| Title |
Ibrutinib for Treating Waldenström’s Macroglobulinaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-018-0680-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Tappenden, Christopher Carroll, John Stevens, Emma Simpson, Praveen Thokala, Ruth Wong, Josh Wright, Rebecca Auer |
| Abstract |
As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ibrutinib (Janssen) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib for treating Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia (WM). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Assessment 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 ibrutinib based on the company's submission to NICE. The clinical evidence was derived from one phase II, single-arm, open-label study of ibrutinib in adult patients with WM who had received at least one prior therapy (Study 1118E) and an indirect comparison using a matched cohort from a retrospective European chart review of patients receiving various treatments for WM. The indirect comparison suggested a hazard ratio for progression-free survival (PFS) of 0.25 (95% confidence interval 0.11-0.57). The ERG had concerns regarding the high risk of bias in Study 1118E, the limited generalisability of the study, and the absence of randomised controlled trial evidence. The company's Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) WM from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) over a lifetime horizon. Based on the company's original Patient Access Scheme (PAS), the company's probabilistic model generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy of £58,905 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG's preferred analysis, which corrected cost errors and used the observed mortality rate from Study 1118E, generated a probabilistic ICER of £61,219 per QALY gained. Based on this amended model, additional exploratory analyses produced ICERs for ibrutinib that were > £60,000 per QALY gained. Subsequently, the company offered to provide ibrutinib at a price that resulted in ibrutinib being cost effective within the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF). The Committee recommended ibrutinib for use in the CDF as an option for treating WM in adults who have had at least one prior therapy, only if the conditions in the managed access agreement for ibrutinib are followed. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 22 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 22 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 February 2022.
All research outputs
#6,883,573
of 23,063,209 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#791
of 1,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,984
of 329,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#16
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,063,209 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
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 329,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.