| Title |
Evolocumab for Treating Primary Hypercholesterolaemia and Mixed Dyslipidaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-017-0492-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher Carroll, Paul Tappenden, Rachid Rafia, Jean Hamilton, Duncan Chambers, Mark Clowes, Paul Durrington, Nadeem Qureshi, Anthony S. Wierzbicki |
| Abstract |
As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of evolocumab (Amgen) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of evolocumab. The appraisal assessed evolocumab as monotherapy or in combination with a statin with or without ezetimibe, or in combination with ezetimibe (without statin therapy), in adult patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia (which includes mixed dyslipidaemia), for whom statins do not provide optimal control of their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and/or for whom statins are contraindicated or not tolerated. 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 critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based on the company's submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from four randomised controlled trials comparing evolocumab with either ezetimibe or placebo in adults with primary familial or non-familial hypercholesterolaemia, who were either able to take statins or who were statin intolerant. The clinical-effectiveness review found that evolocumab is efficacious at lowering LDL-C but that there was uncertainty regarding its impact on cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes. In response to the ERG's critique of the submitted health economic model, the company submitted an amended model, which also included a patient access scheme (PAS). Based on this, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for evolocumab against ezetimibe were above £74,000 and £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained within the non-familial primary and secondary prevention populations, respectively, whilst the ICER within the heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH) population was approximately £23,000 per QALY gained. The final determination was that evolocumab would be a clinically and cost-effective use of UK NHS resource in certain patient subgroups. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 61 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 19% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 32% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 20 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,450,375
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,542
of 1,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,956
of 308,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#12
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,861 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.