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

Similar documents
Summary 1. Comparative effectiveness of sapropterin dihydrochloride

1. Comparative effectiveness of vedolizumab

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of apremilast (Otezla )

Background Comparative effectiveness of nivolumab

Summary Background 1. Comparative effectiveness of ramucirumab

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

Background 1. Comparative effectiveness of nintedanib

Summary 1. Comparative effectiveness of ataluren Study 007

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

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib (Tagrisso )

Cost effectiveness of

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

Cost-effectiveness of cladribine (Mavenclad ) for the

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

1. Comparative effectiveness of liraglutide

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of evolocumab (Repatha ) for hypercholesterolemia

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

Cost Effectiveness of canagliflozin (Invokana )

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

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

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

Summary 1. Comparative effectiveness

Background Comparative effectiveness of ibrutinib

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

Summary 1. Comparative effectiveness of ponatinib

2. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

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

About the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics

About the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics

CADTH CANADIAN DRUG EXPERT COMMITTEE FINAL RECOMMENDATION

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

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

TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE

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

September 2017 A LOOK AT PARP INHIBITORS FOR OVARIAN CANCER. Drugs Under Review. ICER Evidence Ratings. Other Benefits. Value-Based Price Benchmarks

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

Summary of the risk management plan (RMP) for Vimizim (elosulfase alfa)

Pharmacoeconomics: from Policy to Science. Olivia Wu, PhD Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 22 September 2010 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta200

Scottish Medicines Consortium

camellia sinensis (green tea) leaf extract 10% ointment (Catephen ) SMC No. (1133/16) Kora Healthcare

Resubmission. Scottish Medicines Consortium

trabectedin, 0.25 and 1mg powder for concentrate for solution for infusion (Yondelis ) SMC No. (452/08) Pharma Mar S.A. Sociedad Unipersonal

Peginterferon alfa and ribavirin for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Part review of NICE technology appraisal guidance 75 and 106

ANNEX I SUMMARY OF PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS

Erlotinib for the first-line treatment of EGFR-TK mutation positive non-small cell lung cancer

Scottish Medicines Consortium

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 23 February 2011 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta214

Bevacizumab in combination with a taxane for the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer

eslicarbazepine acetate 800mg tablet (Zebinix) SMC No. (592/09) Eisai Ltd

Critical Appraisal Skills. Professor Dyfrig Hughes Health Economist AWMSG

Dronedarone for the treatment of non-permanent atrial fibrillation

Scottish Medicines Consortium

Introduction. Summary A LOOK AT CAR-T THERAPIES MARCH 2018 LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTOR T-CELL (CAR-T) THERAPY

adalimumab, 40mg/0.8mL, solution for injection (Humira ) SMC No. (858/13) AbbVie Ltd (previously part of Abbott)

nepafenac 1mg/mL eye drops, suspension (Nevanac ) SMC No. (813/12) Alcon Laboratories (UK) Ltd

A LOOK AT CGRP INHIBITORS FOR MIGRAINE PREVENTION JUNE 2018

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 28 June 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta448

DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS Injection: 5 mg/5 ml (1 mg/ml) in single-use vials (3).

rosuvastatin, 5mg, 10mg, 20mg, film-coated tablets (Crestor ) SMC No. (725/11) AstraZeneca UK Ltd.

Guidelines call for a closer look at ophthalmological health in Morquio A 1

liposomal cytarabine suspension (DepoCyte ) is not recommended for use within NHS Scotland for the intrathecal treatment of lymphomatous meningitis.

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 16 May 2018 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta520

Scottish Medicines Consortium

ADDING VALUE AND EXPERTISE FOR SUCCESSFUL MARKET ACCESS. Per Sørensen, Lundbeck A/S

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 6 September 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta476

umeclidinium, 55 micrograms, powder for inhalation (Incruse ) SMC No. (1004/14) GlaxoSmithKline

In keeping with the Scottish Diabetes Group criteria, use should be restricted to those who:

An economic evaluation of rizatriptan in the treatment of migraine Thompson M, Gawel M, Desjardins B, Ferko N, Grima D

Scottish Medicines Consortium

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

Combination therapy compared to monotherapy for moderate to severe Alzheimer's Disease. Summary

A Primer on Health Economics & Integrating Findings from Clinical Trials into Health Technology Assessments and Decision Making

Scottish Medicines Consortium

eculizumab, 300mg concentrate for solution for infusion (Soliris ) SMC No. (436/07) Alexion Pharma UK Ltd

Summary A LOOK AT ELAGOLIX FOR ENDOMETRIOSIS JULY 2018

Highly specialised technologies guidance Published: 28 January 2015 nice.org.uk/guidance/hst1

Scottish Medicines Consortium

Scottish Medicines Consortium

Clinical and economic consequences of non-adherence

Scottish Medicines Consortium

Scottish Medicines Consortium

Ustekinumab for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis

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

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 20 December 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta496

Introduction to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

NICE Guidelines for HTA Issues of Controversy


Technology appraisal guidance Published: 21 December 2016 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta425

Translating Science. Transforming Lives. ACT DMD Clinical Trial Results

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 4 June 2015 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta340

Modeling the annual costs of postmenopausal prevention therapy: raloxifene, alendronate, or estrogen-progestin therapy Mullins C D, Ohsfeldt R L

Scottish Medicines Consortium

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 31 August 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta473

diclofenac, 75mg/2ml of solution for intravenous injection (Dyloject ) No. (446/08) Javelin Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd

YONDELIS (TRABECTEDIN) FOR THE TREATMENT OF SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA. RESPONSE TO EVIDENCE REVIEW GROUP QUERIES (15 th April 2009)

Transcription:

Cost-effectiveness of elosulfase alfa (Vimizim ) for the treatment of Morquio A Syndrome in patients of all ages. The NCPE has issued a recommendation regarding the cost-effectiveness of elosulfase alfa (Vimizim ). Following NCPE assessment of the applicant s submission elosulfase alfa (Vimizim ) is not considered cost-effective for the treatment of of Morquio A Syndrome in patients of all ages and therefore is not recommended for reimbursement. The HSE asked the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) to carry out an assessment of the applicant s (BioMarin) economic dossier on the cost effectiveness of elosulfase alfa (Vimizim ). The NCPE uses a decision framework to systematically assess whether a technology is cost-effective. This includes clinical effectiveness and health related quality of life benefits, which the new treatment may provide and whether the cost requested by the pharmaceutical company is justified. Following the recommendation from the NCPE, the HSE examines all the evidence which may be relevant for the decision; the final decision on reimbursement is made by the HSE. In the case of cancer drugs the NCPE recommendation is also considered by the National Cancer Control Programme (NCCP) Technology Review Group. About the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics The NCPE are a team of clinicians, pharmacists, pharmacologists and statisticians who evaluate the benefit and costs of medical technologies and provide advice to the HSE. We also obtain valuable support from clinicians with expertise in the specific clinical area under consideration. Our aim is to provide impartial advice to help decision makers provide the most effective, safe and value for money treatments for patients. Our advice is for consideration by anyone who has a responsibility for commissioning or providing healthcare, public health or social care services. National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics December 2016

Summary In April 2016, BioMarin Europe Ltd submitted a pharmacoeconomic dossier to the NCPE on the cost effectiveness of elosulfase alfa (Vimizim ) for the treatment of Morquio A Syndrome (MPS IVA) in patients of all ages. Elosulfase alfa is the first medicine licensed for the treatment of MPS IVA, for which only supportive care is currently available; this includes medications (e.g. antibiotics and analgesics) and surgical interventions. The aim of treatment with elosulfase alfa is to stabilise the disease or to reduce progression and improve patients quality of life. 1. Comparative effectiveness of elosulfase alfa (Vimizim ) The applicant presented data from the MOR-004 trial, an RCT which compared two different dosing schedules of elosulfase alfa with placebo. Results of this trial (24 week duration) showed that weekly doses of 2.0mg/kg elosulfase alfa led to statistically significant improvements in the primary outcome (six minute walk test (6MWT), a surrogate outcome) when compared with placebo. Confidence intervals for secondary and tertiary outcomes in the trial were in most cases crossing the line of no effect. The applicant also presented data from an extension study to the 24-week RCT, the MOR-005 study. This study reported data for a longer-period of time (72 weeks), however, the study design did not include a comparator group and therefore observed treatment effects should be interpreted cautiously. Results of this study found a relatively sustained effect of elosulfase alfa 2mg/kg every week; at weeks 48, 72 and 120; the 6MWT distance (primary outcome) for these time-points was comparable to that of week 24 in MOR-004. Patients treated with elosulfase alfa continued to show improvement in 6MWT distance until 72 weeks of treatment; after this time point, the 6MWT seemed to decline back to values approaching those at baseline of MOR-005. During the evaluation of elosulfase alfa by the EMA, the CHMP questioned the discriminatory ability of the 6MWT as an outcome in the MPS IV A population and also whether clinically relevant differences in the parameter could be expected in a 24-week timeframe. However, it was concluded that a more sensitive endpoint could not be identified at the time of application for licensing. The CHMP also determined that the clinical relevance of the observed 6MWT difference (22.5m) was supported by the secondary parameters and additional information on clinically important events; trends towards improvement, though not statistically significant, were observed in the three minute stair climb test (3MSCT), maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV), wheelchair dependence, orthopaedic surgery and 2

activities of daily living (ADL) function. However, it was concluded that the long-term efficacy and safety of elosulfase alfa could not be established at the time of licensing. Due to the limited numbers of patients in the trials, and the heterogeneity of disease severity and progression, the CHMP imposed a disease-specific registry to be maintained in the postauthorisation phase to collect long-term data (up to 10 years). 2. Safety of elosulfase alfa (Vimizim ). In the pivotal study, MOR-004 there were no deaths and none of the 176 patients who received a dose withdrew or discontinued treatment due to an adverse event. Also, few infusions were missed by the participants (<2%). However, nearly all participants reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event during the trial. Most subjects in MOR-004 experienced at least one infusion-associated reaction (91.5% placebo, 89.7% elosulfase weekly, 94.9% elosulfase every second week) but these were predominantly mild to moderate in severity. Hypersensitivity adverse events occurred in 11.9%, 20.7%, 27.1% of patients treated with placebo, elosulfase alfa weekly and elosulfase alfa every second week, respectively, and were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Serious adverse events occurred in 15.5% of patients receiving elosulfase alfa once weekly versus 3.4% of patients receiving placebo. Serious adverse events related to the study drug included one anaphylactic reaction, one hypersensitivity reaction and one severe case of vomiting, all of which resolved either with treatment or without. The most common drug-related adverse events in the placebo, elosulfase alfa weekly, and elosulfase alfa every second week regimens were pyrexia, vomiting, and headache and nausea, respectively, and were mild to moderate in severity. No new safety signals were observed in the extension study between week 24 (end of the MOR-004 trial) and week 120. At week 120, less than 3% of the patients permanently discontinued the study drug, though all of the participants had experienced at least one adverse event. 3. Cost effectiveness of elosulfase alfa (Vimizim ). A cost-utility analysis was presented in the submitted dossier. This aimed to estimate the lifetime impact of elosulfase alfa in terms of costs and QALYs. The model population consisted of people diagnosed with MPS IV A and was based on the MOR-001 natural 3

history study population (n=325). The comparator defined in the economic model was the current standard of care, i.e. symptomatic treatment involving, for example, orthopaedic surgery, pain management and the treatment of infections. The economic model submitted by the Applicant involves a number of assumptions, most importantly that treatment with elosulfase alfa modifies the disease course and delays the development of disease manifestation in asymptomatic patients. The Applicant used data from the elosulfase alfa arm of MOR-005, an open-label extension study, as the source of effectiveness data for elosulfase alfa. The source of information on the effectiveness of standard-of-care was the MOR-001 natural history study. Results After discounting the health effects by 5% annually, MPS IVA patients receiving standard medical care generated 7.07 QALYs during their lifetime, while patients on elosulfase alfa generated 14.97 QALYs. After discounting costs by 5% annually, MPS IVA patients on standard-of-care generated 33,080 while elosulfase alfa treated patients generated 8,187,681 during their lifetime. The discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of elosulfase alfa treatment against standard medical care was 1,032,228 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis The one way sensitivity analysis presented by the applicant showed that the most important parameters in the model affecting the modelled outcomes were the discount rate used for costs and the QALYs. The change in the annual decline in the 6MWT values, surgery costs, utility values and average body weight per health state all had very minimal impact on the outcomes. The cost effectiveness acceptability curve of elosulfase alfa against standard medical care showed that the probability of elosulfase alfa treatment being cost-effective at WTP values of about 500,000, 750,000, 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 per QALY were 0%, 6%, 86% and 100% respectively. 4. Budget impact of elosulfase alfa (Vimizim ). The price to the wholesaler of elosulfase alfa is 750 per 5mg vial. As the cost of treatment with elosulfase alfa depends on patient weight (2mg/kg dose), the Applicant has costed the treatment based on the average weight of a patient according to the same health states as the 4

economic model. The annual acquisition cost of elosulfase alfa per person excluding VAT is estimated at 395,480 and 486,440 when VAT is included. The applicant estimates that there are 10 known patients (adult and paediatric) with MPS IVA in Ireland. Four of these patients will be eligible for elosulfase alfa treatment in year 1. The applicant estimates that the total eligible population by year 5 would be approximately 6 patients (based on an incidence of 1 in 220,000 live births). The gross drug budget impact as outlined in the applicants submission ranges from; 1,945,762 (year 1), 1,945,762 (year 2), 2,324,143(year 3), 2,208,824 (year 4), 2,540,442 (year 5). The cumulative 5 year gross drug budget impact (including VAT) is estimated at 10.97 million. There are no displaced treatment cost offsets associated with the uptake of elosulfase alfa. Therefore, the net drug budget impact is equivalent to the gross drug budget impact. 5. Patient submissions A patient submission was received from the Irish Society for Mucopolysaccharide Diseases. 6. Conclusion Elosulfase alfa is the first medicine licensed for the treatment of MPS IVA, for which only supportive care is currently available. Overall the results from the most methodologically reliable study, the MOR-004 RCT, were statistically significant on the primary outcome (6MWT) only. The 6MWT provides an indirect assessment of endurance and functionality, but does not provide a direct measure of the effect of treatment on survival. Results from the longer-term, uncontrolled studies, appear to show an effect of treatment, but without a comparator can only be compared with the natural history of MPS IVA. It was also difficult to establish which patients would respond to treatment and which would not. Treatment with elosulfase alfa will be lifelong, and although the applicant presented data for 72 weeks, there was no clear evidence of the effects or harms of the treatment over the lifetime of an individual with MPS IVA. Also the outcomes employed in the included studies were surrogate outcomes, and therefore there is uncertainty around how results from these outcomes should be interpreted. Due to assumptions in the analysis regarding the long-term clinical benefit of elosulfase alfa 5

compared with supportive care, considerable uncertainty remains regarding the true costeffectiveness of treatment with elosulfase alfa. Following NCPE assessment of the applicant s submission, the cost effectiveness of elosulfase alfa (Vimizim ) for the treatment of Morquio A Syndrome has not been demonstrated, and therefore is not recommended for reimbursement 6