BackgroundBiological therapies are increasingly used to treat ulcerative colitis (UC).AimTo compare the efficacy of biologics in adults with moderately-to-severely active UC, stratified by prior exposure to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy.MethodsA systematic literature review was undertaken to identify studies of biologics approved for UC. Network meta-analysis was conducted for endpoints at induction and maintenance.ResultsSeven studies were included in the meta-analysis of induction treatment for anti-TNF therapy-naïve patients. All biologics were more effective than placebo in inducing clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing. Infliximab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement over adalimumab in clinical response (odds ratio [OR] [95% credible interval (CrI)]: 2.19 [1.35–3.55]), clinical remission (OR [95% CrI]: 2.81 [1.49–5.49]), and mucosal healing (OR [95% CrI]: 2.23 [1.21–4.14]); there were no other significant differences between biologics for induction efficacy. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis of maintenance treatment, two studies rerandomised responder patients at end of induction, and three followed the same patients ‘straight through’. To account for design differences, the number of responders at end of induction was assumed to be equivalent to the number rerandomised. Vedolizumab showed significantly different durable clinical response from comparators (OR [95% CrI] infliximab 3.18 [1.14–9.20], golimumab 2.33 [1.04–5.41], and adalimumab 3.96 [1.67–9.84]). In anti-TNF therapy-experienced patients, only vedolizumab and adalimumab could be compared. At induction, no significant differences in efficacy were seen. During maintenance, vedolizumab showed significantly improved rates of mucosal healing versus adalimumab (OR [95% CrI]: 6.72 [1.36–41.0]).ConclusionsThis study expands the understanding of comparative efficacies of biologic treatments for UC, encompassing outcomes and populations not previously studied. All biologic treatments were effective for UC during induction. Vedolizumab demonstrated possible clinical benefits in the maintenance setting versus all comparators, irrespective of prior anti-TNF exposure and after adjusting for differences in study design.

Overall, there is a paucity of information on the burden of SSc. Nonetheless, our review indicates that the quality of life of patients with SSc is considerably lower than that of the general population. In addition, SSc places a considerable economic burden on health care systems and society as a whole.

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the cost effectiveness of nivolumab versus docetaxel in previously treated, advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in England and assess how conditional reimbursement within the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) can be used to ensure timely patient access to effective treatments. Methods Cost-effectiveness models developed for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) TA483 (squamous) and TA484 (non-squamous) technology appraisals were supplemented with updated overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time-to-treatment discontinuation data collected as part of the CDF data collection agreement. Both models were developed by using a partitioned-survival approach based on PFS and OS predictions from CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057 to estimate the projected proportion of patients in each health state (progression free, progression, death) throughout the model’s time horizon. The primary outcomes were estimated costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/QALY gained. Results Base-case ICERs for treating patients with nivolumab versus docetaxel were £35,657/QALY and £38,703/QALY for squamous and non-squamous NSCLC patients, respectively, which are substantially lower than those obtained from what were deemed to be the most appropriate analyses for decision making in the original submissions when run with the same patient access scheme discount: £68,576/QALY and £73,189/QALY gained for squamous and non-squamous NSCLC, respectively. Conclusions Nivolumab versus docetaxel is cost effective for treating locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC after prior chemotherapy in adults, regardless of tumour histology or programmed death-ligand 1 expression status. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-020-00245-4.

The results suggest that the two palbociclib combinations yielded significantly greater PFS than endocrine therapy in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer. Palbociclib plus fulvestrant was associated with significantly less toxicity than everolimus plus exemestane.

A429is overlap in the criteria to qualify for funding. Many countries consider drugs for additional funding when a drug can be used in more than one indication and cannot be grouped to a specific DRG. Other criteria identified relate to, for example, drug prices and indications. Some countries grant additional reimbursement for drugs prior to assessment by a national reimbursement process, while others only grant additional reimbursement after the drug has been available for a certain period of time and funding decisions are based on historical data. In most countries, additional reimbursement is considered annually. Hospitals and expert groups can suggest additional reimbursement for expensive drugs to the responsible authority. ConClusions: Many countries have adapted to the need for additional funding for expensive drugs, and have established systems to grant this funding to hospitals. There are differences in criteria to qualify for, and timelines for receiving, additional funding after drugs are launched.