Health Economics and Decision Science, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, England, UK.
Institute of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Aug;35(8):805-815. doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0488-2.
As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of adalimumab (AbbVie) to submit evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of adalimumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). The appraisal assessed adalimumab as monotherapy in adult patients with an inadequate response to conventional systemic HS therapy. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the technology based on the company's submission to NICE. The evidence was mainly derived from three randomised controlled trials comparing adalimumab with placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe HS. The clinical-effectiveness review found that significantly more patients achieved a clinical response in the adalimumab groups than in the control groups but that the treatment effect varied between trials and there was uncertainty regarding its impact on a range of other relevant outcomes as well as long-term efficacy. The company's submitted Markov model assessed the incremental cost effectiveness of adalimumab versus standard care for the treatment of HS from the perspective of the UK NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) over a lifetime horizon. The original submitted model, including a patient access scheme (PAS), suggested that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adalimumab versus standard care was expected to be £16,162 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG's preferred base case, which corrected programming errors and structural problems surrounding discontinuation rules and incorporated a lower unit cost for HS surgery, resulted in a probabilistic ICER of £29,725 per QALY gained. Based on additional analyses undertaken by the company and the ERG following the publication of the appraisal consultation document (ACD), the Appraisal Committee concluded that the maximum possible ICER for adalimumab compared with supportive care was between £28,500 and £33,200 per QALY gained but was likely to be lower. The Appraisal Committee recommended adalimumab (with the PAS) for the treatment of active moderate-to-severe HS in adults whose disease has not responded to conventional systemic therapy.
作为其单一技术评估(STA)过程的一部分,英国国家卫生与保健优化研究所(NICE)邀请阿达木单抗(艾伯维)的制造商提交有关阿达木单抗治疗中度至重度化脓性汗腺炎(HS)的临床疗效和成本效益的证据。该评估评估了阿达木单抗作为常规全身 HS 治疗反应不足的成年患者的单药治疗。健康与相关研究技术评估小组被委托作为独立的证据审查小组(ERG)。ERG 根据公司向 NICE 的提交内容,对该技术的临床有效性和成本效益进行了关键审查。证据主要来自三项比较阿达木单抗与安慰剂治疗中重度 HS 成人的随机对照试验。临床效果审查发现,接受阿达木单抗治疗的患者中有更多的患者达到了临床反应,而对照组则没有,但治疗效果因试验而异,对一系列其他相关结果的影响以及长期疗效也存在不确定性。公司提交的马尔可夫模型从英国国民保健制度(NHS)和个人社会服务(PSS)的角度评估了阿达木单抗与标准治疗相比在治疗 HS 方面的增量成本效益,在终生范围内。最初提交的模型,包括患者准入计划(PAS),表明阿达木单抗与标准治疗相比的增量成本效益比(ICER)预计为每获得 1 个质量调整生命年(QALY)为 16162 英镑。在对模型进行批评后,ERG 的首选基础案例纠正了编程错误和围绕停药规则的结构问题,并纳入了 HS 手术的较低单位成本,得出的概率 ICER 为每获得 1 个 QALY 为 29725 英镑。根据公司和 ERG 在评估咨询文件(ACD)发布后进行的额外分析,评估委员会得出结论,阿达木单抗与支持性护理相比,最大可能的 ICER 在每获得 1 个 QALY 为 28500 至 33200 英镑之间,但可能更低。评估委员会建议在常规全身治疗反应不佳的成人中使用阿达木单抗(含 PAS)治疗活动性中重度 HS。