The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Roche) of pralsetinib (Gavreto®), as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pralsetinib for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with a RET inhibitor. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with University Medical Center Groningen, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarizes the company submission (CS), presents the ERG’s critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS reported data from the ARROW trial. ARROW is a single-arm, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, multi-cohort study in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and other advanced solid tumors. The CS included both untreated and pre-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients, among other disease types. The comparators in the untreated population were pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The comparators for the pre-treated population were docetaxel monotherapy, docetaxel + nintedanib, and platinum-based chemotherapy ± pemetrexed. As no comparators were included in ARROW, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate relative effectiveness. The ERG’s concerns included the immaturity of data, small sample size, and lack of comparative safety evidence. The ERG considers the clinical evidence presented to be insufficiently robust to inform the economic model. Even when all the ERG preferred assumptions were implemented in the model, uncertainty remained on a number of issues, such as the appropriateness of the hazard ratios and the methods and data used to derive them, long-term efficacy of pralsetinib, and direct evidence for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). NICE did not recommend pralsetinib within its marketing authorization for treating RET fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults who have not had a RET inhibitor before. The uncertainty of the clinical evidence and the estimates of cost effectiveness were too high to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Therefore, pralsetinib was not recommended for routine use.

Fenfluramine, tradename Fintepla®, was appraised within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process as Technology Appraisal 808. Within the STA process, the company (Zogenix International) provided NICE with a written submission and a mathematical health economic model, summarising the company's estimates of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fenfluramine for patients with Dravet syndrome (DS). This company submission (CS) was reviewed by an evidence review group (ERG) independent of NICE. The ERG, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, produced an ERG report. This paper presents a summary of the ERG report and the development of the NICE guidance. The CS included a systematic review of the evidence for fenfluramine. From this review the company identified and presented evidence from two randomised trials (Study 1 and Study 1504), an open-label extension study (Study 1503) and 'real world evidence' from a prospective and retrospective study. Both randomised trials were conducted in patients up to 18 years of age with DS, whose seizures were incompletely controlled with previous anti-epileptic drugs. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare fenfluramine with cannabidiol plus clobazam. There was no evidence of a difference between any doses of fenfluramine and cannabidiol in the mean convulsive seizure frequency (CSF) rate during treatment. However, fenfluramine increased the number of patients achieving ≥ 50% reduction in CSF frequency from baseline compared to cannabidiol. The company used an individual-patient state-transition model (R version 3.5.2) to model cost-effectiveness of fenfluramine. The CSF and convulsive seizure-free days were estimated using patient-level data from the placebo arm of the fenfluramine registration studies. Subsequently, a treatment effect of either fenfluramine or cannabidiol was applied. Utility values for the economic model were obtained by mapping Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory data from the registration studies to EuroQol-5D-3L Youth (EQ-5D-Y-3L). The company included caregiver utilities in their base-case, as the severe needs of patients with DS have a major impact on parents and caregivers. There were several key issues. First, the company included caregiver utilities in the model in a way that when patients in the economic model died, the corresponding caregiver utility was also set to zero. Second, the model was built in R statistical software, resulting in transparency issues. Third, the company assumed the same percentage reduction for convulsive seizure days as was estimated for CSF. Fourth, during the final appraisal committee meeting, influential changes were made to the model that were not in line with the ERG's preferences (but were accepted by the appraisal committee). The company's revised and final incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) in line with committee preferences resulted in fenfluramine dominating cannabidiol. Fenfluramine was recommended as an add-on to other antiepileptic medicines for treating seizures associated with DS in people aged 2 years and older in the National Health Service (NHS).

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Kyowa Kirin) of mogamulizumab (Poteligeo®), as part of the single technology appraisal process, to submit evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness for previously treated mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG’s critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. Based on a systematic literature review, one randomised controlled trial, MAVORIC, was identified showing favourable results in patients with MF and SS. However, MAVORIC compared mogamulizumab to vorinostat, which is not standard care in the NHS, and there is uncertainty due to the study design, specifically crossover of patients. Based on a “naïve comparison of results from the vorinostat arm of the MAVORIC study and the physician’s choice arm (methotrexate or bexarotene i.e. United Kingdom [UK] standard treatments) of the ALCANZA study as well as comparison to Phase II bexarotene data”, the company considered vorinostat to be “a reasonable proxy for current standard of care in the NHS”. The ERG considered, based on the limited data available, that the comparability of vorinostat (MAVORIC) and physician’s choice (ALCANZA) could not be established. In response to the Appraisal Consultation Document, the company provided an unanchored matched adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of mogamulizumab with UK standard care by analysing Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. However, given the high risk of bias of an unanchored MAIC, these results needed to be regarded with a considerable degree of caution. The economic analysis suffered from uncertainty because there was no trial evidence on the comparator in the England and Wales National Health Service (NHS), and it was unclear to what extent the trial (MAVORIC) comparator (vorinostat) was comparable to standard care, referred to as established clinical management (ECM) in the NHS. The evidence for overall survival had not reached maturity and was confounded by treatment switching, for which different crossover adjustment methods produced large variations in life years. Caregiver utilities were applied in the analysis, but there was a lack of guidance on their application and whether these were indicated in this appraisal. After consultation, the company updated the economic analysis with the MAIC. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing mogamulizumab against ECM were (depending on whether the HES or MAVORIC comparison were used) £31,030 or £32,634 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained according to the company’s base case and £38,274 or £80,555 per QALY gained according to the ERG’s base case. NICE did not recommend mogamulizumab for treating MF or SS in adults who have had at least one previous systemic treatment. This decision was subsequently appealed, and an appeal decision has been reached.

Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding prolonged-release (PR)-fampridine to best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for the improvement of walking ability in patients with MS.Methods: A cost-utility analysis based on a Markov model was developed to model responders and timed 25-foot walk (T25FW) scores, accumulated costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) in adults with MS and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores between 4 and 7. The analysis was conducted from a Swedish societal perspective.Results: In the base-case analysis, PR-fampridine plus BSC led to a higher QALY gain than BSC alone. The largest direct cost was professional care provision followed by hospital inpatient stays while the indirect cost was the loss of earnings due to days off work. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PR-fampridine plus BSC compared with BSC alone was 57,109 Swedish Kronor (kr)/QALY (€5,607/QALY [1 kr = €0.0981762 on 8 April 2021] and $6,675/QALY [1 kr = $0.116890 on 8 April 2021]). All sensitivity analyses performed resulted in ICERs below 500,000 kr (€49,088 and $58,445).Limitations: Resource use data were not specific to the Swedish market.Conclusions: PR-fampridine represents a cost-effective treatment for MS-related walking impairment in Sweden, due to improvements in patients' quality of life and reduced healthcare resource utilization.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between SpaceOAR and radiation dosing, toxicity and quality-of-life vs no spacer across all radiotherapy modalities for prostate cancer. METHODS A systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase was performed from database inception through May 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full papers. Data extraction was performed, and quality assessed by 1 reviewer and checked by a second, using a third reviewer as required. The synthesis was narrative. RESULTS 19 studies (3,622 patients) were included (only 1 randomized controlled trial, in image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT), 18 comparatives non-randomized controlled trials in external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT), brachytherapy, and combinations thereof). No hypofractionation studies were found. Regardless of radiotherapy type, SpaceOAR significantly reduced rectal radiation dose (eg, V40 average difference -6.1% in high dose-rate brachytherapy plus IG-IMRT to -9.1% in IG-IMRT) and reduced gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities (eg, late gastrointestinal toxicity 1% vs 6% (P =.01), late genitourinary toxicity of 15% vs 32% (P <.001) in stereotactic body radiotherapy). Improvements were observed in most Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite quality-of-life domains (eg, bowel function score decrease at 3 and 6 months: Average change of zero vs -6.25 and -3.57 respectively in low dose-rate brachytherapy plus EBRT). CONCLUSION The randomized controlled trial in IG-IMRT demonstrated that SpaceOAR reduces rectal radiation dose and late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities, with urinary, bowel, and sexual quality-of-life improvement. These advantages were verified in observational studies in various radiotherapy types. Further research is required in hypofractionation. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc.

Background: Ongoing clinical trials are investigating poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors to target the DNA damage repair (DDR) pathway in prostate cancer. DDR mutation screening will guide treatment strategy and assess eligibility for clinical trials. Materials & methods: This systematic review estimated the rate of DDR mutation testing or genetic counseling among men with or at risk of prostate cancer. Results: From 6856 records, one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria and described men undiagnosed with prostate cancer with a family history of BRCA1/2 mutation who received DDR mutation testing. Conclusion: With only one study included in this first systematic review of DDR mutation testing or genetic counseling in men with or at risk of prostate cancer, more research is warranted.

GW Research Ltd. provided two separate, but similar, submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of cannabidiol (CBD) 10 mg/kg/day, trade name Epidyolex®, for the adjunctive treatment of seizures associated with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS) and Dravet syndrome (DS). This paper highlights important methodological issues related to the company submissions, the Evidence Review Group (ERG) reports, and the subsequent development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee (AC) for the use of CBD. The company identified four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBD (GWPCARE1 and GWPCARE2 for DS, and GWPCARE3 and GWPCARE4 for LGS) and an ongoing open-label extension study (GWPCARE5) as relevant to both submissions. In these RCTs, CBD in addition to current clinical management (CCM) was compared to CCM without CBD (i.e. CCM plus placebo). GWPCARE2 and GWPCARE3 were three-arm studies and compared two dosages of CBD (10 mg/kg/day and 20 mg/kg/day) in addition to CCM and CCM plus placebo. GWPCARE1 and GWPCARE4 compared CBD (20 mg/kg/day) in addition to CCM and CCM plus placebo. Both DS patients in GWPCARE2 and LGS patients in GWPCARE3 who received 10 mg/kg/day CBD in addition to CCM achieved better seizure frequency outcomes than those who received CCM plus placebo. In the company’s base case, use of CBD for LGS patients resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £31,107 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and, for DS patients, £36,046 per QALY gained versus CCM. The ERG considered that these ICERs were extremely uncertain and suffered from validity issues concerning model structure (e.g. patients receiving CCM moved back to baseline drop seizure frequency), input (e.g. inclusion of caregivers’ QALYs), and transparency issues (e.g. hidden worksheets and coding in Visual Basic for Applications), and hence incorporated adjustments to the original base case which increased the ICERs. During the process, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) licence granted marketing authorisation for CBD only in conjunction with clobazam. Hence, the company provided evidence from this subgroup in an additional submission, which resulted in an ICER of £33,721 per QALY gained for LGS and an ICER of £32,471 per QALY gained for DS. In this submission and clarifications, the ERG was able to verify and validate most of the company’s responses to the ERG’s concerns. However, some issues remained regarding the face validity of model assumptions on patient pathways after treatment discontinuation. Finally, the AC recommended CBD with clobazam as an option for treating seizures associated with LGS and DS in patients aged 2 years and older only if (1) the frequency of drop seizures is checked every 6 months and CBD is stopped if the frequency has not fallen by at least 30% compared with 6 months before starting treatment and (2) the company provides CBD according to the commercial arrangement.

Objective: Neuropathic pain prevalence is estimated between 7% and 10% of the population. International guidelines recommend a variety of drugs at different therapy lines for pain relief. However, side effect profiles, for example, prompted the UK government recently to classify pregabalin and gabapentin as class C drugs. Lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster (LMP) might be a safer alternative. A systematic review assessed how LMP and pregabalin compared in terms of efficacy and safety. The review focused on pain reduction, quality of life and adverse events in peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) i.e. post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post-surgical/trauma, or other PNP conditions. Methods: Electronic databases were searched as well as a number of other sources up to November 2018. Sensitive strategies were used, with no restriction by language or publication status. Two independent reviewers screened records and extracted data with consensus determining final decisions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration 2011 checklist for RCTs. Full network meta-analysis was conducted to compare LMP to pregabalin 300/600 mg in terms of pain reduction, quality of life, as well as serious adverse events and selected adverse events. Trials with enriched enrolment design were excluded. Results: Searches retrieved 7,104 records. In total 111 references pertaining to 43 RCTs were included for data extraction. Bayesian network meta-analysis of several pain outcomes showed no clear difference in efficacy between treatments However, LMP was clearly advantageous in terms of dizziness and any adverse event vs. pregabalin 600 mg/day and discontinuations vs. pregabalin 300 mg/day or 600 mg/day, as well as being associated with improved quality of life (albeit in this case based on weak evidence). Conclusions: LMP was found to be similar to pregabalin in reducing pain in all populations but had a better adverse events profile.

GW Research Ltd. provided two separate, but similar, submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of cannabidiol (CBD) 10 mg/kg/day, trade name Epidyolex ® , for the adjunctive treatment of seizures associated with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS) and Dravet syndrome (DS). This paper highlights important methodological issues related to the company submissions, the Evidence Review Group (ERG) reports, and the subsequent development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee (AC) for the use of CBD. The company identified four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBD (GWPCARE1 and GWPCARE2 for DS, and GWPCARE3 and GWPCARE4 for LGS) and an ongoing open-label extension study (GWPCARE5) as relevant to both submissions. In these RCTs, CBD in addition to current clinical management (CCM) was compared to CCM without CBD (i.e. CCM plus placebo). GWPCARE2 and GWPCARE3 were three-arm studies and compared two dosages of CBD (10 mg/kg/day and 20 mg/kg/day) in addition to CCM and CCM plus placebo. GWPCARE1 and GWPCARE4 compared CBD (20 mg/kg/day) in addition to CCM and CCM plus placebo. Both DS patients in GWPCARE2 and LGS patients in GWPCARE3 who received 10 mg/kg/day CBD in addition to CCM achieved better seizure frequency outcomes than those who received CCM plus placebo. In the company’s base case, use of CBD for LGS patients resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £31,107 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and, for DS patients, £36,046 per QALY gained versus CCM. The ERG considered that these ICERs were extremely uncertain and suffered from validity issues concerning model structure (e.g. patients receiving CCM moved back to baseline drop seizure frequency), input (e.g. inclusion of caregivers’ QALYs), and transparency issues (e.g. hidden worksheets and coding in Visual Basic for Applications), and hence incorporated adjustments to the original base case which increased the ICERs. During the process, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) licence granted marketing authorisation for CBD only in conjunction with clobazam. Hence, the company provided evidence from this subgroup in an additional submission, which resulted in an ICER of £33,721 per QALY gained for LGS and an ICER of £32,471 per QALY gained for DS. In this submission and clarifications, the ERG was able to verify and validate most of the company’s responses to the ERG’s concerns. However, some issues remained regarding the face validity of model assumptions on patient pathways after treatment discontinuation. Finally, the AC recommended CBD with clobazam as an option for treating seizures associated with LGS and DS in patients aged 2 years and older only if (1) the frequency of drop seizures is checked every 6 months and CBD is stopped if the frequency has not fallen by at least 30% compared with 6 months before starting treatment and (2) the company provides CBD according to the commercial arrangement.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Celgene) of lenalidomide (Revlimid®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide in combination with rituximab (MabThera®), together referred to as R2, for the treatment of adults with treated follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG’s critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS included one relevant study, for the comparison of R2 versus rituximab monotherapy (R-mono): the AUGMENT trial. In addition, the company performed an unanchored indirect comparison of R2 versus rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) and rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CVP), using data for R2 from the AUGMENT trial and pooled data for R-CHOP/R-CVP from the Haematological Malignancy Research Network (HMRN) database. During the STA process, the company provided an addendum containing evidence on only the FL population, in line with the marketing authorisation obtained at that time, which did not include MZL. The probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) presented by the company were £27,768 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for R2 versus R-CHOP, £41,602 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CVP, and £23,412 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-mono. The ERG’s concerns included the validity of the unanchored comparison, the unavailability of a state transition model to verify the outcomes of the partitioned survival model, substantial uncertainty in survival curves, and potential over-estimation of utility values. The revised ERG base case resulted in ICERs ranging from £16,874 to £44,888 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CHOP, from £23,135 to £59,810 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CVP, and from £18,779 to £27,156 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-mono. Substantial uncertainty remained around these ranges. NICE recommended R2 within its marketing authorisation, as an option for previously treated FL (grade 1–3A) in adults, contingent on the company providing lenalidomide according to the commercial arrangement.

Background: There have been no licensed treatment options in the UK for treating thrombocytopenia in people with chronic liver disease requiring surgery. Established management largely involves platelet transfusion prior to the procedure or as rescue therapy for bleeding due to the procedure. Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two thrombopoietin receptor agonists, avatrombopag (Doptelet®; Dova Pharmaceuticals, Durham, NC, USA) and lusutrombopag (Mulpleta®; Shionogi Inc., London, UK), in addition to established clinical management compared with established clinical management (no thrombopoietin receptor agonist) in the licensed populations. Design: Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting: Secondary care. Participants: Severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count of < 50,000/µl) in people with chronic liver disease requiring surgery. Interventions: Lusutrombopag 3 mg and avatrombopag (60 mg if the baseline platelet count is < 40,000/µl and 40 mg if it is 40,000–< 50,000/µl). Main outcome measures: Risk of platelet transfusion and rescue therapy or risk of rescue therapy only. Review methods: Systematic review including meta-analysis. English-language and non-English-language articles were obtained from several databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, all searched from inception to 29 May 2019. Economic evaluation: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: From a comprehensive search retrieving 11,305 records, six studies were included. Analysis showed that avatrombopag and lusutrombopag were superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in avoiding both platelet transfusion and rescue therapy or rescue therapy only, and mostly with a statistically significant difference (i.e. 95% confidence intervals not overlapping the point of no difference). However, only avatrombopag seemed to be superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in reducing the risk of rescue therapy, although far fewer patients in the lusutrombopag trials than in the avatrombopag trials received rescue therapy. When assessing the cost-effectiveness of lusutrombopag and avatrombopag, it was found that, despite the success of these in avoiding platelet transfusions prior to surgery, the additional long-term gain in quality-adjusted life-years was very small. No thrombopoietin receptor agonist was clearly cheaper than both lusutrombopag and avatrombopag, as the cost savings from avoiding platelet transfusions were more than offset by the drug cost. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that, for all thresholds below £100,000, no thrombopoietin receptor agonist had 100% probability of being cost-effective. Limitations: Some of the rescue therapy data for lusutrombopag were not available. There were inconsistencies in the avatrombopag data. From the cost-effectiveness point of view, there were several additional important gaps in the evidence required, including the lack of a price for avatrombopag. Conclusions: Avatrombopag and lusutrombopag were superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in avoiding both platelet transfusion and rescue therapy, but they were not cost-effective given the lack of benefit and increase in cost. Future work: A head-to-head trial is warranted. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019125311. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Approximately 20% of patients with PC harbor DDRm. Therapies including poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors represent an emerging approach in PC clinical trials targeting the DDR pathway. Screening for DDRm is beneficial to guide treatment options and assess eligibility for clinical trials. A SR was conducted to summarize DDRm testing and genetic counseling rates in men at risk of/with PC. This SR adhered to the Cochrane method. Electronic databases (e.g. Medline, Embase; n=8 and grey literature sources were searched (Jan 2009-Nov 2019)). Studies reporting on rates of DDRm testing and genetic counseling in men were included. The review was undertaken by two independent reviewers and a narrative synthesis conducted. Among 6,856 records screened, only one reference fulfilled the inclusion criteria; it estimated rate of genetic testing for DDRm. It was a prospective study in US men (N=98) without PC and with a family history of BRCA1/2 mutations and reported that 96% opted for genetic testing. One retrospective study of men (N=548) on active surveillance in US urology practices with intermediate PC risk or better, reported that 21.7% underwent genetic testing during 3 years of follow-up. However, testing was not for DDRm, but instead to determine disease progression risk. The lower rate of testing in this study is probably because, although not reported, not all men with PC were offered testing. No studies reported on the rate of genetic counseling. Only one study was identified for genetic testing for DDRm in men at risk of/with PC. No studies reported on genetic counseling or disparities in testing between different populations. This limited evidence establishes a call to action for further research in PC regarding DDRm testing and genetic counseling including any disparities in rates to optimize future treatment options that may impact clinical outcomes. Funding: Pfizer.

IntroductionThere is a lack of comprehensive cost information for cardiovascular events since 2013.ObjectiveA systematic review on the contemporary cost of cardiovascular events was therefore undertaken.MethodsMethods complied with those recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Studies were unrestricted by language, were from 2013 to 23 December 2017, and included cost-of-illness data in adults with the following cardiovascular conditions: myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), heart failure (HF), unstable angina (UA), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Seven electronic databases were searched, namely Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), MEDLINE In-Process Citations and Daily Update (Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed. The included studies reported data from a variety of years (sometimes prior to 2013), so costs were inflated and converted to $US, year 2018 values, for standardization.ResultsAfter de-duplication, 29,945 titles and abstracts and then 403 full papers were screened; 82 studies (88 papers) were extracted. Year 1 average cost ranges were as follows: MI ($11,970 in Sweden to $61,864 in the USA), stroke ($10,162 in Spain to $46,162 in the USA), TIA ($6049 in Sweden to $25,306 in the USA), HF ($4456 in China to $49,427 in the USA), UA ($11,237 in Sweden to $31,860 in the USA), PCI ($17,923 in Italy to $45,533 in the USA), CABG ($17,972 in the UK to $76,279 in the USA). One Swedish study reported PAD costs in a format convertible to $US, 2018 values, with a mean annual cost of $15,565.ConclusionsThere was considerable unexplained variation in contemporary costs for all major cardiovascular events. One emerging theme was that average costs in the USA were considerably higher than anywhere else.

Nigel Armstrong 1 Steve Ryder 1 Carol Forbes 2 Janine Ross 3 Ruben GW Quek 4 1Health Economics, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York YO19 6FD, UK; 2Systematic Reviews, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York YO19 6FD, UK; 3Information, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York YO19 6FD, UK; 4Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Pfizer Inc., San Francisco, CA 94105, USA Abstract: A systematic review was conducted, summarizing international BRCA 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) mutation prevalence in breast cancer. Databases (eg, Medline and Embase; N=7) and conferences were searched (January 2012 to December 2017). From 17,872 records, 70 studies were included. In 58 large (N>100) studies, BRCA1/2 mutation prevalence varied widely from 1.8% (Spain) in sporadic breast cancer to 36.9% (United States) in estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor low+ (1–9% on immunohistochemistry/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative [HER2-]) breast cancer. In 2 large studies unselected for family history, ethnicity, sex, or age and no/unclear selection by breast cancer stage or hormone receptor (HR) status, germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutation prevalence was 2.9% (Italy) to 3.0% (South Korea). In the 4 large unselected triple-negative breast cancer studies, gBRCA mutation prevalence varied from 9.3% (Australia) to 15.4% (United States). gBRCA mutation prevalence in 1 large unselected HR positive/HER2early breast cancer study was 5% (United States). In 2 large unselected metastatic breast cancer studies, gBRCA mutation prevalence was 2.7% (France) and 4.3% (Germany). Locally advanced breast cancer studies were small and not in unselected populations. Poor reporting of gBRCA status and basis of selection implies a need for further large well-reported BRCA mutation prevalence studies in breast cancer.

A systematic review was conducted, summarizing international BRCA 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) mutation prevalence in breast cancer. Databases (eg, Medline and Embase; N=7) and conferences were searched (January 2012 to December 2017). From 17,872 records, 70 studies were included. In 58 large (N>100) studies, BRCA1/2 mutation prevalence varied widely from 1.8% (Spain) in sporadic breast cancer to 36.9% (United States) in estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor low+ (1-9% on immunohistochemistry/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative [HER2-]) breast cancer. In 2 large studies unselected for family history, ethnicity, sex, or age and no/unclear selection by breast cancer stage or hormone receptor (HR) status, germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutation prevalence was 2.9% (Italy) to 3.0% (South Korea). In the 4 large unselected triple-negative breast cancer studies, gBRCA mutation prevalence varied from 9.3% (Australia) to 15.4% (United States). gBRCA mutation prevalence in 1 large unselected HR positive/HER2- early breast cancer study was 5% (United States). In 2 large unselected metastatic breast cancer studies, gBRCA mutation prevalence was 2.7% (France) and 4.3% (Germany). Locally advanced breast cancer studies were small and not in unselected populations. Poor reporting of gBRCA status and basis of selection implies a need for further large well-reported BRCA mutation prevalence studies in breast cancer.

Neuropathic pain prevalence is approximately 7%-10%. International guidelines recommend a variety of drugs for pain relief. However, side effect profiles prompted the UK government recently to classify pregabalin and gabapentin as class C drugs. 700 mg lidocaine medicated plaster (LMP) might be safer. A systematic review assessed how LMP and pregabalin (300/600mg) compared in terms of efficacy and safety. The review assessed pain reduction (Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)), quality of life and adverse events in peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) i.e. post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), post-surgical/trauma, or other PNP conditions. Sensitive strategies were used, unrestricted by language or publication status. Two independent reviewers screened records and extracted data with consensus as required. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration 2011 checklist for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a full Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Searches retrieved 7,104 records. Data were extracted from 43 RCTs, all but one double blind. Meta-analyses showed similar reduction in NRS between LMP and pregabalin (300/600mg). However, LMP reduced adverse events versus pregabalin 600mg and 300mg including dizziness (relative risk (95%CI); 0.03 (0.001, 0.81) versus 600mg; 0.04 (0.001, 1.03) versus 300mg) and discontinuations (relative risk (95%CI); 0.23 (0.06, 0.90) versus 600mg; 0.20 (0.04, 0.92) versus 300mg). It also improved quality of life albeit only from one RCT versus pregabalin 600mg in DPN (mean difference (95%CI) 0.07 (0.005, 0.13), not available for 300mg). LMP was found to be similar to pregabalin in reducing pain in all populations but had a better adverse events profile. These findings support the recommendation of LMP for any PNP as a safe alternative to pregabalin.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited AstraZeneca, the manufacturer of ticagrelor (Brilique®), to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily (BID) in combination with low-dose aspirin [acetylsalicylic acid (ASA)] compared with ASA only for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and who are at increased risk of atherothrombotic events. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned as the evidence review group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), the ERG report and the NICE guidance produced by the appraisal committee (AC) for the use of ticagrelor in England and Wales. The ERG critically reviewed the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS. The systematic review conducted as part of the CS identified one randomised controlled trial (RCT), PEGASUS-TIMI 54. This trial reported the time to first occurrence of any event from the composite of cardiovascular death, MI and stroke as the primary outcome (hazard ratio 0.84 ticagrelor 60 mg BID vs. placebo, 95% confidence interval 0.74–0.95). The population addressed in the CS was a subgroup of the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial population, i.e. the ‘base-case’ population, which comprised patients who had experienced an MI between 1 and 2 years ago, whereas the full trial population included patients who had experienced an MI between 1 and 3 years ago. While the ERG believed the findings of this RCT to be robust, doubts concerning the applicability of the trial to UK patients were raised. The company submitted an individual patient simulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor 60 mg BID + ASA versus ASA only. Parametric time-to-event models were used to estimate the time to first and subsequent (cardiovascular) events, time to treatment discontinuation and time to adverse events. The company’s base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £20,098 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The main issues surrounding the cost effectiveness of ticagrelor 60 mg BID + ASA were the use of parametric time-to-event models estimated based on the full trial population instead of being fitted to the ‘label’ population (the ‘label’ population comprised the ‘base-case’ population and patients who started ticagrelor 60 mg BID within 1 year of previous adenosine diphosphate inhibitor treatment), the incorrect implementation of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) of the individual patient simulation, and simplifications of the model structure that may have biased the health benefits and costs estimations of the intervention and comparator. The ERG believed the use of the full trial population to inform the parametric time-to-event models was not appropriate because the ‘label’ population was the main focus of the scope and CS. The ERG could not investigate the magnitude of the bias introduced by this assumption. The PSA of the individual patient simulation provided unreliable probabilistic results and underestimated the uncertainty surrounding the results because it was based on a single patient. The ERG used the cohort simulation presented in the cost-effectiveness model to perform its base-case and additional analyses and to obtain probabilistic results. The ERG amended the company cost-effectiveness model, which resulted in an ERG base-case ICER of £24,711 per QALY gained. In its final guidance, the AC recommended treatment with ticagrelor 60 mg BID + low-dose ASA for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in adults who have had an MI and are at increased risk of atherothrombotic events.

Background Previous reviews have evaluated economic analyses of lipid-lowering therapies using lipid levels as surrogate markers for cardiovascular disease. However, drug approval and health technology assessment agencies have stressed that surrogates should only be used in the absence of clinical endpoints. Objective The aim of this systematic review was to identify and summarise the methodologies, weaknesses and strengths of economic models based on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates. Methods Cost-effectiveness evaluations of lipid-lowering therapies using cardiovascular event rates in adults with hyperlipidaemia were sought in Medline, Embase, Medline In-Process, PubMed and NHS EED and conference proceedings. Search results were independently screened, extracted and quality checked by two reviewers. Results Searches until February 2016 retrieved 3443 records, from which 26 studies (29 publications) were selected. Twenty-two studies evaluated secondary prevention (four also assessed primary prevention), two considered only primary prevention and two included mixed primary and secondary prevention populations. Most studies (18) based treatment-effect estimates on single trials, although more recent evaluations deployed meta-analyses (5/10 over the last 10 years). Markov models (14 studies) were most commonly used and only one study employed discrete event simulation. Models varied particularly in terms of health states and treatment-effect duration. No studies used a systematic review to obtain utilities. Most studies took a healthcare perspective (21/26) and sourced resource use from key trials instead of local data. Overall, reporting quality was suboptimal. Conclusions This review reveals methodological changes over time, but reporting weaknesses remain, particularly with respect to transparency of model reporting.

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) is a rapidly progressive, lethal neuromuscular disorder, present from birth, which occurs almost exclusively in males. We have reviewed contemporary evidence of burden, epidemiology, illness costs and treatment patterns of DMD.