首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Springer Open Choice >Baricitinib for Previously Treated Moderate or Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
【2h】

Baricitinib for Previously Treated Moderate or Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

机译:Baricitinib用于先前治疗的中度或重度类风湿关节炎:NICE单一技术评估的证据审查小组观点

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) of baricitinib (BARI; Olumiant®; a Janus kinase inhibitor that is taken orally) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company’s submission (CS) to NICE. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the CS for BARI was based predominantly on three randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of BARI against adalimumab or placebo, as well as one long-term extension study. The clinical-effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of BARI against all the comparators within the scope. Therefore, the company performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) in two different populations: one in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs (cDMARD-IR), and the other in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). The company’s NMAs concluded BARI had comparable efficacy as the majority of its comparators in both populations. The company submitted a de novo discrete event simulation model that analysed the incremental cost-effectiveness of BARI versus its comparators for the treatment of RA from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in four different populations: (1) cDMARD-IR patients with moderate RA, defined as a 28-Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) > 3.2 and no more than 5.1; (2) cDMARD-IR patients with severe RA (defined as a DAS28 > 5.1); (3) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom rituximab (RTX) was eligible; and (4) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with methotrexate (MTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated. In the cDMARD-IR population with moderate RA, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for BARI in combination with MTX compared with intensive cDMARDs was estimated to be £37,420 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In the cDMARD-IR population with severe RA, BARI in combination with MTX dominated all comparators except for certolizumab pegol (CTZ) in combination with MTX, with the ICER of CTZ in combination with MTX compared with BARI in combination with MTX estimated to be £18,400 per QALY gained. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA, when RTX in combination with MTX was an option, BARI in combination with MTX was dominated by RTX in combination with MTX. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated, BARI in combination with MTX dominated golimumab in combination with MTX and was less effective and less expensive than the remaining comparators. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses after applying corrections to the methods used in the NMAs and two programming errors in the economic model that affected the company’s probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) results. The ERG’s NMA results were broadly comparable with the company’s results. The programming error that affected the PSA of the severe cDMARD-IR population had only a minimal impact on the results, while the error affecting the severe TNFi-IR RTX-ineligible population resulted in markedly higher costs and QALYs gained for the affected comparators but did not substantially modify the conclusions of the analysis. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that BARI in combination with MTX or as monotherapy is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in patients with severe RA, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX-eligible.
机译:作为其单一技术评估过程的一部分,美国国家卫生与医疗保健研究院邀请了Baricitinib(BARI; Olumiant ®;口服的Janus激酶抑制剂)的生产商(Eli Lilly)提交。改变疾病的抗风湿药(DMARD)失败后治疗中度至重度类风湿关节炎(RA)的临床和成本效益的证据。谢菲尔德大学健康与相关研究技术评估小组受委托担任独立的证据审查小组(ERG)。 ERG根据公司向NICE提交的材料(CS),对该技术的临床和成本效益证据进行了详细审查。 CS对BARI的临床有效性证据主要基于三项随机对照试验,比较了BARI对阿达木单抗或安慰剂的疗效以及一项长期扩展研究。临床有效性评估未发现有关该范围内所有对照药对BARI疗效的正面证据。因此,该公司在两个不同的人群中进行了网络荟萃分析(NMA):一个是对常规DMARD(cDMARD-IR)反应不足的患者,另一个是对肿瘤坏死因子反应不足的患者抑制剂(TNFi-IR)。该公司的NMA得出结论,在这两个人群中,BARI的疗效均与其大多数比较者相当。该公司提交了一个从头开始的离散事件模拟模型,该模型从国家卫生服务局(NHS)的四个不同人群的角度分析了BARI及其比较剂在RA治疗方面的增量成本效益:(1)cDMARD-IR患者中度RA,定义为28关节疾病活动评分(DAS28)> 3.2,且不超过5.1; (2)患有严重RA的cDMARD-IR患者(定义为DAS28> 5.1); (3)利妥昔单抗(RTX)符合条件的严重RA的TNFi-IR患者; (4)禁忌或不耐受RTX联合甲氨蝶呤(MTX)的严重RA的TNFi-IR患者。在患有中度RA的cDMARD-IR人群中,与强化cDMARD相比,BARI与MTX结合使用的确定性增量成本-效果比(ICER)估计为每质量调整生命年(QALY)获得37,420英镑。在患有严重RA的cDMARD-IR人群中,除certolizumab聚乙二醇(CTZ)与MTX组合外,BARI与MTX组合均主导所有比较指标,与BARI与MTX组合相比,CTZ与ITX组合的ICER与CTZ的ICER相比。每QALY获得18,400。在患有严重RA的TNFi-IR人群中,当选择RTX与MTX联合使用时,BARI与MTX联合由RTX与MTX联合控制。在禁忌或不耐受RTX与MTX联合治疗的严重RA的TNFi-IR人群中,BARI与MTX联合使用的戈利木单抗与MTX联合使用比其他同类药物疗效差,价格便宜。对该模型进行了批判之后,ERG在对NMA中使用的方法进行了更正后,进行了探索性分析,并在经济模型中遇到了两个编程错误,这些错误影响了公司的概率敏感性分析(PSA)结果。 ERG的NMA结果与公司的结果大致相当。影响严重cDMARD-IR人群PSA的编程错误对结果的影响很小,而影响严重TNFi-IR RTX不合格人群的错误导致受影响的比较者的成本和QALY显着提高,但确实没有实质性地修改分析的结论。 NICE评估委员会得出的结论是,对于重度RA患者,BARI联合MTX或作为单一疗法是一种具有成本效益的NHS资源,但符合RTX资格的TNFi-IR患者除外。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号