IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v36y2018i9d10.1007_s40273-018-0644-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ixazomib for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Review from an Evidence Review Group on a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • Xavier Armoiry

    (University of Warwick)

  • Martin Connock

    (University of Warwick)

  • Alexander Tsertsvadze

    (University of Warwick)

  • Ewen Cummins

    (McMDC)

  • G. J. Melendez-Torres

    (University of Warwick)

  • Pam Royle

    (University of Warwick)

  • Aileen Clarke

    (University of Warwick)

Abstract

Ixazomib is an oral proteasome inhibitor used in combination with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (IXA-LEN-DEX) and licensed for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. As part of a single technology appraisal (ID807) undertaken by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, the Evidence Review Group, Warwick Evidence was invited to independently review the evidence submitted by the manufacturer of ixazomib, Takeda UK Ltd. The main source of clinical effectiveness data about IXA-LEN-DEX came from the Tourmaline-MM1 randomized controlled trial in which 771 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma received either IXA-LEN-DEX or placebo-LEN-DEX as their second-, third-, or fourth-line treatment. Takeda estimated the cost effectiveness of IXA-LEN-DEX using a de-novo partitioned-survival model with three health states (pre-progression, post-progression, and dead). In their first submission, this model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness of IXA-LEN-DEX vs. bortezomib plus dexamethasone (BORT-DEX) in second-line treatment, and of IXA-LEN-DEX vs. LEN-DEX in third-line treatment. To estimate the relative clinical performance of IXA-LEN-DEX vs. BORT-DEX, Takeda conducted network meta-analyses for important outcomes. The network meta-analysis for overall survival was found to be flawed in several respects, but mainly because a hazard ratio input for one of the studies in the network had been inverted, resulting in a large inflation of the claimed superiority of IXA-LEN-DEX over BORT-DEX and a considerable overestimation of its cost effectiveness. In subsequent submissions, Takeda withdrew second-line treatment as an option for IXA-LEN-DEX. The manufacturer’s first submission comparing IXA-LEN-DEX with LEN-DEX for third-line therapy employed Tourmaline-MM1 data from third- and fourth-line patients as proxy for a third-line population. The appraisal committee did not consider this reasonable because randomization in Tourmaline-MM1 was stratified according to one previous treatment and two or more previous treatments. A further deficiency was considered to be the manufacturer’s use of interim survival data rather than the most mature data available. A second submission from the company focussed on IXA-LEN-DEX vs. LEN-DEX as third- or fourth-line treatment (the two or more previous lines population) and a new patient access scheme was introduced. Covariate modeling of survival outcomes was proposed using the most mature survival data. The Evidence Review Group’s main criticisms of the new evidence included: the utility associated with the pre-progression health state was overestimated, treatment costs of ixazomib were underestimated, survival models were still associated with great uncertainty, leading to clinically implausible anomalies and highly variable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates, and the company had not explored a strong assumption that the survival benefit of IXA-LEN-DEX over LEN-DEX would be fully maintained for a further 22 years beyond the observed data, which encompassed only approximately 2.5 years of observation. The appraisal committee remained unconvinced that ixazomib represented a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources. Takeda’s third submission offered new base-case parametric models for survival outcomes, a new analysis of utilities, and proposed a commercial access agreement. In a brief critique of the third submission, the Evidence Review Group agreed that the selection of appropriate survival models was problematic and at the request of the National Institute for Health Care and Excellence investigated external sources of evidence regarding survival outcomes. The Evidence Review Group considered that some cost and utility estimates in the submission may have remained biased in favor of ixazomib. As a result of their third appraisal meeting, the committee judged that for the two to three prior therapies population, and at the price agreed in a commercial access agreement, ixazomib had the potential to be cost effective. It was referred to the Cancer Drugs Fund so that further data could accrue with the aim of diminishing the clinical uncertainties.

Suggested Citation

  • Xavier Armoiry & Martin Connock & Alexander Tsertsvadze & Ewen Cummins & G. J. Melendez-Torres & Pam Royle & Aileen Clarke, 2018. "Ixazomib for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Review from an Evidence Review Group on a NICE Single Technology Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(9), pages 1073-1081, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0644-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0644-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0644-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-018-0644-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian R. White, 2009. "Multivariate random-effects meta-analysis," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 9(1), pages 40-56, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeffrey L Jackson & Akira Kuriyama & Yachiyo Kuwatsuka & Sarah Nickoloff & Derek Storch & Wilkins Jackson & Zhi-Jiang Zhang & Yasuaki Hayashino, 2019. "Beta-blockers for the prevention of headache in adults, a systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-38, March.
    2. Elena Kulinskaya & Stephan Morgenthaler & Robert G. Staudte, 2014. "Combining Statistical Evidence," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 82(2), pages 214-242, August.
    3. Caroline S Clarke & Rachael M Hunter & Ian Shemilt & Victoria Serra-Sastre, 2017. "Multi-arm Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) comparing different durations of adjuvant trastuzumab in early breast cancer, from the English NHS payer perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Ian R. White, 2011. "Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: Updates to mvmeta," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 11(2), pages 255-270, June.
    5. Evangelos Kontopantelis & David Reeves, 2010. "metaan: Random-effects meta-analysis," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 10(3), pages 395-407, September.
    6. Chunhu Shi & Jo C Dumville & Nicky Cullum, 2018. "Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention: A network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-29, February.
    7. James B Kirkbride & Antonia Errazuriz & Tim J Croudace & Craig Morgan & Daniel Jackson & Jane Boydell & Robin M Murray & Peter B Jones, 2012. "Incidence of Schizophrenia and Other Psychoses in England, 1950–2009: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-1, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0644-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.