Spinal Cord Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain in England From 2010 to 2020: A Hospital Episode Statistics Analysis.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recognized intervention for the management of chronic neuropathic pain. The United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Care Excellence has recommended SCS as a management option for chronic neuropathic pain since 2008. The aim of this study is to undertake an assessment of SCS uptake across the National Health Service in England up to 2020. Hospital Episode Statistics were obtained for patients with neuropathic pain potentially eligible for SCS and patients receiving an SCS-related procedure. Data were retrieved nationally and per region from the years 2010-2011 to 2019-2020. There were 50,288 adults in England attending secondary care with neuropathic pain in 2010-2011, increasing to 66,376 in 2019-2020. The number of patients with neuropathic pain with an SCS procedure increased on a year-to-year basis until 2018-2019. However, less than 1% of people with neuropathic pain received an SCS device with no evidence of an increase over time when considering the background increase in neuropathic pain prevalence. Only a small proportion of patients in England with neuropathic pain potentially eligible for SCS receives this intervention. The recommendation for routine use of SCS for management of neuropathic pain has not resulted in an uptake of SCS over the last decade

Lenvatinib and sorafenib for differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background Thyroid cancer is a rare cancer, accounting for only 1% of all malignancies in England and Wales. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) accounts for ≈94% of all thyroid cancers. Patients with DTC often require treatment with radioactive iodine. Treatment for DTC that is refractory to radioactive iodine [radioactive iodine-refractory DTC (RR-DTC)] is often limited to best supportive care (BSC). Objectives We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany) for the treatment of patients with RR-DTC. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched (date range 1999 to 10 January 2017; searched on 10 January 2017). The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. Review methods We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, prospective observational studies and economic evaluations of lenvatinib or sorafenib. In the absence of relevant economic evaluations, we constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib with that of BSC. Results Two RCTs were identified: SELECT (Study of [E7080] LEnvatinib in 131I-refractory differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid) and DECISION (StuDy of sorafEnib in loCally advanced or metastatIc patientS with radioactive Iodine-refractory thyrOid caNcer). Lenvatinib and sorafenib were both reported to improve median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo: 18.3 months (lenvatinib) vs. 3.6 months (placebo) and 10.8 months (sorafenib) vs. 5.8 months (placebo). Patient crossover was high (≥ 75%) in both trials, confounding estimates of overall survival (OS). Using OS data adjusted for crossover, trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with lenvatinib compared with those given placebo (SELECT) but not for patients treated with sorafenib compared with those given placebo (DECISION). Both lenvatinib and sorafenib increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and dose reductions were required (for > 60% of patients). The results from nine prospective observational studies and 13 systematic reviews of lenvatinib or sorafenib were broadly comparable to those from the RCTs. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected only in DECISION. We considered the feasibility of comparing lenvatinib with sorafenib via an indirect comparison but concluded that this would not be appropriate because of differences in trial and participant characteristics, risk profiles of the participants in the placebo arms and because the proportional hazard assumption was violated for five of the six survival outcomes available from the trials. In the base-case economic analysis, using list prices only, the cost-effectiveness comparison of lenvatinib versus BSC yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £65,872, and the comparison of sorafenib versus BSC yields an ICER of £85,644 per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analyses show that none of the variations lowered the base-case ICERs to < £50,000 per QALY gained. Limitations We consider that it is not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib. Conclusions Compared with placebo/BSC, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib results in an improvement in PFS, objective tumour response rate and possibly OS, but dose modifications were required to treat AEs. Both treatments exhibit estimated ICERs of > £50,000 per QALY gained. Further research should include examination of the effects of lenvatinib, sorafenib and BSC (including HRQoL) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and the positioning of treatments in the treatment pathway. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055516. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of MRI-based technologies for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease : systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies are non-invasive diagnostic tests that can be used to assess non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of two magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies (LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography) for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for whom advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis had not been diagnosed and who had indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, or for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse was unsuitable, or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing. DATA SOURCES: The data sources searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using established methods. Diagnostic test accuracy estimates were calculated using bivariate models and a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated using a hierarchical model. A simple decision-tree model was developed to generate cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: The diagnostic test accuracy review (13 studies) and the clinical impact review (11 studies) only included one study that provided evidence for patients who had indeterminate or discordant results from fibrosis testing. No studies of patients for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse were unsuitable were identified. Depending on fibrosis level, relevant published LiverMultiScan diagnostic test accuracy results ranged from 50% to 88% (sensitivity) and from 42% to 75% (specificity). No magnetic resonance elastography diagnostic test accuracy data were available for the specific population of interest. Results from the clinical impact review suggested that acceptability of LiverMultiScan was generally positive. To explore how the decision to proceed to biopsy is influenced by magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies, the External Assessment Group presented cost-effectiveness analyses for LiverMultiScan plus biopsy versus biopsy only. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained results for seven of the eight diagnostic test strategies considered showed that LiverMultiScan plus biopsy was dominated by biopsy only; for the remaining strategy (Brunt grade ≥2), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained was £1,266,511. Results from threshold and scenario analyses demonstrated that External Assessment Group base-case results were robust to plausible variations in the magnitude of key parameters. LIMITATIONS: Diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness data for magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies for the population that is the focus of this assessment were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies may be useful to identify patients who may benefit from additional testing in the form of liver biopsy and those for whom this additional testing may not be necessary. However, there is a paucity of diagnostic test accuracy and clinical impact data for patients who have indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse are unsuitable or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing. Given the External Assessment Group cost-effectiveness analyses assumptions, the use of LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography for assessing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for patients with inconclusive results from previous fibrosis testing is unlikely to be a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources compared with liver biopsy only. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021286891. FUNDING: Funding for this study was provided by the Evidence Synthesis Programme of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Pegcetacoplan for Treating Paroxysmal Nocturnal Haemoglobinuria: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Apellis Pharmaceuticals/Sobi to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of pegcetacoplan versus eculizumab and pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab for treating paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria (PNH) in adults whose anaemia is uncontrolled after treatment with a C5 inhibitor. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). The company pursued a low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) Fast Track Appraisal (FTA). This was a form of STA processed in a shorter time frame and designed for technologies with company base-case ICER < £10,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and most plausible ICER < £20,000 per QALY gained. This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission, and the NICE Appraisal Committee's (AC's) final decision. The company presented clinical evidence from the PEGASUS trial that assessed the efficacy of pegcetacoplan versus eculizumab. At Week 16, patients in the pegcetacoplan arm had statistically significantly greater change from baseline in haemoglobin levels and a higher rate of transfusion avoidance than patients in the eculizumab arm. Using the PEGASUS trial and Study 302 data (a non-inferiority trial that assessed ravulizumab versus eculizumab), the company conducted an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to indirectly estimate the efficacy of pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab. The company identified key differences between trial designs and populations that could not be adjusted for using anchored MAIC methods. The company and ERG agreed that the anchored MAIC results were not robust and should not inform decision making. In the absence of robust indirect estimates, the company assumed that ravulizumab had equivalent efficacy to eculizumab in the PEGASUS trial population. Results from the company base-case cost-effectiveness analysis showed that treatment with pegcetacoplan dominated eculizumab and ravulizumab. The ERG considered that the long-term effectiveness of pegcetacoplan was uncertain and ran a scenario assuming that after 1 year the efficacy of pegcetacoplan would be the same as eculizumab; treatment with pegcetacoplan continued to dominate eculizumab and ravulizumab. The AC noted that treatment with pegcetacoplan had lower total costs than treatment with eculizumab or ravulizumab because it is self-administered and reduces the need for blood transfusions. If the assumption that ravulizumab has equivalent efficacy to eculizumab does not hold, then this will affect the estimate of the cost effectiveness of pegcetacoplan versus ravulizumab; however, the AC was satisfied that the assumption was reasonable. The AC recommended pegcetacoplan as an option for the treatment of PNH in adults who have uncontrolled anaemia despite treatment with a stable dose of a C5 inhibitor for ≥ 3 months. Pegcetacoplan was the first technology recommended by NICE via the low ICER FTA process

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain in England—a budget impact analysis

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) prior to full implantation of a device are recommended by expert guidelines and international regulators. The current study sought to estimate the budget impact of a screening trial of SCS and the costs or savings of discontinuing the use of a screening trial. A budget impact analysis was performed considering a study population that reflects the size and characteristics of a patient population with neuropathic pain in England eligible for SCS. The perspective adopted was that of the NHS with a 5-year time horizon. The base case analysis indicate that a no screening trial strategy would result in cost-savings to the NHS England of £400,000–£500,000 per year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate different scenarios. If ≥5% of the eligible neuropathic pain population received a SCS device, cost-savings would be &gt;£2.5 million/year. In contrast, at the lowest assumed cost of a screening trial (£1,950/patient), a screening trial prior to SCS implantation would be cost-saving. The proportion of patients having an unsuccessful screening trial would have to be ≥14.4% for current practice of a screening trial to be cost-saving. The findings from this budget impact analysis support the results of a recent UK multicenter randomized controlled trial (TRIAL-STIM) of a policy for the discontinuation of compulsory SCS screening trials, namely that such a policy would result in considerable cost-savings to healthcare systems