Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Whelan Building, The Quadrangle, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2010 Oct;14(Suppl. 2):33-9. doi: 10.3310/hta14suppl2/05.
This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed for the maintenance treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The primary clinical outcome measure was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), time to worsening of symptoms, objective tumour response rate, adverse events and changes in lung cancer symptom scale. Data for two populations were presented: patients with non-squamous NSCLC histology and patients with adenocarcinoma histology. The clinical evidence was derived from a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial (RCT), the JMEN trial. The trial compared the use of pemetrexed + best supportive care (BSC ) as maintenance therapy, with placebo + BSC in patients with NSCLC (n = 663) who had received four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (CTX) and whose disease had not progressed. In the licensed population (patients with non-squamous histology), the trial demonstrated greater median PFS for patients treated with pemetrexed than for patients in the placebo arm [4.5 vs 2.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55, p < 0.00001]. Median OS was also greater for the pemetrexed- treated patients (15.5 vs 10.3 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.88, p = 0.002). In addition, tumour response and disease control rates were statistically significantly greater for patients who received pemetrexed. Patient survival rates at 1 year and 2 years were higher in the pemetrexed arm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) estimated by the manufacturer's model were 33,732 pounds per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) for the licensed nonsquamous population, and 39,364 pounds per QALY for the adenocarcinoma subgroup. Both of these ICERs were above the standard NICE willingness-to-pay range (20,000 pounds-30,000 pounds per QALY). The manufacturer also presented a case for pemetrexed to be considered as an end of life treatment. The ERG identified a number of problems in the economic model presented by the manufacturer; after correction, the base case ICER was re-estimated as 51,192 pounds per QALY gained and likely to exceed NICE's willingness-to-pay thresholds. Following a revised economic analysis submitted by the manufacturer, the AC accepted that an ICER of 47,000 pounds per QALY gained was most plausible. The AC also considered that maintenance treatment with pemetrexed fulfilled the end of life criteria.The guidance issued by NICE, on 20 June 20 2010, in TA190 as a result of the STA states that: People who have received pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy cannot receive pemetrexed maintenance treatment. 1.1 Pemetrexed is recommended as an option for the maintenance treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer other than predominantly squamous cell histology if disease has not progressed immediately following platinum-based chemotherapy in combination with gemcitabine, paclitaxel or docetaxel.
本文根据制造商(礼来公司)向英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)提交的证据,总结了药物疗效和成本效益评估小组(ERG)关于培美曲塞维持治疗局部晚期或转移性非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的报告,这与培美曲塞的许可适应证一致,依据的是制造商提交给 NICE 的证据,该证据是作为单一技术评估(STA)过程的一部分。主要临床结局测量指标为无进展生存期(PFS)。次要结局包括总生存期(OS)、症状恶化时间、客观肿瘤反应率、不良事件和肺癌症状量表变化。报告呈现了两个患者群体的数据:非鳞状 NSCLC 组织学患者和腺癌组织学患者。临床证据来自一项双盲、安慰剂对照的随机对照试验(RCT),即 JMEN 试验。该试验比较了培美曲塞+最佳支持治疗(BSC)作为维持治疗与安慰剂+BSC 在接受过 4 个周期铂类化疗(CTX)且疾病未进展的 NSCLC 患者(n=663)中的应用。在许可人群(非鳞状组织学患者)中,与安慰剂组相比,接受培美曲塞治疗的患者中位 PFS 更长[4.5 个月与 2.6 个月;风险比(HR)0.44;95%置信区间(CI)0.36 至 0.55,p<0.00001]。接受培美曲塞治疗的患者中位 OS 也更长(15.5 个月与 10.3 个月;HR 0.70;95%CI 0.56 至 0.88,p=0.002)。此外,接受培美曲塞治疗的患者肿瘤反应率和疾病控制率在统计学上也显著更高。培美曲塞组患者 1 年和 2 年的生存率更高。制造商模型估计的增量成本效益比(ICER)为 33732 英镑/QALY,适用于许可的非鳞状人群,为 39364 英镑/QALY,适用于腺癌亚组。这两个 ICER 均高于 NICE 愿意支付的标准范围(20000 英镑至 30000 英镑/QALY)。制造商还提出了将培美曲塞视为临终治疗的理由。ERG 在制造商提出的经济模型中发现了一些问题;在纠正后,基础病例 ICER 重新估计为每 QALY 增加 51192 英镑,可能超过 NICE 的意愿支付阈值。在制造商提交修订后的经济分析后,AC 接受了每 QALY 增加 47000 英镑的 ICER 最合理。AC 还认为,培美曲塞维持治疗符合临终治疗标准。NICE 于 2020 年 6 月 20 日发布的 TA190 指南中指出:接受培美曲塞联合顺铂作为一线化疗的患者不能接受培美曲塞维持治疗。1.1 如果在接受吉西他滨、紫杉醇或多西他赛联合铂类化疗后疾病未进展,培美曲塞被推荐作为非主要为鳞状细胞组织学的局部晚期或转移性非小细胞肺癌患者的维持治疗选择。