Fractional exhaled nitric oxide for the management of asthma in adults: Systematic review

The aim of this review was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measured in a clinical setting for the management of asthma in adults. 13 electronic databases were searched and studies were selected against predefined inclusion criteria. Quality assessment was conducted using QUADAS-2. Class effect meta-analyses were performed. Six studies were included. Despite high levels of heterogeneity in multiple study characteristics, exploratory class effect meta-analyses were conducted. Four studies reported a wider definition of exacerbation rates (major or severe exacerbation) with a pooled rate ratio of 0.80 (95% CI 0.63–1.02). Two studies reported rates of severe exacerbations (requiring oral corticosteroid use) with a pooled rate ratio of 0.89 (95% CI 0.43–1.72). Inhaled corticosteroid use was reported by four studies, with a pooled standardised mean difference of −0.24 (95% CI −0.56–0.07). No statistically significant differences for health-related quality of life or asthma control were found. FeNO guided management showed no statistically significant benefit in terms of severe exacerbations or ICS use, but showed a statistically significant reduction in exacerbations of any severity. However, further research is warranted to clearly define which management protocols (including cut-off points) offer best efficacy and which patient groups would benefit the most

Vedolizumab for Treating Moderately to Severely Active Crohn’s Disease After Prior Therapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of vedolizumab (Takeda UK) to submit evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of vedolizumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe, active Crohn’s disease. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) and produced a critical review of the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company’s submission to NICE. The GEMINI II and III trials formed the main supporting evidence for the intervention. Both studies were phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab. They included patients who were naïve to tumour necrosis factor alpha antagonist (anti-TNF-α) therapy and patients who had an inadequate response to, loss of response to or intolerance of immunomodulators or anti-TNF-α agents. GEMINI II was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab as an induction treatment (dosing at weeks 0 and 2, with assessment at week 6) and maintenance treatment (during weeks 6–52). In contrast, GEMINI III was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab as an induction treatment only, with doses at weeks 0, 2 and 6, and assessment at weeks 6 and 10. In the absence of any direct head-to-head, randomised, controlled trials comparing vedolizumab with other relevant biologic therapies (adalimumab and infliximab) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, the company conducted a network meta-analysis, which compared vedolizumab, adalimumab, infliximab and placebo for the outcomes of clinical response, enhanced clinical response, clinical remission and discontinuation due to adverse events. The company model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for vedolizumab compared with the standard of care (consisting of 5-aminosalicylic acids, corticosteroids and immunosuppressants) to be £21,620 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained within the anti-TNF-α-failure population (which included a confidential patient access scheme for vedolizumab). The ICERs were above £30,000 per QALY gained for the mixed intention-to-treat population (including both anti-TNF-α-naïve and anti-TNF-α-failure populations) and in patients who were anti-TNF-α naïve only. The ERG identified a number of limitations that were believed to limit the robustness of the results presented by the company. These limitations could not be addressed by the ERG without major restructuring of the economic model. Therefore, the ERG concluded that the results from the company’s model needed to be interpreted with caution and that it was unclear whether the ICERs would increase or decrease following amendment of the identified structural issues

Obinutuzumab with Bendamustine for Treating Follicular Lymphoma Refractory to Rituximab: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of obinutuzumab (Roche) to submit evidence on its clinical and cost effectiveness when used in combination with bendamustine in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) refractory to rituximab. The Evidence Review Group (ERG), the School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield, produced a document summarising the key points from the company submission alongside a critical review. Efficacy for progression-free survival (PFS) and safety was positively demonstrated in the pivotal GADOLIN trial, which compared obinutuzumab in combination with bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab maintenance (O-Benda+O) against bendamustine monotherapy. Data on overall survival were immature. The company submitted a model-based economic analysis, including a patient access scheme. The ERG identified a number of limitations, in particular the absence of subgroup analysis and the approach used by the company to estimate overall survival (OS), which was more favourable to the intervention arm. The key uncertainty was the duration of the treatment effect on OS. This uncertainty is expected to be reduced when the final analysis of the GADOLIN trial is reported. Consequently, the NICE appraisal committee recommended O-Benda+O in the population covered by the marketing authorisation within the Cancer Drug Fund until NICE is able to review the guidance following publication of the final analysis of GADOLIN

Cefiderocol for treating severe aerobic Gram-negative bacterial infections: technology evaluation to inform a novel subscription-style payment model.

BackgroundTo limit the use of antimicrobials without disincentivising the development of novel antimicrobials, there is interest in establishing innovative models that fund antimicrobials based on an evaluation of their value as opposed to the volumes used. The aim of this project was to evaluate the population-level health benefit of cefiderocol in the NHS in England, for the treatment of severe aerobic Gram-negative bacterial infections when used within its licensed indications. The results were used to inform the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance in support of commercial discussions regarding contract value between the manufacturer and NHS England.MethodsThe health benefit of cefiderocol was first derived for a series of high-value clinical scenarios. These represented uses that were expected to have a significant impact on patients' mortality risks and health-related quality of life. The clinical effectiveness of cefiderocol relative to its comparators was estimated by synthesising evidence on susceptibility of the pathogens of interest to the antimicrobials in a network meta-analysis. Patient-level costs and health outcomes of cefiderocol under various usage scenarios compared with alternative management strategies were quantified using decision modelling. Results were reported as incremental net health effects expressed in quality-adjusted life-years, which were scaled to 20-year population values using infection number forecasts based on data from Public Health England. The outcomes estimated for the high-value clinical scenarios were extrapolated to other expected uses for cefiderocol.ResultsAmong Enterobacterales isolates with the metallo-beta-lactamase resistance mechanism, the base-case network meta-analysis found that cefiderocol was associated with a lower susceptibility relative to colistin (odds ratio 0.32, 95% credible intervals 0.04 to 2.47), but the result was not statistically significant. The other treatments were also associated with lower susceptibility than colistin, but the results were not statistically significant. In the metallo-beta-lactamase Pseudomonas aeruginosa base-case network meta-analysis, cefiderocol was associated with a lower susceptibility relative to colistin (odds ratio 0.44, 95% credible intervals 0.03 to 3.94), but the result was not statistically significant. The other treatments were associated with no susceptibility. In the base case, patient-level benefit of cefiderocol was between 0.02 and 0.15 quality-adjusted life-years, depending on the site of infection, the pathogen and the usage scenario. There was a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the benefits of cefiderocol across all subgroups. There was substantial uncertainty in the number of infections that are suitable for treatment with cefiderocol, so population-level results are presented for a range of scenarios for the current infection numbers, the expected increases in infections over time and rates of emergence of resistance. The population-level benefits varied substantially across the base-case scenarios, from 896 to 3559 quality-adjusted life-years over 20 years.ConclusionThis work has provided quantitative estimates of the value of cefiderocol within its areas of expected usage within the NHS.LimitationsGiven existing evidence, the estimates of the value of cefiderocol are highly uncertain.Future workFuture evaluations of antimicrobials would benefit from improvements to NHS data linkages; research to support appropriate synthesis of susceptibility studies; and application of routine data and decision modelling to assess enablement value.Study registrationNo registration of this study was undertaken.FundingThis award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Policy Research Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135591), conducted through the Policy Research Unit in Economic Methods of Evaluation in Health and Social Care Interventions, PR-PRU-1217-20401, and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 28. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information

Olaparib for Maintenance Treatment of BRCA 1 or 2 Mutated, Relapsed, Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian, Fallopian Tube and Peritoneal Cancer in People Whose Relapsed Disease has Responded to Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of olaparib (AstraZeneca) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of olaparib for the maintenance treatment of BRCA1/2 mutated (BRCAm), platinum-sensitive relapsed (PSR) ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer in people whose relapsed disease has responded to platinum-based chemotherapy. The Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company’s submission (CS) to NICE. The clinical evidence related to one phase II, double-blind randomised controlled trial that recruited 265 patients with PSR serous ovarian cancer (OC) regardless of BRCAm status. Patients received olaparib 400 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) or matched placebo. In the whole population, the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) was met (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.25–0.49, p < 0.01) for olaparib versus placebo. The BRCAm subgroup analysis (added after the study commenced but 1 month before the primary analysis was undertaken) reported an HR for PFS of 0.18 (95 % CI 0.10–0.31, p < 0.0001) for olaparib versus placebo, though interaction tests appeared inconclusive. Overall survival was not statistically significant in the whole group (HR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.64–1.21; p = 0.44) or the BRCAm subgroup (0.73; 95 % CI 0.45–1.17; p = 0.19), though treatment switching may have confounded results. The exclusion of data from sites allowing crossover resulted in an HR for overall survival (OS) of 0.52 (95 % CI 0.28–0.97, p = 0.039) in the BRCAm group. Health-related quality-of-life measures were not significantly different between groups. All post hoc exploratory outcomes (time to treatment discontinuation/death, time to first subsequent therapy/death, and time to second subsequent therapy/death) were statistically significantly better in the olaparib arm in the whole population and the BRCAm subgroup analyses. Adverse events were more frequent for olaparib but were largely minor or manageable. The company’s semi-Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of olaparib versus routine surveillance in patients with BRCAm PSR OC from a National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. The model suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for olaparib versus routine surveillance is expected to be approximately £49,146 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ERG did not consider the company’s cost-effectiveness estimates to be credible. Additional ERG analyses suggested that the ICER is likely to be more than £92,214 per QALY gained. Additional analyses provided by the company in patients who received three or more lines of chemotherapy suggested a more favourable cost-effectiveness profile for olaparib. The NICE Appraisal Committee recommended olaparib for this subgroup provided the cost of olaparib for people who continue to receive treatment after 15 months will be met by the company

Mepolizumab for Treating Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company (GlaxoSmithKline) that manufactures mepolizumab (Nucala(®)) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of mepolizumab for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group (ScHARR-TAG) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). The ERG produced a review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of mepolizumab as add-on to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC and omalizumab, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was based predominantly on three randomised controlled trials (DREAM, MENSA and SIRIUS) comparing add-on mepolizumab with placebo plus SoC. The relevant population was defined in terms of degree of asthma severity (four or more exacerbations in the previous year and/or dependency on maintenance oral corticosteroids [mOCS]) and degree of eosinophilia (a blood eosinophil count of ≥ 300 cells/µl in the previous year) based on post hoc subgroup analyses of the pivotal trials. Other subpopulations were considered throughout the appraisal, defined by different eosinophil measurements, number of exacerbations and dependency (or lack thereof) on mOCS. Statistically significant reductions in clinically significant exacerbations were observed in patients receiving mepolizumab compared with SoC meta-analysed across MENSA and DREAM in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (rate ratio [RR] 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.62) as well as in the relevant population (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.36-0.62). In terms of quality of life, differences on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire in MENSA for add-on subcutaneous mepolizumab 100 mg vs. placebo were 7 and 7.5 units in the modified ITT and relevant populations, respectively. A number of issues in the clinical evidence base warrant caution in its interpretation. The ERG noted that the definition of SoC used in the trials differed from that in clinical practice, where patients with severe uncontrolled asthma start treatment with a mOCS. The company's economic post-consultation analysis incorporating a confidential patient access scheme (PAS) estimated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for add-on mepolizumab compared with SoC was £27,418 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in the relevant population if patients stopped mepolizumab after 1 year unless (1) the number of exacerbations decreased at least 50% or (2) a reduction in corticosteroids dose was achieved whilst maintaining asthma control. The ERG applied an age adjustment to all utilities and corrected the post-continuation assessment utilities, which resulted in an ICER for add-on mepolizumab compared with SoC of £29,163 per QALY gained. The ERG noted that this ICER was not robust for patients who continued treatment due to a corticosteroid dose reduction where exacerbations had decreased by less than 50%, because corticosteroid dose reduction was not allowed in the main trial in which the evidence was gathered (MENSA). The NICE appraisal committee (AC) concluded that add-on mepolizumab could be recommended as an option for treating severe refractory eosinophilic asthma in adults for the relevant population when the stopping rule suggested by the company was applied. The AC also concluded that the comparison between mepolizumab and omalizumab was not clinically relevant or methodologically robust

Systematic review of the dry powder inhalers colistimethate sodium and tobramycin in cystic fibrosis

This systematic review evaluated evidence for two dry powder formulations, colistimethate sodium and tobramycin, for the treatment of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis, as part of the UK national recommendation process for new technologies. Electronic bibliographic databases were searched in May 2012 (MEDLINE, MEDLINE in-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, CINAHL, Web of Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index and BIOSIS Previews). Relevant outcomes included rate and extent of microbial response (e.g. sputum density of P. aeruginosa), lung function (e.g. forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)), frequency, severity of acute exacerbations and adverse events. Three trials were included, and both dry powder formulations were reported to be non-inferior in the short term to nebulised tobramycin for FEV1. However, long-term follow-up data were missing and the effect on exacerbation rates was not always reported. Whilst short-term results showed that both dry powder drugs were non-inferior to nebulised tobramycin, there was no long-term follow-up and no phase 3 trials compared nebulised and dry powder colistimethate sodium. The use of FEV1 as the primary end-point may not accurately represent changes in lung health. This review illustrates the difficulty in assessing new technologies where the evidence base is poor

Measurement of exhaled nitric oxide concentration in asthma: a systematic review and economic evaluation of NIOX MINO, NIOX VERO and NObreath

Background: High fractions of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in the breath of patients with symptoms of asthma are correlated with high levels of eosinophils and indicate that a patient is likely to respond to inhaled corticosteroids. This may have a role in the diagnosis and management of asthma. Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the hand-held electrochemical devices NIOX MINO® (Aerocrine, Solna, Sweden), NIOX VERO® (Aerocrine) and NObreath® (Bedfont Scientific, Maidstone, UK) for the diagnosis and management of asthma. Data sources: Systematic searches were carried out between March 2013 and April 2013 from database inception. Databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science. Trial registers such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials were also searched in March 2013. All searches were updated in September 2013. Review methods: A rapid review was conducted to assess the equivalence of hand-held and chemiluminescent FeNO monitors. Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy and management efficacy were conducted. A systematic review of economic analyses was also conducted and two de novo health economic models were developed. All three reviews were undertaken according to robust high-quality methodology. Results: The rapid review (27 studies) found varying levels of agreement between monitors (Bland–Altman 95% limits of agreement up to ±10 parts per billion), with better agreement at lower FeNO values. Correlation was good (generally r > 0.9). The diagnostic accuracy review identified 22 studies in adults (all ages) and four in children. No studies used NObreath or NIOX VERO and seven used NIOX MINO. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy varied widely. FeNO used in combination with another test altered diagnostic accuracy only slightly. High levels of heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Limited observations included that FeNO may be more reliable and useful as a rule-in than as a rule-out test; lower cut-off values in children and in smokers may be appropriate; and FeNO may be less reliable in the elderly. The management review identified five randomised controlled trials in adults, one in pregnant asthmatics and seven in children. Despite clinical heterogeneity, exacerbation rates were lower in all studies but not generally statistically significantly so. Effects on inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use were inconsistent, possibly because of differences in management protocols, differential effectiveness in adults and children and differences in population severity. One UK diagnostic model and one management model were identified. Aerocrine also submitted diagnostic and management models. All had significant limitations including short time horizons and the selective use of efficacy evidence. The de novo diagnostic model suggested that the expected difference in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains between diagnostic options is likely to be very small. Airway hyper-responsiveness by methacholine challenge test is expected to produce the greatest QALY gain but with an expected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared with FeNO (NObreath) in combination with bronchodilator reversibility of £1.125M per QALY gained. All remaining options are expected to be dominated. The de novo management model indicates that the ICER of guidelines plus FeNO monitoring using NObreath compared with guidelines alone in children is expected to be approximately £45,200 per QALY gained. Within the adult subgroup, FeNO monitoring using NObreath compared with guidelines alone is expected to have an ICER of approximately £2100 per QALY gained. The results are particularly sensitive to assumptions regarding changes in ICS use over time, the number of nurse visits for FeNO monitoring and duration of effect. Conclusions: Limitations of the evidence base impose considerable uncertainty on all analyses. Equivalence of devices was assumed but not assured. Evidence for diagnosis is difficult to interpret in the context of inserting FeNO monitoring into a diagnostic pathway. Evidence for management is also inconclusive, but largely consistent with FeNO monitoring resulting in fewer exacerbations, with a small or zero reduction in ICS use in adults and a possible increased ICS use in children or patients with more severe asthma. It is unclear which specific management protocol is likely to be most effective. The economic analysis indicates that FeNO monitoring could have value in diagnostic and management settings. The diagnostic model indicates that FeNO monitoring plus bronchodilator reversibility dominates many other diagnostic tests. FeNO-guided management has the potential to be cost-effective, although this is largely dependent on the duration of effect. The conclusions drawn from both models require strong technical value judgements with respect to several aspects of the decision problem in which little or no empirical evidence exists. There are many potential directions for further work, including investigations into which management protocol is best and long-term follow-up in both diagnosis and management studies

SUPPORTING THE ROUTINE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN THE NATIONAL CLINICAL AUDITS FOR ASSESSING COST EFFECTIVENESS Work Package 1 - What patient reported outcome measures should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 National Clinical Audit programme? Appendix C, Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

The Policy Research Unit in Economic Evaluation of Health and Care Interventions (EEPRU) was approached by Jason Cox (Research and Development (R&D) Division) to prepare a programme of research to support the appropriateness of, and use of, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected for the National Clinical Audit (NCA). The EEPRU programme was informed by a R&D template prepared by Simon Bennett, Steve Fairman and Keith Willett at National Health Service (NHS) England.The purpose of introducing PROMs into the NCA programme is to be able to 1) compare performance between providers and commissioners in the NHS, 2) compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative providers in delivering the specific services (i.e. linking outcomes and resource use), and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions and other changes in the NHS. The intention is to introduce PROMs across a range of conditions over the next 3 years commencing with 13 conditions in the 2014/15 NCA programme.The agreed research programme consists of 3 concurrent work packages (WP) as described in the document submitted to the Department of Health (DH) (8th November 2013). The current document provides details on the objectives, methodology and results for Work Package 1 (WP1): to determine what PROMS should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2014/15 NCA programme.2.OVERVIEWWP1 is split into three separate components consisting of:WP1.1 To examine whether the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) is appropriate in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 NCA programme.WP1.2 To identify what measure could be used when the EQ-5D is not appropriate in the 13 health conditions, taking into account that the proposed measure would be used to generate preference-based utility measures (either directly through existing preference-based weights, or indirectly through existing mapping functions suitable for the proposed measure).WP1.3 To identify the evidence required to address questions of cost-effectiveness using the NCA data.Each component consists of a series of reviews of the literature.EEPRU NCA Appendix C: Inflammatory Bowel Disease This Appendix provides the detailed results for the condition inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and should be read in conjunction with both the main report and the methods/search strategy appendices.</p

SUPPORTING THE ROUTINE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN THE NATIONAL CLINICAL AUDITS FOR ASSESSING COST EFFECTIVENESS Work Package 1 - What patient reported outcome measures should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 National Clinical Audit programme? Appendix I, Schizophrenia

EEPRU was approached by Jason Cox (R&D Division) to prepare a programme of research to support the appropriateness of, and use of, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected for the National Clinical Audit (NCA). The EEPRU programme was informed by a R&D template prepared by Simon Bennett, Steve Fairman and Keith Willett at NHS England.The purpose of introducing PROMs into the NCA programme is to be able to 1) compare performance between providers and commissioners in the National Health Service (NHS), 2) compare the cost-effectiveness of alternative providers in delivering the specific services (i.e. linking outcomes and resource use), and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions and other changes in the NHS. The intention is to introduce PROMs across a range of conditions over the next 3 years commencing with 13 conditions in the 2014/15 NCA programme.The agreed research programme consists of 3 concurrent work packages (WP) as described in the document submitted to the Department of Health (DH) (8th November 2013). The current document provides details on the objectives, methodology and results for Work Package 1 (WP1): to determine what PROMS should be used in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2014/15 NCA programme.2. OVERVIEWWP1 is split into three separate components consisting of:WP1.1 To examine whether the EuroQoL 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) is appropriate in the 13 health conditions specified in the 2013/14 NCA programme.WP1.2 To identify what measure could be used when the EQ-5D is not appropriate in the 13 health conditions, taking into account that the proposed measure would be used to generate preference-based utility measures (either directly through existing preference-based weights, or indirectly through existing mapping functions suitable for the proposed measure).WP1.3 To identify the evidence required to address questions of cost-effectiveness using the NCA data.Each component consists of a series of reviews of the literature and the specific review objectives and methodologies are described in detail in the following sections.</p