BackgroundThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) commissioned a ‘mock technology appraisal’ to assess whether changes to its methods and processes are needed. This report presents the findings of independent research commissioned to inform this appraisal and the deliberations of a panel convened by NICE to evaluate the mock appraisal.MethodsOur research included reviews to identify issues, analysis methods and conceptual differences and the relevance of alternative decision frameworks, alongside the development of an exemplar case study of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for treating acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.ResultsAn assessment of previous evaluations of regenerative medicines found that, although there were a number of evidential challenges, none was unique to regenerative medicines or was beyond the scope of existing methods used to conceptualise decision uncertainty. Regarding the clinical evidence for regenerative medicines, the issues were those associated with a limited evidence base but were not unique to regenerative medicines: small non-randomised studies, high variation in response and the intervention subject to continuing development. The relative treatment effects generated from single-arm trials are likely to be optimistic unless it is certain that the historical data have accurately estimated the efficacy of the control agent. Pivotal trials may use surrogate end points, which, on average, overestimate treatment effects. To reduce overall uncertainty, multivariate meta-analysis of all available data should be considered. Incorporating indirectly relevant but more reliable (more mature) data into the analysis can also be considered; such data may become available as a result of the evolving regulatory pathways being developed by the European Medicines Agency. For the exemplar case of CAR T-cell therapy, target product profiles (TPPs) were developed, which considered the ‘curative’ and ‘bridging to stem-cell transplantation’ treatment approaches separately. Within each TPP, three ‘hypothetical’ evidence sets (minimum, intermediate and mature) were generated to simulate the impact of alternative levels of precision and maturity in the clinical evidence. Subsequent assessments of cost-effectiveness were undertaken, employing the existing NICE reference case alongside additional analyses suggested within alternative frameworks. The additional exploratory analyses were undertaken to demonstrate how assessments of cost-effectiveness and uncertainty could be impacted by alternative managed entry agreements (MEAs), including price discounts, performance-related schemes and technology leasing. The panel deliberated on the range of TPPs, evidence sets and MEAs, commenting on the likely recommendations for each scenario. The panel discussed the challenges associated with the exemplar and regenerative medicines more broadly, focusing on the need for a robust quantification of the level of uncertainty in the cost-effective estimates and the potential value of MEAs in limiting the exposure of the NHS to high upfront costs and loss associated with a wrong decision.ConclusionsIt is to be expected that there will be a significant level of uncertainty in determining the clinical effectiveness of regenerative medicines and their long-term costs and benefits, but the existing methods available to estimate the implications of this uncertainty are sufficient. The use of risk sharing and MEAs between the NHS and manufacturers of regenerative medicines should be investigated further.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

In this first NMA to consider cladribine tablets, ocrelizumab and daclizumab for treatment of RRMS, cladribine tablets are a comparatively effective and safe alternative to other DMTs in both active RRMS and HRA + DAT populations.

Cladribine tablets are a cost-effective alternative to alemtuzumab and natalizumab in the treatment of HDA-RRMS from the perspective of the NHS in England.

Background: The phase III OlympiAD study (NCT02000622) showed a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and human epidermal

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding bedaquiline to a background regimen (BR) of drugs for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in the United Kingdom (UK).MethodsA cohort-based Markov model was developed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of bedaquiline plus BR (BBR) versus BR alone (BR) in the treatment of MDR-TB, over a 10-year time horizon. A National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective was considered. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). Data were sourced from a phase II, placebo-controlled trial, NHS reference costs, and the literature; the US list price of bedaquiline was used and converted to pounds (£18,800). Costs and effectiveness were discounted at a rate of 3.5% per annum. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted.ResultsThe total discounted cost per patient (pp) on BBR was £106,487, compared with £117,922 for BR. The total discounted QALYs pp were 5.16 for BBR and 4.01 for BR. The addition of bedaquiline to a BR resulted in a cost-saving of £11,434 and an additional 1.14 QALYs pp over a 10-year period, and is therefore considered to be the dominant (less costly and more effective) strategy over BR. BBR remained dominant in the majority of sensitivity analyses, with a 81% probability of being dominant versus BR in the probabilistic analysis.ConclusionsIn the UK, bedaquiline is likely to be cost-effective and cost-saving, compared with the current MDR-TB standard of care under a range of scenarios. Cost-savings over a 10-year period were realized from reductions in length of hospitalization, which offset the bedaquiline drug costs. The cost-benefit conclusions held after several sensitivity analyses, thus validating assumptions made, and suggesting that the results would hold even if the actual price of bedaquiline in the UK were higher than in the US.