BackgroundGastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) are rare cancers most often found in the gastrointestinal system or the pancreas. However, patient-reported health state utilities based on clinical trials have not been previously reported in this disease area.MethodsThe CLARINET study collected EORTC QLQ-C30 data from patients in both stable and progressive disease states, although data for the latter were only available during the early stage of progression due to trial design. Using published algorithms, data were mapped to EQ-5D utility values. Random-effects generalised least squares models were used to investigate the impacts of progression status, tumour site and other patient characteristics on mapped utility values.ResultsIn total, 1053 observations from 204 patients were mapped to EQ-5D utilities using the McKenzie mapping algorithm. The final random-effects model included age, gender, baseline utility and progression status as covariates; it was not feasible to investigate time-to-death utility due to a limit number of deaths in the CLARINET study. Tumour location (midgut vs pancreas) does not seem to affect utility. However, the difference in utilities based on progression status is statistically significant (p < 0.05) in the base case analysis, and the estimated utilities for stable and progressive disease are 0.776 and 0.726, respectively. Furthermore, scenario analyses showed that utility for progressive disease is numerically lower than for stable disease, but this may not be statistically significant in scenarios where alternative Longworth mapping algorithm was used.ConclusionsPatients with GEP-NETs experience worse utility values in the progressive disease state compared to the stable disease state, based on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQL) data from the CLARINET study. The decline of utility in the progressive disease state may be underestimated because progressive HRQL data were only collected shortly after the progression event in the trial. The estimated trial-based utilities can be used in future economic evaluations for GEP-NET treatments and to provide more insights to physicians on patient-reported quality of life outcomes in GEP-NETs.Trial registrationCLARINET EU Clinical Trials Register Number, 2005–004904-35.
Background The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is responsible for ensuring that patients in England and Wales can access clinically and cost-effective treatments. However, NICE's processes pose significant reimbursement challenges for treatments for rare diseases. While some orphan medicines have been appraised via the highly specialised technology route, most are appraised via the single technology appraisal programme, a route that is expected to be increasingly used given new more restrictive highly specialised technology criteria. This often results in delays to access owing to differences in applicable thresholds and the single technology appraisal approach being ill-equipped to deal with the inevitable decision uncertainty. NICE recently published their updated methods and process manual, which includes a new severity-of-disease modifier and an instruction to be more flexible when considering uncertainty in rare diseases. However, as the threshold gap between the single technology appraisal and highly specialised technology programmes remains, it is unlikely that these changes alone will address the problem. Objective We explored the potential impact of quality-adjusted life-year weights in decision making. Methods We explored the impact of NICE's new severity-of-disease modifier weighting and two alternative methods (the use of alternative quality-adjusted life-year weights and the fair rate of return), using three recent single technology appraisals of orphan medicines (caplacizumab, teduglutide and pirfenidone for mild idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis). Results Our results suggest NICE's severity-of-disease modifier would not have affected the recommendations. Using alternative methods, based upon achievement of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below standard thresholds, patients could have received access to caplacizumab approximately 5 months earlier, and the appraisals for teduglutide and pirfenidone would have resulted in a positive recommendation following appraisal consultation meeting 1 when neither of these products was available over 5 years from the initial submission. Conclusion Ultimately, moving from a restrictive end-of-life modifier to one based on disease severity is a more equitable approach likely to benefit many therapies, including orphan products. However, NICE's single technology appraisal updates are unlikely to result in faster reimbursement of orphan medicines, nor will they address concerns around market access for orphan medicines in the UK.
Aim: To assess the cost–effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin (BV) versus physician’s choice (methotrexate or bexarotene) for treating advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Materials & methods: A partitioned-survival model was developed from the National Health Service perspective in England and Wales. Model inputs were informed by the ALCANZA trial, real-world UK data, published literature or clinical experts. Results: Over the modeled lifetime, BV dominated physician’s choice and provided an additional 1.58 life-years and 1.09 higher quality-adjusted life years with a net cost saving of £119,565. The net monetary benefit was £152,326 using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/quality-adjusted life year. Results were robust in sensitivity and scenario analyses. Conclusion: BV is a highly cost-effective treatment for advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
INTRODUCTION:Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) are rare cancers most often found in the gastrointestinal system or the pancreas. However, patient-reported health state utilities based on clinical trials have not been previously reported in this disease area.METHODS:The CLARINET study collected the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 data from patients in both stable and progressive disease states, although data for the latter were only available during the early stage of progression due to trial design. Using published algorithms, data were mapped to EQ-5D utility values. Random-effects generalized least squares models were used to investigate the impacts of progression status, tumour site and other patient characteristics on mapped utility values.RESULTS:In total, 1,053 observations from 204 patients were mapped to EuroQol (EQ-5D) utilities using the McKenzie mapping algorithm. The final random-effects model included age, gender, baseline utility and progression status as covariates; it was not feasible to investigate time-to-death utility due to a limited number of death in the CLARINET study. Tumour location (midgut versus pancreas) does not seem to affect utility. However, the difference in utilities based on progression status is statistically significant (p<.05) in the base case analysis, and the estimated utilities for stable and progressive disease are .776 and .726, respectively. Furthermore, scenario analyses showed that utility for progressive disease is numerically lower than for stable disease, but this may not be statistically significant in some scenarios.CONCLUSIONS:Patients with GEP-NETs experience worse utility values in the progressive disease state compared to the stable disease state, based on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQL) data from the CLARINET study. The decline of utility in the progressive disease state may be underestimated because progressive HRQL data were only collected shortly after the progression event in the trial. The estimated trial-based utilities can be used in future economic evaluations for GEP-NET treatments and to provide more insights to physicians on patient-reported quality of life outcomes in GEP-NETs.
639 Background: Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) is indicated and recommended for the treatment of previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previous evaluations used pooled clinical evidence from the Phase III (RECOURSE) and Phase II trials to model cost-effectiveness, but FTD/TPI specific utilities were not available and alternative data sources were used. The aim of this study was to utilize EQ-5D data from an ongoing Phase IIIb trial (PRECONNECT) within an updated cost-effectiveness model to validate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes for mCRC patients receiving FTD/TPI. Methods: EQ-5D-3L data from PRECONNECT trial were analyzed with UK utility tariff applied. Pre- and post-progression health state utilities were estimated using a linear mixed effects regression model. Indirect comparison versus regorafenib was based on evidence from the CORRECT trial. Utilities and UK costs (GBP, 2018) were then implemented into the existing economic model. Results: Mean pre-progression and post-progression utilities were 0.72 and 0.59, respectively, with discounted incremental quality adjusted life years gain of 2.1 months versus best supportive care (BSC) and 0.8 versus regorafenib. Use of FTD/TPI based on PRECONNECT data, as in the previous analysis, was associated with improved mean survival pre-progression (by 1.8 months) and post-progression (by 1.4 months) for the total OS gain of 3.2 months versus BSC. The mean OS gain versus regorafenib was 1.4 months. Updated cost-effectiveness analysis using PRECONNECT derived inputs showed that results remained broadly unchanged with a negligible increase in ICER from £51,589 to £51,792 (£51,101 in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis) when compared to BSC, while FTD/TPI remained dominant (more effective and less costly) versus regorafenib. Conclusions: New HRQoL data from the PRECONNECT study collected in a real-world setting validated previous HRQoL inputs used to model cost-effectiveness of FTD/TPI in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT03306394.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.