Modelling approaches for histology-independent cancer drugs to inform NICE appraisals: a systematic review and decision-framework

Author:

Murphy Peter1ORCID,Glynn David2ORCID,Dias Sofia1ORCID,Hodgson Robert1ORCID,Claxton Lindsay1ORCID,Beresford Lucy1ORCID,Cooper Katy3ORCID,Tappenden Paul3ORCID,Ennis Kate3ORCID,Grosso Alessandro2ORCID,Wright Kath1ORCID,Cantrell Anna3ORCID,Stevenson Matt3ORCID,Palmer Stephen2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK

2. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK

3. School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) Technology Assessment Group, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Abstract

Background The first histology-independent marketing authorisation in Europe was granted in 2019. This was the first time that a cancer treatment was approved based on a common biomarker rather than the location in the body at which the tumour originated. This research aims to explore the implications for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Methods Targeted reviews were undertaken to determine the type of evidence that is likely to be available at the point of marketing authorisation and the analyses required to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Several challenges were identified concerning the design and conduct of trials for histology-independent products, the greater levels of heterogeneity within the licensed population and the use of surrogate end points. We identified approaches to address these challenges by reviewing key statistical literature that focuses on the design and analysis of histology-independent trials and by undertaking a systematic review to evaluate the use of response end points as surrogate outcomes for survival end points. We developed a decision framework to help to inform approval and research policies for histology-independent products. The framework explored the uncertainties and risks associated with different approval policies, including the role of further data collection, pricing schemes and stratified decision-making. Results We found that the potential for heterogeneity in treatment effects, across tumour types or other characteristics, is likely to be a central issue for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Bayesian hierarchical methods may serve as a useful vehicle to assess the level of heterogeneity across tumours and to estimate the pooled treatment effects for each tumour, which can inform whether or not the assumption of homogeneity is reasonable. Our review suggests that response end points may not be reliable surrogates for survival end points. However, a surrogate-based modelling approach, which captures all relevant uncertainty, may be preferable to the use of immature survival data. Several additional sources of heterogeneity were identified as presenting potential challenges to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal, including the cost of testing, baseline risk, quality of life and routine management costs. We concluded that a range of alternative approaches will be required to address different sources of heterogeneity to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. An exemplar case study was developed to illustrate the nature of the assessments that may be required. Conclusions Adequately designed and analysed basket studies that assess the homogeneity of outcomes and allow borrowing of information across baskets, where appropriate, are recommended. Where there is evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects and estimates of cost-effectiveness, consideration should be given to optimised recommendations. Routine presentation of the scale of the consequences of heterogeneity and decision uncertainty may provide an important additional approach to the assessments specified in the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methods guide. Further research Further exploration of Bayesian hierarchical methods could help to inform decision-makers on whether or not there is sufficient evidence of homogeneity to support pooled analyses. Further research is also required to determine the appropriate basis for apportioning genomic testing costs where there are multiple targets and to address the challenges of uncontrolled Phase II studies, including the role and use of surrogate end points. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 76. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Funder

Health Technology Assessment programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

Health Policy

Reference312 articles.

1. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval Package for Application Number 125514Orig1s014. Trade Name: Keytruda. Generic or Proper Name: Pembrolizumab. Rockville, MD: FDA; 2017.

2. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Assessment Report: VITRAKVI. International Non-Proprietary Name: Larotrectinib. Amsterdam: EMA; 2019.

3. Efficacy of Larotrectinib in TRK fusion-positive cancers in adults and children;Drilon;N Engl J Med,2018

4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE; 2013.

5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Developing Targeted Therapies in Low-Frequency Molecular Subsets of a Disease. Guidance for Industry. Silver Spring, MD: FDA; 2018.

全球学者库

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"全球学者库"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前全球学者库共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2023 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3