Cost-effectiveness of Ivacaftor (Kalydeco ) for the treatment of cystic fibrosis in patients age 6 years and older who have the G551D mutation

Similar documents
Cost-effectiveness of apremilast (Otezla )

Cost-effectiveness of Daratumumab (Darzalex ) for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib (Tagrisso )

About the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics

Summary 1. Comparative effectiveness

2. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The Cost Effectiveness of Omacor post-myocardial infarction in the Irish Healthcare Setting

Cost-effectiveness of tolvaptan (Jinarc ) for the treatment of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD)

Background 1. Comparative effectiveness of nintedanib

Background Comparative effectiveness of nivolumab

1. Comparative effectiveness of liraglutide

Summary Background 1. Comparative effectiveness of ramucirumab

Cost-effectiveness of elosulfase alfa (Vimizim ) for the treatment of Morquio A Syndrome in patients of all ages.

Cost-effectiveness of evolocumab (Repatha ) for hypercholesterolemia

Cost effectiveness of

Background Comparative effectiveness of ibrutinib

Cost-effectiveness of Obinutuzumab (Gazyvaro ) for the First Line Treatment of Follicular Lymphoma

The NCPE has issued a recommendation regarding the use of pertuzumab for this indication. The NCPE do not recommend reimbursement of pertuzumab.

CADTH CANADIAN DRUG EXPERT COMMITTEE FINAL RECOMMENDATION

Cost-effectiveness of ixazomib (Ninlaro ) for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Multiple Myeloma who have Received at Least One Prior Therapy

ivacaftor 150mg film-coated tablets (Kalydeco ) SMC No. (1193/16) Vertex Pharmaceuticals (Europe) Ltd

About the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics

Cost-effectiveness of mepolizumab (Nucala ) as an add-on treatment for severe refractory eosinophilic asthma in adult patients.

Cost-effectiveness of evolocumab (Repatha ) for primary hypercholesterolemia and mixed dyslipidemia.

Cost-effectiveness of Obinutuzumab (Gazyvaro ) for the Treatment of Follicular Lymphoma

Cost-effectiveness of lesinurad (Zurampic ) for the treatment of adult patients with gout

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab with ipilimumab (Opdivo with Yervoy ) for the treatment of advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma.

Summary 1. Comparative effectiveness of ataluren Study 007

Summary 1. Comparative effectiveness of sapropterin dihydrochloride

1. Comparative effectiveness of vedolizumab

Cost Effectiveness of canagliflozin (Invokana )

Summary. Table 1 Blinatumomab administration, as per European marketing authorisation

Cost-effectiveness of cladribine (Mavenclad ) for the

4. Aflibercept showed significant improvement in overall survival (OS), the primary

Economic Evaluation of cabazitaxel (Jevtana ) for the treatment of patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer previously treated

Cost effectiveness of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir (Harvoni ) in combination with other medicinal products for the treatment of hepatitis C infection

Cost-effectiveness of sebelipase alfa (Kanuma ) for the treatment of lysosomal acid lipase (LAL) deficiency infantile paediatric adult

Summary 1. Comparative effectiveness of ponatinib

Transformational Treatments. PRESTON W. CAMPBELL, III, M.D. Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs

Symdeko. Symdeko (tezacaftor and ivacaftor) Description

Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

Clinical Commissioning Policy: Ivacaftor for Cystic Fibrosis (named mutations)

Modulator Treatments for Cystic Fibrosis: Effectiveness and Value

pan-canadian Oncology Drug Review Final Economic Guidance Report Crizotinib (Xalkori) Resubmission for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

A Genetic Approach to the Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis

Phase 1 and 2 Data for Triple Combination Regimens Demonstrate Improvements in Lung Function and Other Measures in CF Patients

Study population The study population comprised a hypothetical cohort of poorly reversible COPD patients with a history of exacerbations.

Briefing Document. FDA Pulmonary - Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee

Setting The setting was primary care. The economic study was conducted in the USA.

Pharmacogenomics in Rare Diseases: Development Strategy for Ivacaftor as a Therapy for Cystic Fibrosis

We strive to develop innovative solutions that improve and extend the lives of people with cystic fibrosis

Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry 2013

omalizumab 150mg powder and solvent for injection (Xolair ) No. (259/06) Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd.

Opinion 7 November 2012

THE ROLE OF CFTR MUTATIONS IN CAUSING CYSTIC FIBROSIS (CF)

Kalydeco. Kalydeco (ivacaftor) Description

Addendum to Lilly submission and audit trail Workbook Alimta UK adaptation xlsm

Section A: Clarification on effectiveness data. Licensed population

Enabling CF Therapeutic Development

Orkambi. Orkambi (lumacaftor/ivacaftor) Description

roflumilast 500 microgram tablets (Daxas ) SMC No. (635/10) Nycomed Ltd

Cavosonstat Phase 2 Trial Results. November 28 th, 2016

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 26 October 2016 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta416

Brand Name: Kalydeco. Generic: ivacaftor. Manufacturer 1 : Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated

midostaurin should be extended to patients who are deemed fit to receive intensive induction and consolidation, regardless of age.

Phase 3 EVOLVE & EXPAND Studies of Tezacaftor/Ivacaftor Combination Show Statistically Significant Improvements in Lung Function and Other Measures

Ivacaftor for cystic fibrosis

PA Update: Oral Cystic Fibrosis Modulators

Supplementary appendix

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 18 July 2018 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta531

Health technology The use of oseltamivir for the treatment of influenza in otherwise healthy children.

Case Study What is the Relationship Between the Cell Membrane and Cystic Fibrosis?

Setting The setting was secondary care. The economic study was carried out in the USA.

The Sustainability of Irish Pharmaceutical Expenditure. Valerie Walshe Ph.D. Economist

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 15 March 2012 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta249

TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 24 January 2018 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta500

Oral Cystic Fibrosis Modulators

Modulator Treatments for Cystic Fibrosis: Effectiveness and Value

Scottish Medicines Consortium

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 21 December 2016 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta422

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 30 August 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta472

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 8 November 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta487

Cost effectiveness of statin therapy for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease in Ireland Nash A, Barry M, Walshe V

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 7 October 2015 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta357

Critical Appraisal Skills. Professor Dyfrig Hughes Health Economist AWMSG

A Case of Cystic Fibrosis

The Deciphering Development Disorders (DDD) project: What a genomic approach can achieve

Setting The setting was secondary care. The economic study was carried out in Canada.

Appendix. Lifetime extrapolation of data from the randomised controlled DiGEM trial

Preventing Mycobacterium avium complex in patients who are using protease inhibitors: a cost-effectiveness analysis Bayoumi A M, Redelmeier D A

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thrombolysis in submassive pulmonary embolism Perlroth D J, Sanders G D, Gould M K

Health technology The study compared three strategies for diagnosing and treating obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS).

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 28 October 2015 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta358

The Future of CF Therapy

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 6 December 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta492

Lenvatinib and sorafenib for treating differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine [ID1059]

CTAF Overview. Agenda. Evidence Review. Mepolizumab (Nucala, GlaxoSmithKline plc.) for the Treatment of Severe Asthma with Eosinophilia

Transcription:

Cost-effectiveness of Ivacaftor (Kalydeco ) for the treatment of cystic fibrosis in patients age 6 years and older who have the G551D mutation January 2013

1. A rapid review submission on the drug ivacaftor (Kalydeco) was submitted by Vertex Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd to the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) on the 13 th August 2012. The rapid review was completed on the 22 nd August 2012 and a full pharmacoeconomic assessment was advised. Following submission of the economic dossier the NCPE review group met with the manufacturer on the 28 th November 2012 to discuss the submission and to request additional information. The additional data was received on the 11 th December 2012. 2. Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a genetic condition caused by mutations in the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein, an epithelial ion channel that contributes to the regulation of absorption and secretion of salt and water in tissues including the lung, sweat glands, pancreas and gastrointestinal tract. Ivacaftor is the first in a new class of drugs known as CFTR potentiators designed to increase the time that activated CFTR channels at the cell surface remain open. 3. Four studies were presented as evidence of the benefit of ivacaftor in CF. Two pivotal trials STRIVE and ENVISION, one open label extension study, PERSIST, for patients in STRIVE and ENVISION and a final study in a slightly different patient group, DISCOVER, in patients who are homozygous for the F508del mutation in the CFTR gene. The percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) was the primary outcome measure for the two phase III clinical trials. 4. The economic dossier was a cost utility analysis comparing ivacaftor plus standard of care (SOC) to SOC in CF patients aged 6 years and over with the G551D mutation. A patient-level simulation was constructed to estimate clinical outcomes and costs in this population of patients. The economic model used patient level data from the clinical trials (STRIVE and ENVISION) and the review group was satisfied that this was representative of the Irish population. The perspective of the analysis was that of the Irish healthcare payer the Health Service Executive (HSE) and outcomes were estimated over a lifetime horizon. 1

5. There were three scenarios presented. The basecase analysis assumed the percent predicted FEV 1 of ivacaftor treated patients remained stable over time whereas it declined for patients on placebo. The review group considered this to be an overestimation of the benefit of ivacaftor. In scenario two the FEV 1 slope for the ivacaftor group over time was modelled at 50% of the standard of care and in scenario three the FEV 1 slope over time was set identical to the standard of care and the only benefit of ivacaftor was the immediate absolute increase in FEV 1 of approximately 10%. The main driver of the estimated effect of ivacaftor on survival was the difference in percent predicted FEV 1 progression between the treatment groups. 6. The review group noted the absence of long term efficacy data particularly in relation to the benefit of ivacaftor in maintaining percent predicted FEV 1 and reducing pulmonary exacerbations and the resultant impact on survival rates. The economic model was underpinned by the assumption that ivacaftor extended the life of a cystic fibrosis patient (i.e. halves the hazard of dying). The analysis for this extrapolation is based on a number of prediction models that have been published. The disease progression model predicts that the median survival for a patient treated with ivacaftor will be 29.2 years longer as a consequence of taking the drug. 7. The utility values measured as per FEV 1 category were normal (90%) 0.97, mild (70-89%) 0.95, moderate (40-69%) 0.93 and severe (<40%) 0.91. The review group noted the small changes between these stages of pulmonary function severity. In relation to costs it was difficult to assess the disaggregated costs for the model as they are not presented in this way. 8. The basecase incremental costs were estimated at 2,533,637 and the incremental QALYs were 5.64 giving an ICER of 449,035/QALY. In terms of life years gained (LYG) the ICER was estimated at 443,825/LYG. The review group considered the basecase an optimistic scenario as there is limited long term outcome data (96 weeks for adults and 72 weeks for children). The incremental costs associated with a conservative scenario were 2,456,033 and the incremental QALYs were 2.9 giving an estimated ICER of 855,437/QALY. This scenario assumes that the slope of the percent predicted FEV 1 versus age declines at the same rate as SOC and the only benefit of ivacaftor is assumed to be the immediate response in predicted FEV 1 % of 2

approximately 10%. Based on the available data this assumption would allow for most uncertainty associated with the clinical trial data. 9. The review group felt that uncertainty was not adequately accounted for with the provision of a limited one way sensitivity analysis and the absence of a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). In place of a PSA the company have submitted a further sensitivity analysis where the clinical trial cohort has been used to create a new dataset using bootstrapping. Mean and median residual life year gains were presented. The replication produced different baseline demographics only and did not vary all the other inputs to the model. The review group do not accept that this method fully explores the uncertainty and would need to review a PSA where the intervals for each parameter varied are presented. Furthermore a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) has not been presented. 10. Ivacaftor is a new treatment for cystic fibrosis patients with the G551D genotype which is present in approximately 11.6% of the Irish CF patient population, according to the submitted dossier. At an annual cost of 234,804 per patient we have estimated the budget impact for 113-120 patients, to allow for patients not genotyped and changes since 2010. Based on these figures and assuming that all eligible patients will be commenced on treatment the gross annual budget impact ranges from 26,532,852 to 28,176,480. The wholesaler markup on this budget impact ranges from 2,122,628 to 2,254,118 and the patient care fees will be in the region of 6,838 to 7,262. The company have presented higher estimates of patient numbers; in 2013 an estimated 121 patients increasing to 125 patients in 2017. If cost offsets are included the company estimate that the annual net budget impact in 2013 will be 28,172,303 increasing to 28,883,659 in 2017. 12. The ICERs for ivacaftor plus SOC versus SOC alone ranged from 449,035/QALY to 855,437/QALY. These ICERs are well outside the threshold of 45,000/QALY. Whilst ivacaftor may represent an innovation for the treatment of patients with cystic fibrosis there are significant uncertainties, including the absence of long term health outcome data. 3

13. In view of the very high drug acquisition cost, the significant budget impact, the absence of long term clinical data and the fact that the company has failed to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of ivacaftor we cannot recommend reimbursement of ivacaftor at the submitted price of 234,804 per patient per annum. A mechanism such as a performance based risk sharing scheme and/or a significant reduction in price could facilitate access to ivacaftor treatment for cystic fibrosis patients with the G551D CFTR mutation. 4