What is the Impact of the Analysis Method Used for Health State Utility Values on QALYs in Oncology? A Simulation Study Comparing Progression-Based and Time-to-Death Approaches

Background: Health state utility values (‘utilities’) are an integral part of health technology assessment. Though traditionally categorised by disease status in oncology (i.e. progression), several recent assessments have adopted values calculated according to the time that measures were recorded before death. We conducted a simulation study to understand the limitations of each approach, with a focus on mismatches between the way utilities are generated, and analysed. Methods: Survival times were simulated based on published literature, with permutations of three utility generation mechanisms (UGMs) and utility analysis methods (UAMs): (1) progression based, (2) time-to-death based, and (3) a ‘combination approach’. For each analysis quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated. Goodness of fit was assessed via percentage mean error (%ME) and mean absolute error (%MAE). Scenario analyses were performed varying individual parameters, with complex scenarios mimicking published studies. The statistical code is provided for transparency and to aid future work in the area. Results: %ME and %MAE were lowest when the correct analysis form was specified (i.e. UGM and UAM aligned). Underestimates were produced when a time-to-death element was present in the UGM but not included in the UAM, while the ‘combined’ UAM produced overestimates irrespective of the UGM. Scenario analysis demonstrated the importance of the volume of available data beyond the initial time period, for example follow-up. Conclusions: We show that the use of an incorrectly or over-specified UAM can result in substantial bias in the estimation of utilities. We present a flowchart to highlight the issues that may be faced

Approaches to Selecting "Time Zero" in External Control Arms with Multiple Potential Entry Points: A Simulation Study of 8 Approaches

Background: When including data from an external control arm to estimate comparative effectiveness, there is a methodological choice of when to set “time zero,” the point at which a patient would be eligible/enrolled in a contemporary study. Where patients receive multiple lines of eligible therapy and thus alternative points could be selected, this issue is complex. Methods: A simulation study was conducted in which patients received multiple prior lines of therapy before entering either cohort. The results from the control and intervention data sets are compared using 8 methods for selecting time zero. The base-case comparison was set up to be biased against the intervention (which is generally received later), with methods compared in their ability to estimate the true intervention effectiveness. We further investigate the impact of key study attributes (such as sample size) and degree of overlap in time-varying covariates (such as prior lines of therapy) on study results. Results: Of the 8 methods, 5 (all lines, random line, systematically selecting groups based on mean absolute error, root mean square error, or propensity scores) showed good performance in accounting for differences between the line at which patients were included. The first eligible line can be statistically inefficient in some situations. All lines (with censoring) cannot be used for survival outcomes. The last eligible line cannot be recommended. Conclusions: Multiple methods are available for selecting the most appropriate time zero from an external control arm. Based on the simulation, we demonstrate that some methods frequently perform poorly, with several viable methods remaining. In selecting between the viable methods, analysts should consider the context of their analysis and justify the approach selected. There are multiple methods available from which an analyst may select “time zero” in an external control cohort. This simulation study demonstrates that some methods perform poorly but most are viable options, depending on context and the degree of overlap in time zero across cohorts. Careful thought and clear justification should be used when selecting the strategy for a study

Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis in Cost-Effectiveness Models: Determining Model Convergence in Cohort Models.

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) demonstrates the parameter uncertainty in a decision problem. The technique involves sampling parameters from their respective distributions (rather than simply using mean/median parameter values). Guidance in the literature, and from health technology assessment bodies, on the number of simulations that should be performed suggests a 'sufficient number', or until 'convergence', which is seldom defined. The objective of this tutorial is to describe possible outcomes from PSA, discuss appropriate levels of accuracy, and present guidance by which an analyst can determine if a sufficient number of simulations have been conducted, such that results are considered to have converged. The proposed approach considers the variance of the outcomes of interest in cost-effectiveness analysis as a function of the number of simulations. A worked example of the technique is presented using results from a published model, with recommendations made on best practice. While the technique presented remains essentially arbitrary, it does give a mechanism for assessing the level of simulation error, and thus represents an advance over current practice of a round number of simulations with no assessment of model convergence

Voretigene Neparvovec for Treating Inherited Retinal Dystrophies Caused by RPE65 Gene Mutations: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Highly Specialised Technology Appraisal

The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) considered evidence for voretigene neparvovec (VN; Luxturna®) for the treatment of RPE65-mediated inherited retinal dystrophies (IRD) within its highly specialised technology programme. This paper summarises the evidence provided by the company; the appraisal of the evidence by the Peninsula Technology Appraisal Group, who were commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG); and the development of the NICE guidance by the appraisal committee. The evidence presented by the company highlighted the significant lifelong burden of IRD for patients and carers. Evidence to support the effectiveness of VN was lacking, but the available evidence showed a modest, sustained improvement across a variety of vision-related outcomes. While patients would remain visually impaired, the committee considered that VN would prevent further deterioration in vision. The modelling approach used by the company had a number of limitations and relied heavily upon a large volume of clinical expert input to produce cost-effectiveness estimates with large uncertainty around long-term effectiveness. The ERG’s main concerns revolved around these long-term outcomes and the plausibility of utility values. The NICE committee were convinced that the clinical benefits of VN were important and an appropriate use of national health service resources within a specialised service. The committee concluded that a high unmet need existed in patients with RPE65-mediated IRD and that VN represents a step change in the management of this condition

Health Utility Analysis of Tepotinib in Patients with Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring MET Exon 14 Skipping

OBJECTIVES: The VISION trial showed durable activity of tepotinib in MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We analyzed health state utilities using patient-reported outcomes from VISION. METHODS: EQ-5D-5L and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 responses were collected at baseline, every 6-12 weeks during treatment, and at end-of-treatment and safety follow-up. EQ-5D-5L and EORTC Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) utilities were derived using US, Canada, UK and Taiwan value sets, where available. Utilities were analyzed with linear mixed models including covariates for progression or time-to-death (TTD). RESULTS: Utilities were derived for 273/291 patients (EQ-5D-5L, 1545 observations; QLU-C10D, 1546 observations). Mean (± standard deviation) US EQ-5D-5L utilities increased after tepotinib initiation, from 0.687 ± 0.287 at baseline to 0.754 ± 0.250 before independently assessed progression, and decreased post-progression (0.704 ± 0.288). US QLU-C10D utilities showed similar trends (0.705 ± 0.215, 0.753 ± 0.195, and 0.708 ± 0.209, respectively). Progression-based models demonstrated a statistically significant impact of progression on utilities and predicted higher utilities pre- versus post-progression. TTD-based models showed statistically significant associations of TTD with utilities and predicted declining utilities as TTD decreased. Prior treatment (yes/no) did not significantly predict utilities in progression- or TTD-based models. Utilities for Canada, UK and Taiwan showed comparable trends. CONCLUSIONS: In this first analysis of health state utilities in patients with METex14 skipping NSCLC, who received tepotinib, utilities were significantly associated with progression and TTD, but not prior treatment

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of bleeding outcomes in severe haemophilia A: Comparing valoctocogene roxaparvovec gene therapy, emicizumab prophylaxis, and FVIII replacement prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION: Head-to-head evaluation of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, the first gene therapy approved for haemophilia A, with emicizumab is not available. Therefore, phase 3 trial data were indirectly compared. AIM: To compare bleeding rates in trials evaluating 6 × 1013  vg/kg valoctocogene roxaparvovec (GENEr8-1; NCT03370913), 1.5 mg/kg emicizumab dosed every week (HAVEN 3; NCT02847637), and FVIII prophylaxis (270-902) in participants with severe haemophilia A (FVIII ≤1 IU/dL). METHODS: Valoctocogene roxaparvovec versus emicizumab and FVIII prophylaxis as used in 270-902 versus emicizumab cross-trial comparisons were performed using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Individual participant data from GENEr8-1 and 270-902 were weighted to equalise aggregate participant baseline characteristics from HAVEN 3. After MAIC weighting, annualised bleeding rates (ABR) and proportions of participants without bleeds were compared for treated bleeds, all bleeds, treated joint bleeds, and treated spontaneous bleeds. RESULTS: After MAIC weighting, ABR for all bleeds was statistically significantly lower with valoctocogene roxaparvovec than emicizumab (rate ratio [95% CI], .55 [.33-.93]). Additionally, significantly higher proportions of participants had no treated joint bleeds (odds ratio [95% CI], 2.75 [1.20-6.31]) and no treated bleeds (3.25 [1.53-6.90]) with valoctocogene roxaparvovec versus emicizumab. When compared with the mainly standard half-life FVIII prophylaxis regimens in 270-902, mean ABRs (except for all bleeds) were significantly lower, and significantly higher proportions reported 0 bleeds for all outcomes with emicizumab. CONCLUSION: Valoctocogene roxaparvovec provided generally lower bleeding rates and higher probability of no bleeds, including treated joint bleeds, than emicizumab. Emicizumab was more effective than FVIII prophylaxis regimens used in 270-902

Carbetocin versus oxytocin for prevention of post-partum haemorrhage at caesarean section in the United Kingdom:An economic impact analysis

OBJECTIVE: To determine the economic impact of the introduction of carbetocin for the prevention of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) at caesarean section, compared to oxytocin. STUDY DESIGN: The model is a decision tree conducted from a UK National Health Service perspective. 1500 caesarean sections (both elective and emergency) were modelled over a 12 month period. Efficacy data was taken from a published Cochrane meta-analysis, and costs from NHS Reference costs, the British National Formulary and the NHS electronic Medicines Information Tool. A combination of hospital audit data and expert input from an advisory board of clinicians was used to inform resource use estimates. The main outcome measures were the incidence of PPH and total cost over a one year time horizon, as a result of using carbetocin compared to oxytocin for prevention of PPH at caesarean section. RESULTS: The use of carbetocin compared to oxytocin for prevention of PPH at caesarean section was associated with a reduction of 30 (88 vs 58) PPH events (>500ml blood loss), and a cost saving of £27,518. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, carbetocin had a 91.5% probability of producing better outcomes, and a 69.4% chance of being dominant (both cheaper and more effective) compared to oxytocin. CONCLUSION: At list price, the introduction of carbetocin appears to provide improved clinical outcomes along with cost savings, though this is subject to uncertainty regarding the underlying data in efficacy, resource use, and cost

Patient-reported utilities in advanced or metastatic melanoma, including analysis of utilities by time to death

Background: Health-related quality of life is often collected in clinical studies, and forms a cornerstone of economic evaluation. This study had two objectives, firstly to report and compare pre- and post-progression health state utilities in advanced melanoma when valued by different methods and secondly to explore the validity of progression-based health state utility modelling compared to modelling based upon time to death. Methods: Utilities were generated from the ipilimumab MDX010-20 trial (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00094653) using the condition-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 (via the EORTC-8D) and generic SF-36v2 (via the SF-6D) preference-based measures. Analyses by progression status and time to death were conducted on the patient-level data from the MDX010-20 trial using generalised estimating equations fitted in Stata®, and the predictive abilities of the two approaches compared. Results: Mean utility showed a decrease on disease progression in both the EORTC-8D (0.813 to 0.776) and the SF-6D (0.648 to 0.626). Whilst higher utilities were obtained using the EORTC-8D, the relative decrease in utility on progression was similar between measures. When analysed by time to death, both EORTC-8D and SF-6D showed a large decrease in utility in the 180 days prior to death (from 0.831 to 0.653 and from 0.667 to 0.544, respectively). Compared to progression status alone, the use of time to death gave similar or better estimates of the original data when used to predict patient utility in the MDX010-20 study. Including both progression status and time to death further improved model fit. Utilities seen in MDX010-20 were also broadly comparable with those seen in the literature. Conclusions: Patient-level utility data should be analysed prior to constructing economic models, as analysis solely by progression status may not capture all predictive factors of patient utility and time to death may, as death approaches, be as or more important. Additionally this study adds to the body of evidence showing that different scales lead to different health state values. Further research is needed on how different utility instruments (the SF-6D, EORTC-8D and EQ-5D) relate to each other in different disease areas

Estimating the clinical effectiveness and value-based price range of erenumab for the prevention of migraine in patients with prior treatment failures: a US societal perspective

BACKGROUND: Frequent migraine with four or more headache days per month is a common, disabling neurovascular disease. From a US societal perspective, this analysis models the clinical efficacy and estimates the value-based price (VBP) for erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor. METHODS: A Markov health state transition model was developed to estimate the incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and value-based price range for erenumab in migraine prevention. The model comprises "on preventive treatment", "off preventive treatment", and "death" health states across a 10-year time horizon. The evaluation compared erenumab to no preventive treatment in episodic and chronic migraine patients that have failed at least one preventive therapy. Therapeutic benefits are based on estimated changes in monthly migraine days (MMD) from erenumab pivotal clinical trials and a network meta-analysis of migraine studies. Utilities were estimated using previously published mapping algorithms. A VBP analysis was performed to identify maximum erenumab annual prices at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100,000-$200,000 per QALY. Estimates of VBP under different scenarios such as choice of different comparators, assumptions around inclusion of placebo effect, and exclusion of work productivity losses were also generated. RESULTS: Erenumab resulted in incremental QALYs of 0.185 vs supportive care (SC) and estimated cost offsets due to reduced MMD of $8,482 over 10 years, with an average duration of treatment of 2.01 years. The estimated VBP at WTP thresholds of$100,000-$200,000 for erenumab compared to SC ranged from$14,238-$23,998. VBP estimates including the placebo effect and excluding work productivity ranged from$7,445-$13,809; increasing to$12,151-$18,589 with onabotulinumtoxinA as a comparator in chronic migraine. CONCLUSION: Erenumab is predicted to reduce migraine-related direct and indirect costs, and increase QALYs compared to SC