Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2011 May;15 Suppl 1:23-32. doi: 10.3310/hta15suppl1/03.
This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of eltrombopag for the treatment of adults with chronic idiopathic (immune) thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), based on a review of the manufacturer's submission (MS) to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. ITP is an autoimmune disorder by which antibodies are formed against platelets with annual incidence rates in the UK/USA ranging from 1.13 to 6.62 cases per 100,000 adults. Eltrombopag increases the production of platelets at a rate that outpaces their destruction by the immune system, and has a UK marketing authorisation both for the treatment of adult ITP in splenectomised patients who are refractory to other treatments and as a second-line treatment for adult non-splenectomised patients for whom surgery is contraindicated. Both splenectomised and non-splenectomised patient groups were considered in the analysis. Two economic models were presented, one for a watch-and-rescue treatment scenario and the second for the long-term treatment of patients with more severe ITP. The submission's evidence was sourced from the relatively high-quality RAISE [RAndomized placebo-controlled Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) Study with Eltrombopag] randomised controlled trial. The study indicated a statistically significant difference in favour of eltrombopag compared with placebo in the odds of achieving the primary outcome of a platelet count of between 50 and 400 × 109/l during the 6-month treatment period (odds ratio 8.2, 99% confidence interval 3.6 to 18.7). In the eltrombopag group, 50/83 (60%) non-splenectomised patients and 18/49 (37%) splenectomised patients achieved this outcome. Median duration of response for all patients was 10.9 weeks (splenectomised patients 6 weeks and non-splenectomised patients 13.4 weeks). Patients treated with eltrombopag required less rescue medication and had lower odds of bleeding events than placebo-treated subjects in both patient groups. In the watch-and-rescue economic model, the ERG found that substantial reductions in the cost of eltrombopag are needed for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to fall below £ 30,000. Further analyses found that the ICER varied from £33,561 to £ 103,500 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (splenectomised) and from £ 39,657 to £ 150,245 per QALY (non-splenectomised). Other than bleeding, no adverse events were modelled. In relation to the long-term treatment model, the ERG found that using non-randomised non-comparative data may result in biased estimates of unknown magnitude and direction. None of the treatment sequences resulted in an ICER approaching the recommended threshold of £ 30,000. The base-case results, using a 2-year time horizon and prescribing eltrombopag as second-line treatment post rituximab, were found to be favourable towards eltrombopag. In conclusion, based on the MS and additional ERG work, eltrombopag appears to be a safe treatment for ITP (although long-term follow-up studies are awaited) and has short-term efficacy. However, there is no robust evidence on long-term efficacy or cost-effectiveness of eltrombopag, and there is a lack of robust direct evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of eltrombopag compared with other relevant comparators. NICE did not recommend eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic ITP within its marketing authorisation for splenectomised or non-splenectomised patients.
本文总结了证据审查小组(ERG)对艾曲泊帕治疗成人慢性特发性(免疫性)血小板减少性紫癜(ITP)的临床疗效和成本效益的评估报告,该报告基于制造商向英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)提交的申请(MS),作为单一技术评估过程的一部分。ITP 是一种自身免疫性疾病,抗体形成针对血小板,英国/美国的年发病率范围为每 10 万名成年人中有 1.13 至 6.62 例。艾曲泊帕能以超过免疫系统破坏速度的速度增加血小板的产生,并且在英国获得了上市许可,用于治疗对其他治疗方法耐药的脾切除患者的成人 ITP,以及用于手术禁忌的非脾切除患者的二线治疗。在分析中考虑了脾切除和非脾切除患者群体。提交的证据来自相对高质量的 RAISE[随机安慰剂对照特发性血小板减少性紫癜(ITP)研究与艾曲泊帕]随机对照试验。该研究表明,与安慰剂相比,艾曲泊帕在 6 个月治疗期间达到血小板计数在 50 至 400×109/l 的主要结局的几率方面具有统计学意义上的优势(优势比 8.2,99%置信区间 3.6 至 18.7)。在艾曲泊帕组中,50/83(60%)非脾切除患者和 18/49(37%)脾切除患者达到了这一结果。所有患者的中位反应持续时间为 10.9 周(脾切除患者为 6 周,非脾切除患者为 13.4 周)。与安慰剂治疗组相比,接受艾曲泊帕治疗的患者需要更少的抢救药物,并且出血事件的几率更低。在观察和抢救的经济模型中,ERG 发现,要使增量成本效益比(ICER)低于 30000 英镑,需要大幅降低艾曲泊帕的成本。进一步的分析发现,ICER 在脾切除患者中从 33561 英镑到 103500 英镑不等,每质量调整生命年(QALY)(脾切除患者),从 39657 英镑到 150245 英镑不等,每 QALY(非脾切除患者)。除了出血外,没有对其他不良事件进行建模。关于长期治疗模型,ERG 发现,使用非随机非比较性数据可能会导致未知大小和方向的有偏差的估计。在任何治疗序列中,都没有达到接近 30000 英镑推荐阈值的 ICER。使用 2 年时间范围和规定艾曲泊帕作为利妥昔单抗后的二线治疗的基础案例结果对艾曲泊帕有利。总之,基于 MS 和额外的 ERG 工作,艾曲泊帕似乎是一种安全的 ITP 治疗方法(尽管仍在等待长期随访研究),并且具有短期疗效。然而,目前没有关于艾曲泊帕长期疗效或成本效益的可靠证据,并且与其他相关对照物相比,缺乏关于艾曲泊帕的有效性和成本效益的可靠直接证据。NICE 没有推荐艾曲泊帕用于脾切除或非脾切除患者的 ITP 治疗。