty-three trials involving > 11,000 patients in total met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the trials was poor. In the case of patients with squamous disease, there were no statistically significant differences in OS between treatment regimes. The mixed-treatment comparison demonstrated that, in patients with non-squamous disease, pemetrexed (Alimta®, Eli Lilly and Company; PEM) + platinum (PLAT) increases OS statistically significantly compared with gemcitabine (Gemzar®, Eli Lilly and Company; GEM) + PLAT [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.98] and that paclitaxel (Abraxane®, Celgene Corporation; PAX) + PLAT increases OS statistically significantly compared with docetaxel (Taxotere®, Sanofi-aventis; DOC) + PLAT (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.93). None of the comparisons found any statistically significant differences in OS among patients with EGFR M+ status. Direct meta-analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in PFS with gefitinib (Iressa®, AstraZeneca; GEF) compared with DOC + PLAT and PAX + PLAT (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.73; and HR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.60, respectively). No papers related to UK decision-making were identified. A de novo economic model was developed. Using list prices (British National Formulary), cisplatin (CIS) doublets are preferable to carboplatin doublets, but this is reversed if electronic market information tool prices are used, in which case drug administration costs then become more important than drug acquisition costs. For patients with both squamous and non-squamous disease, moving from low to moderate willingness-to-pay thresholds, the preferred drugs are PAX → GEM → DOC. However, in patients with non-squamous disease, PEM + CIS resulted in increased OS and would be considered cost-effective up to £35,000 per QALY gained. For patients with EGFR M+, use of GEF compared with PAX or DOC yields very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Vinorelbine (Navelbine®, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceutical Inc.) was not shown to be cost-effective in any comparison. LIMITATIONS: Poor trial quality and a lack of evidence for all drug comparisons complicated and limited the data analysis. Outcomes and adverse effects are not consistently combined across the trials. Few trials reported quality-of-life data despite their relevance to patients and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this comprehensive review are unique to NSCLC and will assist clinicians to make decisions regarding the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. The design of future lung cancer trials needs to reflect the influence of factors such as histology, genetics and the new prognostic biomarkers that are currently being identified. In addition, trials will need to be adequately powered so as to be able to test for statistically significant clinical effectiveness differences within patient populations. New initiatives are in place to record detailed information on the precise chemotherapy (and targeted chemotherapy) regimens being used, together with data on age, cell type, stage of disease and performance status, allowing for very detailed observational audits of management and outcomes at a population level. It would be useful if these initiatives could be expanded to include the collection of health economics data. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Lapatinib and trastuzumab in combination with an aromatase inhibitor for the first-line treatment of metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer which over-expresses human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2): a systematic review and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the uncontrolled, abnormal growth of malignant breast tissue affecting predominantly women. Metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is an advanced stage of the disease when the disease has spread beyond the original organ. Hormone receptor status and human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) status are two predictive factors that are taken into consideration when estimating the prognosis of patients with breast cancer. OBJECTIVES: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence base for lapatinib (LAP) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) and trastuzumab (TRA) in combination with an AI for the first-line treatment of patients who have hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor 2-positive (HER2+) mBC. DATA SOURCES: Relevant electronic databases and websites, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, were searched until May 2010. Further data were derived from the manufacturers' submissions for LAP + AI and TRA + AI. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LAP + AI and TRA + AI was undertaken. As it was deemed inappropriate to compare LAP + AI with TRA + AI, two separate assessments of cost-effectiveness versus AIs alone were undertaken. RESULTS: Three trials were included in the systematic review [the patient populations of the efficacy and safety of lapatinib combined with letrozole (EGF30008) trial, the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab combined with anastrozole (TAnDEM) trial and the efficacy and safety of letrozole combined with trastuzumab (eLEcTRA) trial]. As a result of differences in the exclusion criteria and because one trial was halted prematurely, comparisons across trials were believed to be inappropriate and meta-analysis was not possible. Individually, however, the findings from the trials all suggest that LAP + AI or TRA + AI results in improved progression-free survival and/or time to progression when compared with AIs alone. The trials do not show a statistically significant benefit in terms of overall survival. Two separate economic analyses were conducted based on the completed trials; neither LAP + AI nor TRA + AI was found to be cost-effective when compared with AI monotherapy. LIMITATIONS: Because of differences in the EGF30008 and the TAnDEM trials, the Assessment Group believes the indirect comparisons analyses conducted by the manufacturers are inappropriate and, for the same reason, chooses not to compare LAP + AI with TRA + AI in an economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: LAP + AI and TRA + AI appear to be clinically more effective than AI monotherapy, but neither is cost-effective compared with AIs alone. It was not possible to compare LAP + AI with TRA + AI. Future research should include research into treating mBC in the HR+/HER2+ population who are not TRA (or LAP) naive and into comparing the clinical effectiveness of AIs as monotherapy in patients with HER2+ and human epidermal growth factor 2-negative breast cancer. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Technology Assessment programme.

Clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole for the prevention of occlusive vascular events (review of Technology Appraisal No. 90): a systematic review and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Occlusive vascular events such as myocardial infarction (MI), ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are the result of a reduction in blood flow associated with an artery becoming narrow or blocked through atherosclerosis and atherothrombosis. Peripheral arterial disease is the result of narrowing of the arteries that supply blood to the muscles and other tissues, usually in the lower extremities. The primary objective in the treatment of all patients with a history of occlusive vascular events and peripheral arterial disease is to prevent the occurrence of new occlusive vascular events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole (MRD) alone or with aspirin (ASA) compared with ASA (and each other where appropriate) in the prevention of occlusive vascular events in patients with a history of MI, ischaemic stroke/TIA or established peripheral arterial disease. To consider the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in patients with multivascular disease. This review is an update of the evidence base for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance Technology Appraisal No. 90 (TA90) entitled Clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole for the prevention of occlusive vascular events (2005). DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations. Submissions to NICE by the manufacturers of the interventions were also considered. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness was conducted. To manage heterogeneity between trials, indirect analysis (using a mixed-treatment methodology) was performed on selected clinical outcomes. A new economic model was developed to assess incremental costs per life-year gained [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)]. RESULTS: For evidence of clinical effectiveness, four RCTs were identified: CAPRIE (Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischaemic Events), ESPRIT (European/Australasian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia Trial), PRoFESS (Prevention Regimen For Effectively avoiding Second Strokes) and ESPS-2 (Second European Stroke Prevention Study). In CAPRIE (patients with MI, ischaemic stroke or peripheral arterial disease), statistically significant outcomes in favour of clopidogrel were noted for the primary outcome (first occurrence of ischaemic stroke, MI or vascular death) compared with ASA [relative risk reduction 8.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3% to 16.5%; p = 0.043]. In ESPRIT (patients with ischaemic stroke/TIA) for the primary outcome (first occurrence of death from all vascular causes, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal MI or major bleeding complication), the risk of event occurrence was statistically significantly lower in the MRD + ASA arm than in the ASA arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98], with no statistically significant difference in bleeding events between the two arms. In PRoFESS (patients with ischaemic stroke) the rate of recurrent stroke of any type (primary outcome) was similar in the MRD + ASA and clopidogrel groups, and the null hypothesis (that MRD + ASA was inferior to clopidogrel) could not be rejected. In ESPS-2 (patients with ischaemic stroke/TIA), on the primary outcome of stroke, statistically significant differences in favour of MRD + ASA were observed compared with ASA and MRD alone (relative risk 0.76; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93). The outcomes addressed in the mixed-treatment comparisons (limited by the available data) for the ischaemic stroke/TIA population confirmed the results of the direct comparisons. The 11 economic evaluations included in the review of cost-effectiveness indicated that for patients with previous peripheral arterial disease, ischaemic stroke or MI, clopidogrel is cost-effective compared with ASA, and for patients with previous ischaemic stroke/TIA, treatment with MRD + ASA is cost-effective compared with any other treatment in patients in the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events. The relevance of the review was limited as the economic evaluations were not based on the most current clinical data. Cost-effectiveness results generated from the Assessment Group's de novo economic model suggested that the most cost-effective approach for patients with ischaemic stroke/TIA is clopidogrel followed by MRD + ASA then ASA. For patients with MI, the most cost-effective approach is ASA followed by clopidogrel. For patients with established peripheral arterial disease, the most cost-effective approach is clopidogrel followed by ASA. For patients with multivascular disease, clopidogrel followed by ASA is the most cost-effective approach. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were also calculated for patients who are intolerant to ASA. Assuming that the branded price for clopidogrel is used and TA90 guidance is not applied, all of the ICERs range between £2189 and £13,558 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were fully consistent with these findings. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that the most cost-effective treatment for patients with ischaemic stroke/TIA is clopidogrel followed by MRD + ASA followed by ASA; for patients with MI, ASA followed by clopidogrel; and for patients with established peripheral arterial disease or multivascular disease, clopidogrel followed by ASA. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Pemetrexed for the maintenance treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed for the maintenance treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The primary clinical outcome measure was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), time to worsening of symptoms, objective tumour response rate, adverse events and changes in lung cancer symptom scale. Data for two populations were presented: patients with non-squamous NSCLC histology and patients with adenocarcinoma histology. The clinical evidence was derived from a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial (RCT), the JMEN trial. The trial compared the use of pemetrexed + best supportive care (BSC ) as maintenance therapy, with placebo + BSC in patients with NSCLC (n = 663) who had received four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (CTX) and whose disease had not progressed. In the licensed population (patients with non-squamous histology), the trial demonstrated greater median PFS for patients treated with pemetrexed than for patients in the placebo arm [4.5 vs 2.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55, p < 0.00001]. Median OS was also greater for the pemetrexed- treated patients (15.5 vs 10.3 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.88, p = 0.002). In addition, tumour response and disease control rates were statistically significantly greater for patients who received pemetrexed. Patient survival rates at 1 year and 2 years were higher in the pemetrexed arm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) estimated by the manufacturer's model were 33,732 pounds per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) for the licensed nonsquamous population, and 39,364 pounds per QALY for the adenocarcinoma subgroup. Both of these ICERs were above the standard NICE willingness-to-pay range (20,000 pounds-30,000 pounds per QALY). The manufacturer also presented a case for pemetrexed to be considered as an end of life treatment. The ERG identified a number of problems in the economic model presented by the manufacturer; after correction, the base case ICER was re-estimated as 51,192 pounds per QALY gained and likely to exceed NICE's willingness-to-pay thresholds. Following a revised economic analysis submitted by the manufacturer, the AC accepted that an ICER of 47,000 pounds per QALY gained was most plausible. The AC also considered that maintenance treatment with pemetrexed fulfilled the end of life criteria.The guidance issued by NICE, on 20 June 20 2010, in TA190 as a result of the STA states that: People who have received pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy cannot receive pemetrexed maintenance treatment. 1.1 Pemetrexed is recommended as an option for the maintenance treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer other than predominantly squamous cell histology if disease has not progressed immediately following platinum-based chemotherapy in combination with gemcitabine, paclitaxel or docetaxel.

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

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

Systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation of 'pill-in-the-pocket' strategy for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation compared to episodic in-hospital treatment or continuous antiarrhythmic drug therapy.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a tachyarrhythmia characterised by uncoordinated atrial activation with consequent deterioration of impairment of atrial function and a rapid, irregular heartbeat. The annual incidence rate of paroxysmal AF (PAF) has been estimated at 1.0 per 1000 person-years (95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.1), and reported prevalence rates show wide variations depending on age and country. Conventional treatment strategies for PAF focus on the suppression of paroxysms of AF and return to normal sinus rhythm. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the results of the rapid reviews of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature describing the pill-in-the-pocket (PiP) approach for the treatment of patients with PAF; and to develop an economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of PiP compared with in-hospital treatment (IHT) or continuous antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for the treatment of patients with PAF. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid OLDMEDLINE 1950 to present with Daily Update were searched. The following electronic databases were searched for ongoing trials: Health Services Research Projects in Progress, ClinicalTrials.gov, metaRegister of Current Controlled Trials, BioMed Central, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalStudyResults.org and the National Library of Medicine Gateway. REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion criteria, which included patients suffering from PAF, were independently applied to all identified references by two reviewers (JH and CMS). Electronic searches were conducted to identify clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence describing the use of a PiP strategy for the treatment of PAF, published since the release of the Royal College of Physicians' national guidelines on AF in June 2006. A Markov model was constructed to examine differences between three PAF strategies (PiP, AAD and IHT) in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). A Markov model structure was chosen because it is assumed that PAF is a condition that causes patients to move between a limited number of relevant health states during their lives. RESULTS: The search strategies for clinical studies identified 201 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Of the 201 RCTs identified, 12 were deemed to be relevant to the decision problem as they included drugs used to treat PAF; summary data were abstracted from these studies in order to inform the development of the economic model only. The model results indicate that the PiP strategy is slightly less effective than the other two strategies, but also less costly (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 45,916 pounds per QALY when compared to AAD, and 12,424 pounds per QALY when compared to IHT). The one-way sensitivity analyses performed do not show substantial changes in relative cost-effectiveness except in relation to the age of patients, where PiP dominates AAD in men over 65 years and in women over 70 years. At a threshold of 25,000 pounds per QALY, IHT has the maximum probability of being cost-effective at this threshold. For threshold values between 0 pounds and 9266 pounds per QALY, PiP is the option exhibiting the maximum probability of being cost-effective. The AAD strategy has a very poor probability of being cost-effective under any threshold. However, none of the strategies considered has more than a 40% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of 25,000 pounds per QALY at any threshold level. This demonstrates the uncertainty around the parameters and its effect on the decision to choose any one strategy over the others. LIMITATIONS: Most of the data used to populate the model have been taken from studies with populations that do not match the patient population specified in the decision problem. Populating the model in this way was unavoidable as there was a paucity of published clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data describing a PiP strategy for this highly specific group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a PiP strategy seems to be slightly less effective (i.e. fewer QALYs gained) than AAD and IHT, but is associated with cost savings. A PiP strategy seems to be more efficacious and cost-effective than an AAD strategy in men over 65 years and women over 70 years, but this is principally due to a very slight difference in QALY gained by the PiP strategy. A change in clinical practice that includes the introduction of PiP may save costs, but also involves a reduction in clinical effectiveness compared to existing approaches used to treat patients with PAF. Uncertainty in the available clinical data means there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation for the use of PiP strategy in patients with PAF. Further research should identify outcomes of interest such as adverse events and recurrent AF episodes in an RCT setting because the only clinical study addressing these issues, even partially, is not an RCT but a descriptive analysis. Patient preferences also need to be considered in any future research designs.

Prasugrel for the treatment of acute coronary artery syndromes with percutaneous coronary intervention.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prasugrel for the treatment of coronary artery syndromes with percutaneous coronary intervention, based upon the evidence submission from Eli Lilly to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The submitted clinical evidence was based on a phase III double-blind, double-dummy randomised controlled trial which compared the use of prasugrel with clopidogrel. The primary clinical outcome measure was a composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) or non-fatal stroke at 15 months. Secondary outcomes included the primary end point at 30 days and 90 days; a composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal MI or urgent target vessel revascularisation; a composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke or rehospitalisation due to a cardiac ischaemic event; and stent thrombosis. For the overall trial cohort during the 15 month follow-up period, the results of the trial demonstrated a statistically significant benefit of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel on the primary outcome. The efficacy difference between treatment groups was, in the main, due to a statistically significant lower incidence of non-fatal MIs in the prasugrel group than in the clopidogrel group. No statistically significant differences were found for death from cardiovascular causes or non-fatal stroke. For the fully licensed and target populations, there was a statistically significant lower incidence of non-fatal MIs in the prasugrel group than in the clopidogrel group; there was no statistically significant difference in bleeding rates. The ERG recalculated the base-case cost-effectiveness results taking changes in parameters and assumptions into account: for example, revised drug costs, mid-cycle correction, amended relative risk mortality. Subgroup and threshold analyses were also explored by the ERG. For the fully licensed population (i.e. excluding patients with prior stroke or TIA), the manufacturer reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 159,358 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 12 months and an ICER of 3,220 pounds per QALY gained at 40 years. Considering the 15-month clinical trial data available for the fully licensed and target populations and current practice in England and Wales, the evidence was considered insufficient to support the conclusion that prasugrel is clinically more effective than clopidogrel or vice versa. Assuming that there is no evidence to distinguish between prasugrel and clopidogrel in terms of clinical effectiveness in the short term for this population, equipoise between prasugrel and clopidogrel at year 1 is achieved by a 20% reduction in the acquisition cost of prasugrel (approximately 120 pounds per patient). At the time of writing, the guidance/has not yet been published by NICE.

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

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from Eli Lilly Ltd to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The majority of the efficacy evidence described in the manufacturer's submission is derived from a phase III open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) known as the JMDB trial. The trial achieved its primary objective to demonstrate non-inferiority of pemetrexed/cisplatin to gemcitabine/cisplatin for overall survival in all patients with NSCLC. Because no other studies were found comparing pemetrexed/cisplatin with any other relevant comparator, additional efficacy evidence was presented from two phase III RCTs comparing gemcitabine/cisplatin with gemcitabine/carboplatin and docetaxel/cisplatin. The manufacturer's submission reported from its indirect comparisons' analysis that median overall survival and progression-free survival and tumour response rates were more favourable for pemetrexed/cisplatin than for any other comparator. The manufacturer did not identify any published cost-effectiveness analyses of pemetrexed for the first-line treatment of patients with NSCLC. Therefore economic evidence was derived solely from a de novo economic model developed by the manufacturer. A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed/cisplatin compared to gemcitabine/cisplatin, docetaxel/cisplatin and gemcitabine/carboplatin. The clinical data used in the economic evaluation were primarily generated from the JMDB trial, with additional data from the two further trials used in the indirect comparisons analysis. The ERG identified a series of problems with this economic model. As a result, three different versions of the model were submitted to NICE and considered by the ERG. The ICERs estimated by this final version of the model ranged from 8056 pounds to 33,065 pounds per QALY, depending on the comparator, the population and the application of a continuation rule. The ERG considered that the model required extensive modification and redesign, and should be subjected to thorough validation against the JMDB trial results. A full quality audit was also required as it was likely that further model inconsistencies may be present that had not yet been identified. The manufacturer subsequently included evidence in the form of three cost effectiveness analyses (two models and an 'in-trial' analysis), stating that a thorough validation process had been followed according to the NICE request. The very short time available to the ERG to consider the new evidence precluded a comprehensive assessment. Instead, the ERG chose to present a simple exploratory analysis combining its own survival projections with key cost estimates obtained from the JMDB trial individual patient data. Compared to gemcitabine, this resulted in ICERs ranging from 17,162 pounds to 30,142 pounds per QALY, depending on the patient population, the maximum number of cycles of chemotherapy and whether a cycle based efficacy adjustment was applied or not. The guidance issued by NICE in September 2009 states that pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin is recommended as an option for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC only if the histology of the tumour has been confirmed as adenocarcinoma or large-cell carcinoma.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of testing for cytochrome P450 polymorphisms in patients with schizophrenia treated with antipsychotics: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether testing for cytochrome P450 (CYP) polymorphisms in adults entering antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia leads to improvement in outcomes, is useful in medical, personal or public health decision-making, and is a cost-effective use of health-care resources. DATA SOURCES: The following electronic databases were searched for relevant published literature: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment database, ISI Web of Knowledge, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Economic Evaluation Database, Cost-effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry and the Centre for Health Economics website. In addition, publicly available information on various genotyping tests was sought from the internet and advisory panel members. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility of CYP testing was undertaken. Data were extracted into structured tables and narratively discussed, and meta-analysis was undertaken when possible. A review of economic evaluations of CYP testing in psychiatry and a review of economic models related to schizophrenia were also carried out. RESULTS: For analytical validity, 46 studies of a range of different genotyping tests for 11 different CYP polymorphisms (most commonly CYP2D6) were included. Sensitivity and specificity were high (99-100%). For clinical validity, 51 studies were found. In patients tested for CYP2D6, an association between genotype and tardive dyskinesia (including Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale scores) was found. The only other significant finding linked the CYP2D6 genotype to parkinsonism. One small unpublished study met the inclusion criteria for clinical utility. One economic evaluation assessing the costs and benefits of CYP testing for prescribing antidepressants and 28 economic models of schizophrenia were identified; none was suitable for developing a model to examine the cost-effectiveness of CYP testing. CONCLUSIONS: Tests for determining genotypes appear to be accurate although not all aspects of analytical validity were reported. Given the absence of convincing evidence from clinical validity studies, the lack of clinical utility and economic studies, and the unsuitability of published schizophrenia models, no model was developed; instead key features and data requirements for economic modelling are presented. Recommendations for future research cover both aspects of research quality and data that will be required to inform the development of future economic models.

Cetuximab for the treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab for recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission's evidence came from a single reasonably high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) [EXTREME (Erbitux in First-Line Treatment of Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer); n = 442] comparing cetuximab plus chemotherapy (CTX) with CTX alone. Cetuximab plus CTX had significant effects compared with CTX alone on the primary outcome of overall survival (10.1 versus 7.4 months respectively) and the secondary outcomes of progression-free survival (PFS) (5.6 versus 3.3 months), best overall response to therapy (35.6% versus 19.5%), disease control rate (81.1% versus 60%) and time-to-treatment failure (4.8 versus 3.0 months), but not on duration of response (5.6 months versus 4.7 months). No safety issues with cetuximab arose beyond those already previously documented. The manufacturer developed a two-arm state-transition Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus CTX versus CTX alone, using clinical data from the EXTREME trial. The ERG recalculated the base-case cost-effectiveness results taking changes in parameters and assumptions into account. Subgroup and threshold analyses were also explored. The manufacturer reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 121,367 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and an incremental cost per life-year gained of 92,226 pounds. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that varying the cost of day-case infusion and the utility values in the stable/response health state of the cetuximab plus CTX arm had the greatest impact on the ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis illustrated that cetuximab plus CTX is unlikely to be cost-effective for patients with recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN, even at what would usually be considered very high levels of willingness to pay for an additional QALY. With regard to the economic model the appropriateness and reliability of parametric survival projection beyond the duration of trial data could not be fully explored because of lack of information. The ERG also questioned the appropriateness of economic modelling in this STA as evidence is available only from a single RCT. In conclusion, the ERG considers that patients with metastatic SCCHN were not shown to receive a significant survival benefit from cetuximab plus CTX compared with CTX alone and that even setting a lower price for cetuximab would not strengthen the manufacturer's case for cost-effectiveness.

Rituximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group's critical review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rituximab for the treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following failure of previous therapy, including one or more tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi), compared with current standards of care, based upon the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission's clinical evidence came from one randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial (REFLEX--Random Evaluation of Long-term Efficacy of Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis) comparing rituximab plus methotrexate (MTX) with placebo plus MTX in 517 patients with long-standing refractory RA. Rituximab plus MTX was more effective than placebo plus MTX across a range of primary and secondary outcome measures, e.g. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). However, this evidence cannot be used directly to address the manufacturer's analysis of the decision problem because, in the REFLEX trial, rituximab was not compared with a relevant comparator (e.g. leflunomide or second or third TNFi). Long-term efficacy data for retreatment with rituximab are favourable, with an estimated mean time to retreatment of 307 days (n = 164). Evidence from a further five trials is presented as the basis for indirect comparisons with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs); however, it is not clear that all relevant clinical studies have been included in the indirect comparison exercise, the rationale for the choice of indirect comparison method adopted is unclear and the indirect comparison method used to adjust the ACR responses only uses a single value for the reference placebo. The submitted microsimulation Markov model was based upon the REFLEX trial. For the 'NICE-recommended' scenario and the 'sequential TNFi' scenario, the original submission reports incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 14,690 pounds and 11,601 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained respectively. After model assumptions were adjusted to more realistic estimates by the ERG, the ICERs for the NICE-recommended scenario and the sequential use of TNFi range from 37,002 pounds to 80,198 pounds per QALY gained and from 28,553 pounds to 65,558 pounds per QALY gained respectively. The guidance issued by NICE in August 2007 states that rituximab in combination with methotrexate is recommended as an option for the treatment of adults with severe active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to or intolerance of other DMARDs including treatment with at least one TNFi therapy.

Rituximab for the treatment of relapsed or refractory stage III or IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rituximab for the treatment of relapsed or refractory stage III or IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from Roche Products Ltd to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submitted clinical evidence included two randomised controlled trials [European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and German Low Grade Lymphoma Study Group - Fludarabine, Cyclophosphamide and Mitoxantrone and (GLSG-FCM)] comparing the clinical effects of chemotherapy with or without rituximab in the induction of remission at first or second relapse and the clinical benefits of rituximab maintenance therapy versus the NHS's current clinical practice of observation for follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. Both trials showed that in patients with relapsed FL the addition of rituximab to chemotherapy induction treatment increased overall response rates. Furthermore, rituximab maintenance therapy increased the median length of remission when compared with observation only. Safety data from the two trials showed that while the majority of patients reported some adverse events, the number of patients withdrawing from treatment in the EORTC trial was low, with rates not being reported for the GLSG-FCM trial. The most commonly reported adverse events were blood/bone marrow toxicity, skin rashes and allergies. The ERG reran the manufacturer's economic model after altering several of the assumptions and parameter values in order to recalculate the cost-utility ratios, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and estimates of benefits. The manufacturer reported that maintenance therapy with rituximab was cost-effective compared with observation against commonly applied thresholds, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 7721 pounds per QALY gained. The greatest clinical effectiveness is achieved by R-CHOP followed by rituximab maintenance (R-CHOP>R) and this treatment strategy had the greatest probability of being cost-effective for a QALY of approximately 18,000 pounds or greater. The guidance issued by NICE as a result of the STA states that in people with relapsed stage III or IV follicular NHL, rituximab is now an option in combination with chemotherapy to induce remission or alone as maintenance therapy during remission. Rituximab monotherapy is also an option for people with relapsed or refractory disease when all alternative treatment options have been exhausted.

Rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III/IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III/IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (FNHL) based upon the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The manufacturer's scope restricts the intervention to rituximab in combination with CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisolone) (R-CVP); the only comparator used was CVP alone. The evidence from the one included randomised controlled trial (RCT) suggests that the addition of rituximab to a CVP chemotherapy regimen has a positive effect on the outcomes of time to treatment failure, disease progression, overall tumour response, duration of response and time to new lymphoma treatment in patients with stage III/IV FNHL compared with CVP alone. Adverse events were comparable between the two arms. This study was confirmed as the only relevant RCT. The economic analyses provided by the manufacturer were modelled using a three-state Markov model with with the health states being defined as progression-free survival (PFS), progressed (in which patients have relapsed) and death (which is an absorbing state). The model generated results for a cohort of patients with an initial age of 53 and makes no distinction between men and women. The model is basic in design, with several serious design flaws and key parameter values that are probably incompatible. Attempting to rectify the identified errors and limitations of the model did not increase the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) above 30,000 pounds. Although the cost-effectiveness results obtained appear to be compelling in support of R-CVP compared with CVP for the trial population the results may not be so convincing for a more representative population. The results of the ERG analysis on the impact of age suggest that ICERs increase steadily with age, as the proportion of PFS that can be converted to overall survival (OS) is diminished by rising mortality rates in the general population. For the most extreme scenario (no OS gain) the ICER appears to remain below 30,000 pounds per QALY gained. On balance the evidence indicates that R-CVP is more cost-effective than CVP. The guidance issued by NICE in July 2006 as a result of the STA states that rituximab within its licensed indication (in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisolone) is recommended as an option for the treatment of symptomatic stage III/IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in previously untreated patients.

Erlotinib for the treatment of relapsed non-small cell lung cancer.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib for the treatment of relapsed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to its licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from Roche Products to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submitted clinical evidence includes one randomised controlled trial (RCT) (BR21) investigating the effect of erlotinib versus placebo, which demonstrates that erlotinib significantly increases median overall survival, progression-free survival and response rate compared with placebo. The majority of patients in the trial experienced non-haematological drug-related adverse effects. Currently there are no trials that directly compare erlotinib with any other second-line chemotherapy agent. For the purposes of indirect comparison, the manufacturer's submission provides a narrative discussion of data from 11 RCTs investigating the use of docetaxel. From these data the manufacturer concludes that erlotinib has similar clinical efficacy levels to docetaxel but results in fewer serious haematological adverse events; however, it is difficult to compare the results of BR21 with those of the docetaxel trials or with current UK clinical practice because, for example, the BR21 patient population is younger than that expected to present in UK clinical practice and almost half of the BR21 participants received erlotinib as third-line chemotherapy, with third-line chemotherapy being rare in the UK. The manufacturer's submission included a three-state model comparing erlotinib with docetaxel, reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 1764 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for erlotinib compared with docetaxel. Rerunning the manufacturer's economic model with varied parameters and assumptions increases the ICER to in excess of 52,000 pounds per QALY gained. There is still a large amount of unquantifiable uncertainty in the model and it is unlikely that erlotinib could be considered to be cost-effective compared with docetaxel at a willingness to pay of 30,000 pounds and there may even be the potential for docetaxel to dominate erlotinib. Because of the limitations of the indirect analysis undertaken by the manufacturer and the subsequent economic modelling exercise there is a need for a head-to-head trial comparing erlotinib with docetaxel. The guidance issued by NICE in February 2007 as a result of the STA states that erlotinib is not recommended for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Deferasirox for the treatment of iron overload associated with regular blood transfusions (transfusional haemosiderosis) in patients suffering with chronic anaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of deferasirox for the treatment of iron overload associated with regular blood transfusions in patients with chronic anaemia such as beta-thalassaemia major (beta-TM) and sickle cell disease (SCD). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched up to March 2007. REVIEW METHODS: Methods followed accepted procedures for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and economic evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 14 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a study population of 1480 (ranging from 13 to 586) met the inclusion criteria. There was a high degree of heterogeneity between trials in terms of trial design and outcome reporting. As such it was only possible to meta-analyse serum ferritin data from six trials making comparisons between deferiprone and DFO and combination therapy and DFO. Only one of the results was statistically significant, favouring combination therapy over DFO alone for serum ferritin at 12 months. How this translates into iron loading in organs such as the heart is unclear, nor was it possible to determine the long-term benefits of chelation therapy. Eight full economic evaluations (one full paper; seven abstracts) were included in the review. The results were generally consistent and appear to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of deferasirox compared with DFO for the treatment of iron overload in a number of different patient populations and study locations. However, a number of assumptions and, in the case of the long-term studies, extrapolation from short-term RCT data were required, which render the results highly speculative at best. Because of the paucity of long-term data we developed a simple, short-term (1 year) model to assess the costs and benefits of deferasirox, deferiprone and DFO in patients with beta-TM and SCD from an NHS perspective. A number of assumptions were required to generate results and, as such, they should be interpreted as indicative rather than factual. Our model suggests that deferasirox may be a cost-effective strategy compared with DFO, at a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) below 30,000 pounds per year, for patients with beta-TM and SCD. However, this is highly dependent upon the age of the patient and the use and benefits of balloon infusers to administer DFO. Deferasirox compared with deferiprone is likely to be cost-effective only for young children. Furthermore, if deferiprone is proven to offer the same health benefits as deferasirox, the latter will not be cost-effective for any patient compared with deferiprone. CONCLUSIONS: In the short term there is little clinical difference between any of the three chelators in terms of removing iron from the blood and liver. Deferasirox may be cost-effective compared with DFO in patients with beta-TM and SCD, but it is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with deferiprone. Elucidating the long-term benefits of chelation therapy, including issues of adverse events and adherence, should be the primary focus for future research. Future work should aim for consistency and transparency in reporting study design and results to aid decision-making when making comparisons across trials.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of central venous catheters treated with anti-infective agents in preventing bloodstream infections: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of central venous catheters (CVCs) treated with anti-infective agents in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases were searched from 1985 to August 2005. REVIEW METHODS: The systematic clinical and economic reviews were conducted according to accepted procedures. Only full economic evaluations (synthesis of costs and benefits) comparing the use of anti-infective central venous catheters (AI-CVCs) with untreated CVCs or other treated catheters were selected for inclusion in the economic review. RESULTS: A total of 32 trials met the clinical inclusion criteria. Seven different types of AI-CVC were identified, with the most frequently tested being chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine (CHSS) (externally treated), CHSS (externally and internally treated) and minocycline rifampicin (internally and externally treated). In general, the trials were of a poor quality in terms of reported methodology, microbiological relevance and control of confounding variables. The pooled result suggests a statistically significant advantage for AI-CVCs in comparison to standard catheters in reducing CRBSI [odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.60, 24 studies, I-squared = 0%, fixed effects]. Analysis by subgroups of catheters demonstrates that antibiotic-treated catheters and catheters treated internally and externally decrease CRBSI rates significantly (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.46, six studies, I-squared = 0%, fixed effects, and OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.70, nine studies, I-squared = 0%, fixed effects, respectively). Catheters treated only externally demonstrate a wider CI and non-significant effect (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.06, nine studies, I-squared = 0%, fixed effects). A treatment effect was also found for trials with an average duration of between 5 and 12 days, and for the one study with a mean duration of over 20 days. There was a statistically significant treatment effect for both femoral and jugular insertion sites and for those studies reporting a mix of insertion sites. The treatment effect was not observed in trials using exclusively subclavian insertion sites. Of the four trials that compared treated catheters, one reported a benefit of antibiotic-treated catheters over catheters treated externally with CHSS. All three sensitivity analyses testing for study design differences reported a statistically significant treatment effect. The review was limited owing to the quality of the trials included, marked differences in the definitions and methods of diagnosis of CRBSI, and inconsistent reporting of risk factors and patient population factors. Furthermore, two-thirds of trials were commercially funded. The economic performance (cost-effectiveness and potential cost-savings) of using AI-CVCs to reduce the number of CRBSIs in patients requiring a CVC was also reviewed. Results show that the use of AI-CVCs instead of standard CVCs can lead to a reduction in CRBSIs and decreased medical costs. To complement the reviews, a basic decision-analytic model was constructed to explore a range of possible scenarios for the NHS in England and Wales. Results show that for every patient who receives an AI-CVC there is an estimated cost-saving of 138.20 pounds. The multivariate sensitivity analyses estimate potentially large cost-savings, depending on the size of the population, under a wide range of cost and clinical assumptions. However, those considering the purchase of AI-CVCs should ensure that their patient populations and the important characteristics of local clinical practice are indeed similar to those described in this economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, AI-CVCs are clinically effective and relatively inexpensive and therefore their integration into clinical practice can be justified. However, the use of these anti-infective catheters without the appropriate use of other practical care initiatives will have only a limited success on the prevention of CRBSIs. Comparative trials are required to determine which, if any, of the treated catheters is the most effective. Pragmatic research related to the effectiveness of bundles of care that may reduce rates of CRBSI is also warranted.

Drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use of drug-eluting coronary artery stents in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery disease. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, were searched from December 2002 to August 2005. Hand-searching was also done. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic literature review of effectiveness was conducted focusing primarily on randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Full economic evaluations that compared two or more options and considered both costs and consequences were eligible for inclusion in the economics review. A critique of manufacturer submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and an economic evaluation in the form of cost-utility analysis were also carried out. RESULTS: In the 17 RCTs of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS), no statistically significant differences in mortality or myocardial infarction (MI) were identified up to 3 years. Significant reductions in repeat revascularisations were determined for DES compared with BMS [for example, at 1 year: target lesion revascularisation (TLR) relative risk 0.24; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.31; and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) relative risk 0.43; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.55]. This estimated benefit appears to be stable from 1 to 3 years. Binary restenosis and late luminal loss also favoured DES. In the eight RCTs of DES versus DES, no statistically significant differences in mortality or MI were detected between DES designs. In meta-analyses of TLR, TVR and composite event rate, marginal improvement in efficacy of Cypher trade mark over Taxus trade mark was observed. These results await confirmation beyond 1 year and differences in study design may have influenced reporting of outcomes. Ten full economic evaluations were included in the review and the balance of evidence indicated that DES are more cost-effective in higher risk patients. The review of submitted models confirmed the view that DES may be cost-effective only under very limited circumstances when realistic assumptions and data values were used. In the cost-utility analysis of DES versus BMS, the use of DES appears to reduce the rate of repeat revascularisations; benefit estimates used in the economic assessment are defined as 'broad' (i.e. cases involving any TLR/TVR irrespective of any other lesions/vessels undergoing revascularisation) and 'narrow' (i.e. cases involving TLR/TVR only). The incremental benefit to the patient is therefore described as the loss of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) avoided by not having to undergo a repeat revascularisation. Univariate sensitivity analysis and extreme values analysis indicate that the price premium, numbers of stents used in the index procedure and absolute risk reduction in repeat interventions most significantly influence the cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses also permit a range of values for efficacy and effectiveness to be considered for individual designs of DES. The cost-effectiveness results reveal that, all patients considered together, the calculated cost per QALY ratios are high (183,000-562,000 pounds) and outside the normal range of acceptability. Cost-effectiveness is only achieved for those non-elective patients who have undergone a previous coronary artery bypass graft and have small vessels. 'Real-world' data show that patient numbers in this latter group are very small (one in 3100 of all patients treated with PCI). CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions of the assessment are that the use of DES would be best targeted at the subgroups of patients with the highest risks of requiring reintervention, and could be considered cost-effective in only a small percentage of such patents. This is similar to the conclusion of our previous assessment. Trials of DES compared with new generation BMS and with DES would be useful, as would further evaluation of newer BMS in combination with drug administration.

Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases were searched up to November 2005. Unpublished evidence such as conference abstracts, reviews of published economic evaluations, and company submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) were also reviewed. REVIEW METHODS: The assessment was conducted according to accepted procedures for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and economic evaluations. Full economic evaluations that compared two or more options for treatment and considered both costs and consequences were eligible for inclusion in the economic literature review. RESULTS: Nine placebo controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the review of clinical effects. These included two studies of adalimumab, five of etanercept and two of infliximab in comparison with placebo (along with conventional management). No RCTs directly comparing anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) agents were identified. Meta-analyses were conducted for data on Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) (20, 50 and 70% improvement), mean change in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and mean change in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) at 12 weeks following initiation of anti-TNF-alpha therapy or placebo for all three drugs. Meta-analyses were also conducted at 24 weeks for etanercept and infliximab. Each meta-analysis of anti-TNF-alpha therapy demonstrated statistically significant advantages over placebo, although there was no significant difference between individual anti-TNF-alpha agents. At 12 weeks, ASAS 50% responses were 3.6-fold more likely with anti-TNF-alpha treatment than placebo. Compared with baseline, BASDAI scores were reduced by close to 2 points at 12 weeks. Functional scores (BASFI) were reduced at 12 weeks. Six full economic evaluations (two peer-reviewed published papers, four abstracts) were included in the review. The conclusions among economic evaluations were mixed, although the balance of evidence indicates that over short time-frames anti-TNF-alpha therapies are unlikely to be considered cost-effective. The limitations of the clinical outcome data impose restrictions on the economic assessment of cost-effectiveness. Direct unbiased RCT evidence is only available in the short term. Current assessment tools are limited and at present BASDAI and BASFI are the best available, although not designed for, or ideal for, use in economic evaluations. The review of the three models submitted to NICE identified a number of inherent flaws and errors. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of etanercept and adalimumab were roughly similar, falling below an assumed willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 pounds. The ICER for infliximab was in the range of 40,000-50,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The short-term (12-month) model developed by this report's authors confirmed the large front-loading of costs with a result that none of the three anti-TNF-alpha agents appears cost-effective at the current acceptable threshold, with infliximab yielding much poorer economic results (57,000-120,000 pounds per QALY). The assumptions of the short-term model were used to explore the cost-effectiveness of the use of anti-TNF-alpha agents in the long term. This model is far more speculative than the first since trends and parameter values must be projected far beyond the available evidence. Sensitivity analyses reveal wide variations in estimates of cost over the long term although it is considered unlikely that costs will decrease over time. CONCLUSIONS: The review of clinical data related to the three drugs (including conventional treatment) compared with conventional treatment plus placebo indicates that in the short term (12-24 weeks), the three treatments are clinically effective in relation to assessment of ASAS, BASDAI and BASFI. Indirect comparisons of treatments were limited and did not show a significant difference in effectiveness between the three agents. The short-term economic assessment indicates that none of the three anti-TNF-alpha agents is likely to be considered cost-effective at current acceptability thresholds, with infliximab consistently the least favourable option. There is an absence of evidence concerning a number of limiting factors related to patients suffering from AS, the disease itself and its treatment. In order to obtain robust estimates of the longer term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF-alpha agents for AS, clinical trials that aim to address these limiting factors need to be conducted.