Centre for Health Economics and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2009 Oct;13 Suppl 3:13-22. doi: 10.3310/hta13suppl3/03.
This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of rimonabant for the treatment of obese or overweight patients based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Centre for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission's main evidence came from four randomised controlled trials. Rimonabant resulted in a significantly greater benefit than placebo for all primary weight loss outcomes. At 1 year, rimonabant had a statistically significant beneficial effect on systolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides and fasting plasma glucose in diabetics and non-diabetics, and glycosylated haemoglobin in diabetics. Improvements were maintained over 2 years with rimonabant; withdrawal of rimonabant at 1 year resulted in a reduction in weight loss until there was no difference from placebo at 2 years. Psychiatric adverse events were experienced by 26% and 14% of rimonabant and placebo patients respectively; figures for symptoms of depression were 9% and 5% respectively. Pairwise comparisons of orlistat, sibutramine and rimonabant showed beneficial effects of rimonabant over orlistat and sibutramine for weight loss outcomes; however, response hurdles imposed on orlistat or sibutramine in clinical practice may not have been applied in the orlistat and sibutramine trials. The manufacturer's Markov cohort model evaluated rimonabant versus orlistat, sibutramine and diet and exercise alone for three base-case populations. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of rimonabant varied from 10,534 pounds to 13,236 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) versus diet and exercise, to 8977 pounds to 12,138 pounds per QALY versus orlistat, to 1463 pounds to 3908 pounds per QALY versus sibutramine. In subgroup analysis there was a wider variation in the ICER estimates although none exceeded 20,000 pounds per QALY. The ICER of rimonabant remained under 20,000 pounds per QALY in reanalyses by the manufacturer and the ERG, with the results sensitive to the source of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits in the model. Four treatment strategies were modelled in comparisons of rimonabant versus diet and exercise alone and orlistat and sibutramine in which rimonabant was continued only in patients achieving 5% weight loss at 3, 6, 9 or 12 months. In pairwise comparisons rimonabant remained below a threshold of 30,000 pounds per QALY in 70% of the comparisons reported. The results were most sensitive to the decrement applied to depression and the costs of screening for depression. In conclusion, areas of uncertainty remain in relation to the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rimonabant, for example lack of evidence on long-term outcomes and the effect of rimonabant on cardiovascular events, developing diabetes and mortality, and lack of data on the HRQoL benefits associated with rimonabant. The lack of response hurdles applied to sibutramine and orlistat means that the comparator strategies were not considered by the ERG to reflect their respective product licenses or current NHS use. The NICE guidance issued as a result of the STA states that rimonabant is recommended as an adjunct to diet and exercise for adults who are obese or overweight and who have had an inadequate response to, are intolerant of or are contraindicated to orlistat and sibutramine.
本文总结了专家组(ERG)对利莫那班治疗肥胖或超重患者的临床和成本效益的评估报告,该报告是基于制造商向英国国家健康与临床优化研究所(NICE)提交的申请进行的审查,该申请是单一技术评估(STA)过程的一部分。提交的主要证据来自四项随机对照试验。与安慰剂相比,利莫那班在所有主要的减肥结果方面都有显著的益处。在 1 年时,利莫那班对糖尿病和非糖尿病患者的收缩压、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇、甘油三酯和空腹血糖有统计学上的有益影响,对糖尿病患者的糖化血红蛋白也有有益影响。在 2 年内,利莫那班的效果得以维持;在 1 年时停药,直到 2 年时与安慰剂没有差异,体重减轻的效果才会降低。分别有 26%和 14%的利莫那班和安慰剂患者出现精神不良事件;分别有 9%和 5%的患者出现抑郁症状。利莫那班与奥利司他和西布曲明的两两比较显示,利莫那班在减肥效果方面优于奥利司他和西布曲明;然而,在临床实践中对奥利司他或西布曲明施加的反应门槛可能没有在奥利司他和西布曲明的试验中应用。制造商的马尔可夫队列模型评估了利莫那班与奥利司他、西布曲明和饮食与运动单独用于三种基本人群的情况。利莫那班的增量成本效益比(ICER)从与饮食和运动相比每增加一个质量调整生命年(QALY)的 10534 英镑到 13236 英镑不等,与奥利司他相比每增加一个 QALY 的 8977 英镑到 12138 英镑不等,与西布曲明相比每增加一个 QALY 的 1463 英镑到 3908 英镑不等。在亚组分析中,ICER 估计值有更大的变化,尽管没有一个超过每 QALY20000 英镑。制造商和 ERG 的重新分析显示,利莫那班的 ICER 仍然低于每 QALY20000 英镑,结果对模型中健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)效益的来源敏感。在利莫那班与饮食和运动单独以及与奥利司他和西布曲明的比较中,对四种治疗策略进行了建模,其中只有在 3、6、9 或 12 个月时体重减轻 5%的患者才继续使用利莫那班。在两两比较中,在报告的 70%的比较中,利莫那班的 ICER 仍低于 30000 英镑/质量调整生命年。结果对应用于抑郁的减损和抑郁筛查成本最为敏感。总之,利莫那班的临床效果和成本效益仍存在一些不确定性,例如缺乏长期结果和利莫那班对心血管事件、新发糖尿病和死亡率的影响的证据,以及与利莫那班相关的 HRQoL 效益的数据缺乏。缺乏对西布曲明和奥利司他应用的反应门槛意味着,专家组认为对照策略没有反映出它们各自的产品许可证或目前英国国民保健制度的使用情况。作为 STA 结果发布的 NICE 指南指出,利莫那班被推荐作为饮食和运动的辅助手段,用于肥胖或超重的成年人,这些人对奥利司他和西布曲明没有足够的反应,不能耐受,或禁忌使用或被指示使用。