Author
Listed:
- Willem Witlox
(Maastricht University Medical Centre+ (MUMC+)
Maastricht University)
- Sabine Grimm
(Maastricht University Medical Centre+ (MUMC+)
Maastricht University)
- Jeremy Howick
(Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd)
- Nigel Armstrong
(Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd)
- Charlotte Ahmadu
(Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd)
- Kevin McDermott
(Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd)
- Thomas Otten
(Maastricht University Medical Centre+ (MUMC+)
Maastricht University)
- Caro Noake
(Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd)
- Robert Wolff
(Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd)
- Manuela Joore
(Maastricht University Medical Centre+ (MUMC+)
Maastricht University)
Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Celgene) of oral azacitidine (ONUREG), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral azacitidine for maintenance treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) after induction therapy compared with watch-and-wait plus best supportive care (BSC) and midostaurin. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG’s critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. In the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo: median OS gain of 9.9 months (24.7 months versus 14.8 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.55–0.86), p
Suggested Citation
Willem Witlox & Sabine Grimm & Jeremy Howick & Nigel Armstrong & Charlotte Ahmadu & Kevin McDermott & Thomas Otten & Caro Noake & Robert Wolff & Manuela Joore, 2023.
"Oral Azacitidine for Maintenance Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia After Induction Therapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal,"
PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(8), pages 857-867, August.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:pharme:v:41:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-023-01272-9
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01272-9
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:41:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-023-01272-9. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.