Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Feb;31(2):101-10. doi: 10.1007/s40273-012-0018-1.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of retigabine (GlaxoSmithKline) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures in epilepsy, with and without secondary generalization, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG undertakes a critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence of the technology based upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently searches for relevant evidence and evaluates modifications to the manufacturer's decision-analytic model. This paper provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The clinical effectiveness data were derived from three placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A meta-analysis pooling across all doses of retigabine found beneficial effects of retigabine in terms of responder rate (odds ratio [OR] 2.79; 95 % CI 2.08, 3.76) and rate of seizure freedom (OR 2.54; 95 % CI 0.92, 6.98) [both double-blind phase analyses]. When compared in a network meta-analysis with the selected comparator antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) [eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide, pregabalin, tiagabine and zonisamide], retigabine offered broadly similar efficacy in terms of responder rate and freedom from seizure. The de novo decision-analytic model presented within the submission evaluated the cost effectiveness of retigabine compared with these AEDs and no treatment (i.e. maintenance therapy). After numerous additional analyses, the ERG considered the use of retigabine to be not cost effective for NICE at thresholds below £43,000 if no treatment was considered a relevant comparator. The NICE Appraisal Committee decided that an appropriate comparator was an active treatment. The Committee recommended that retigabine is offered as an option for the adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization in adults aged 18 years and older with epilepsy, only when previous treatment with carbamazepine, clobazam, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, sodium valproate and topiramate has not provided an adequate response, or has not been tolerated.
国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)邀请 retigabine(葛兰素史克)的制造商提交该药物治疗癫痫部分发作的成人患者的临床和成本效益证据,包括有或无继发性泛化的部分发作。这是该研究所单一技术评估(STA)过程的一部分。中心评论和传播被委托作为证据审查小组(ERG)。ERG 根据制造商向 NICE 提交的内容,对技术的临床和成本效益证据进行严格审查。ERG 还独立搜索相关证据并评估对制造商决策分析模型的修改。本文提供了对公司提交材料、ERG 审查和 NICE 随后决策的描述。临床疗效数据来自三项安慰剂对照随机对照试验(RCT)。一项汇总了所有剂量 retigabine 的荟萃分析发现,retigabine 在应答率(优势比[OR]2.79;95%置信区间[CI]2.08, 3.76)和无癫痫发作率(OR 2.54;95%CI 0.92, 6.98)方面具有有益的效果[均为双盲期分析]。在与选定的比较抗癫痫药物(AEDs)[eslicarbazepine 乙酸盐、拉科酰胺、普瑞巴林、噻加宾和左乙拉西坦]的网络荟萃分析中进行比较时,retigabine 在应答率和无癫痫发作方面提供了大致相似的疗效。提交的新决策分析模型评估了 retigabine 与这些 AEDs 和无治疗(即维持治疗)相比的成本效益。经过多次额外分析,ERG 认为,在低于 43,000 英镑的门槛下,对于 NICE,使用 retigabine 没有成本效益,如果不治疗被认为是相关的比较。NICE 评估委员会决定,合适的比较是一种积极的治疗。委员会建议,仅当先前使用卡马西平、氯巴占、加巴喷丁、拉莫三嗪、左乙拉西坦、奥卡西平、丙戊酸钠和托吡酯治疗没有提供充分反应或不能耐受时,将 retigabine 作为成人部分发作伴或不伴继发性泛化的附加治疗选择。