Ibrutinib for Treating Waldenström's Macroglobulinaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.


Journal

PharmacoEconomics
ISSN: 1179-2027
Titre abrégé: Pharmacoeconomics
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 9212404

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 29 6 2018
medline: 25 2 2020
entrez: 29 6 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ibrutinib (Janssen) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib for treating Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia (WM). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Assessment Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib based on the company's submission to NICE. The clinical evidence was derived from one phase II, single-arm, open-label study of ibrutinib in adult patients with WM who had received at least one prior therapy (Study 1118E) and an indirect comparison using a matched cohort from a retrospective European chart review of patients receiving various treatments for WM. The indirect comparison suggested a hazard ratio for progression-free survival (PFS) of 0.25 (95% confidence interval 0.11-0.57). The ERG had concerns regarding the high risk of bias in Study 1118E, the limited generalisability of the study, and the absence of randomised controlled trial evidence. The company's Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) WM from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) over a lifetime horizon. Based on the company's original Patient Access Scheme (PAS), the company's probabilistic model generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy of £58,905 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG's preferred analysis, which corrected cost errors and used the observed mortality rate from Study 1118E, generated a probabilistic ICER of £61,219 per QALY gained. Based on this amended model, additional exploratory analyses produced ICERs for ibrutinib that were > £60,000 per QALY gained. Subsequently, the company offered to provide ibrutinib at a price that resulted in ibrutinib being cost effective within the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF). The Committee recommended ibrutinib for use in the CDF as an option for treating WM in adults who have had at least one prior therapy, only if the conditions in the managed access agreement for ibrutinib are followed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 29951793
doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0680-z
pii: 10.1007/s40273-018-0680-z
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antineoplastic Agents 0
Piperidines 0
Pyrazoles 0
Pyrimidines 0
ibrutinib 1X70OSD4VX
Adenine JAC85A2161

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

7-18

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 14/25
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 15/148/03
Pays : United Kingdom

Références

N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 9;372(15):1430-40
pubmed: 25853747
N Engl J Med. 2015 Dec 17;373(25):2425-37
pubmed: 26639149
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 4;369(1):32-42
pubmed: 23782158
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 17;371(3):213-23
pubmed: 24881631
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 May 18;8:50
pubmed: 20482804
Blood. 2015 Aug 6;126(6):739-45
pubmed: 26059948
Br J Haematol. 2014 May;165(3):316-33
pubmed: 24528152
Eur J Health Econ. 2013 Oct;14(5):749-59
pubmed: 22941034
Palliat Med. 2015 Dec;29(10):899-907
pubmed: 26199134
Blood. 2015 Apr 16;125(16):2497-506
pubmed: 25700432
Ann Oncol. 2013 Oct;24 Suppl 6:vi155-9
pubmed: 24078658
Blood. 2009 Apr 30;113(18):4163-70
pubmed: 19196866
Br J Haematol. 2013 Jan;160(2):171-6
pubmed: 23150997

Auteurs

Paul Tappenden (P)

ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. p.tappenden@sheffield.ac.uk.

Christopher Carroll (C)

ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

John Stevens (J)

ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Emma Simpson (E)

ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Praveen Thokala (P)

ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Ruth Wong (R)

ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Josh Wright (J)

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.

Rebecca Auer (R)

Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH