IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v37y2019i8d10.1007_s40273-018-0744-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dinutuximab Beta for Treating Neuroblastoma: An Evidence Review Group and Decision Support Unit Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • Becky Pennington

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Shije Ren

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Samantha Barton

    (Tavistock Square)

  • Mariana Bacelar

    (Tavistock Square)

  • Steven J. Edwards

    (Tavistock Square)

Abstract

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (EUSA Pharma) of dinutuximab beta (Qarziba®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for treating neuroblastoma. The BMJ Technology Assessment Group (BMJ-TAG) was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG), reviewing the submission from the company. The Decision Support Unit (DSU) was commissioned to review additional evidence submitted by the company and to undertake further analyses. This article presents the critical review of the company’s submissions by the ERG and DSU, further analyses undertaken by the DSU, and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical effectiveness for dinutuximab beta was derived from a phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the safety and efficacy of the addition of interleukin (IL)-2 to dinutuximab beta plus isotretinoin. This trial did not inform the relative effectiveness of dinutuximab beta versus isotretinoin alone, which was established practice in the UK for maintenance treatment. In the absence of direct evidence, the company initially conducted a naïve indirect treatment comparison against a historical control, and later performed a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) against the isotretinoin arm of an RCT comparing dinutuximab alpha and isotretinoin. The company submitted a partitioned survival analysis model that calculated the incremental cost effectiveness of dinutuximab beta versus isotretinoin. The company’s original incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £22,338 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. However, the ERG were concerned that the company’s ICER was not suitable for decision making, and thus carried out initial exploratory analysis as a first step to overcome the naïve estimation of treatment effectiveness in the model. The ERG’s analysis estimated an ICER of £111,858 per QALY gained. In their revised analysis incorporating the MAIC and other changes as requested by the appraisal committee, the company’s ICER was £24,661 per QALY gained. When the DSU incorporated longer-term isotretinoin data and made corrections to the model, the ICER increased to between £62,886 and £87,164 per QALY gained depending on the choice of survival model. A confidential Patient Access Scheme (PAS) decreased the ICERs. The ICERs with the PAS were over £40,000 per QALY gained, but the NICE committee additionally considered the patient population and its size, the disease severity, the potential for significant survival benefit and uncaptured health benefits, and recommended dinutuximab beta as a treatment option, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.

Suggested Citation

  • Becky Pennington & Shije Ren & Samantha Barton & Mariana Bacelar & Steven J. Edwards, 2019. "Dinutuximab Beta for Treating Neuroblastoma: An Evidence Review Group and Decision Support Unit Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(8), pages 985-993, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0744-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0744-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0744-0
    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/s40273-018-0744-0?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. Paul Kind & Geoffrey Hardman & Susan Macran, 1999. "UK population norms for EQ-5D," Working Papers 172chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    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. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    2. Dina Jankovic & Pedro Saramago Goncalves & Lina Gega & David Marshall & Kath Wright & Meena Hafidh & Rachel Churchill & Laura Bojke, 2022. "Cost Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Generalised Anxiety Disorder: A Model-Based Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 377-388, May.
    3. Billingsley Kaambwa & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Predicting EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) Utilities from Older People’s Quality of Life Brief Questionnaire (OPQoL-Brief) Scores," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 39-54, February.
    4. Carsten Hirt & Sergio Iannazzo & Silvia Chiroli & Lisa J. McGarry & Philipp Coutre & Leif Stenke & Torsten Dahlén & Jeffrey H. Lipton, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of the Third-Generation Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Ponatinib, vs. Second-Generation TKIs or Stem Cell Transplant, as Third-Line Treatment for Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leuk," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 555-567, August.
    5. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    6. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson, 2016. "Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(1), pages 8-19, January.
    7. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    8. Abdullah Pandor & Matt Stevenson & John Stevens & Marrissa Martyn-St James & Jean Hamilton & Jenny Byrne & Claudius Rudin & Andrew Rawdin & Ruth Wong, 2018. "Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(8), pages 903-915, August.
    9. Stefano Capri, 2013. "The economics of orphan drugs: the case of osteosarcoma treatment," LIUC Papers in Economics 265, Cattaneo University (LIUC).
    10. Nádia Simões & Nuno Crespo & Sandrina B. Moreira & Celeste A. Varum, 2016. "Measurement and determinants of health poverty and richness: evidence from Portugal," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1331-1358, June.
    11. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson, 2013. "Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: a tutorial," Working Papers 092cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    12. Andrea Manca & Nigel Rice & Mark J. Sculpher & Andrew H. Briggs, 2005. "Assessing generalisability by location in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the use of multilevel models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 471-485, May.
    13. Laura Bojke & Andrea Manca & Miqdad Asaria & Ronan Mahon & Shijie Ren & Stephen Palmer, 2017. "How to Appropriately Extrapolate Costs and Utilities in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 767-776, August.
    14. Amy Dymond & Will Green & Mary Edwards & Maria Angeles Lopez Pont & Girish Gupta, 2023. "Economic Evaluation of Tirbanibulin for the Treatment of Actinic Keratosis in Scotland," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 443-454, May.
    15. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & van Exel, N. Job A., 2005. "Expectations regarding length and health related quality of life: Some empirical findings," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(5), pages 1083-1094, September.
    16. Jamie Elvidge & Ash Bullement & Anthony J. Hatswell, 2016. "Cost Effectiveness of Characterised Chondrocyte Implantation for Treatment of Cartilage Defects of the Knee in the UK," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(11), pages 1145-1159, November.
    17. Paul Wallace & Elizabeth Murray & Jim McCambridge & Zarnie Khadjesari & Ian R White & Simon G Thompson & Eleftheria Kalaitzaki & Christine Godfrey & Stuart Linke, 2011. "On-line Randomized Controlled Trial of an Internet Based Psychologically Enhanced Intervention for People with Hazardous Alcohol Consumption," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-8, March.
    18. Merili Tamson & Rainer Reile & Diana Sokurova & Kaire Innos & Eha Nurk & Kaia Laidra & Sigrid Vorobjov, 2022. "Health-Related Quality of Life and Its Socio-Demographic and Behavioural Correlates during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Estonia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-12, July.
    19. Mengjun Wu & John Brazier & Benjamin Kearns & Clare Relton & Christine Smith & Cindy Cooper, 2015. "Examining the impact of 11 long-standing health conditions on health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D in a general population sample," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 141-151, March.
    20. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.

    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:37:y:2019:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0744-0. 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.