EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Pomalidomide with Dexamethasone for Treating Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma Previously Treated with Lenalidomide and Bortezomib: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of an NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Nasuh C. Büyükkaramikli (), Saskia Groot, Debra Fayter, Robert Wolff, Nigel Armstrong, Lisa Stirk, Gill Worthy, Fernando Albuquerque de Almeida, Jos Kleijnen and Maiwenn J. Al
Additional contact information
Nasuh C. Büyükkaramikli: Erasmus University Rotterdam
Saskia Groot: Erasmus University Rotterdam
Debra Fayter: Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd
Robert Wolff: Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd
Nigel Armstrong: Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd
Lisa Stirk: Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd
Gill Worthy: Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd
Fernando Albuquerque de Almeida: Erasmus University Rotterdam
Jos Kleijnen: Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd
Maiwenn J. Al: Erasmus University Rotterdam

PharmacoEconomics, 2018, vol. 36, issue 2, No 3, 145-159

Abstract: Abstract The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as part of the institute’s single technology appraisal (STA) process, invited the manufacturer of pomalidomide (POM; Imnovid®, Celgene) to submit evidence regarding the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug in combination with dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after at least two regimens including lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BOR). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR) and Erasmus University Rotterdam were commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) for this submission. The ERG reviewed the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, validated the manufacturer’s decision analytic model, and conducted exploratory analyses in order to assess the robustness and validity of the presented clinical and cost-effectiveness results. This paper describes the company submission, the ERG assessment, and NICE’s subsequent decisions. The company conducted a systematic review to identify studies comparing POM with comparators outlined in the NICE scope: panobinostat with bortezomib and dexamethasone (PANO + BOR + DEX), bendamustine with thalidomide and dexamethasone (BTD) and conventional chemotherapy (CC). The main clinical effectiveness evidence was obtained from MM-003, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing POM + LoDEX with high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX; used as a proxy for CC). Additional data from other studies were also used as nonrandomized observational data sources for the indirect treatment comparison of POM + LoDEX with BTD and PANO + BOR + DEX. Covariate or treatment switching adjustment methods were used for each comparison. The model developed in Microsoft® Excel 2010 using a semi-Markov partitioned survival structure, submitted in the original submission to NICE for TA338, was adapted for the present assessment of the cost effectiveness of POM + LoDEX. Updated evidence from the clinical-effectiveness part was used for the survival modelling of progression-free survival and overall survival. For POM + LoDEX, the patient access scheme (PAS) discount was applied to the POM price. Three separate comparisons were conducted for each comparator, each comparison using a different dataset and adjustment methods. The ERG identified and corrected some errors, and the corrected incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for POM + LoDEX versus each comparator were presented: approximately £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus BTD, savings of approximately £143,000 per QALY lost versus PANO + BOR + DEX, and approximately £49,000 per QALY gained versus CC. The ERG also conducted full incremental analyses, which revealed that CC, POM + LoDEX and PANO + BOR + DEX were on the cost-effectiveness frontier. The committee’s decision on the technology under analysis deemed that POM + LoDEX should be recommended as an option for treating multiple myeloma in adults at third or subsequent relapse of treatments including both LEN and BOR, contingent on the company providing POM with the discount agreed in the PAS.

Date: 2018
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-017-0581-6 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0581-6

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0581-6

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().

 
Page updated 2025-05-05
Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0581-6