Sipuleucel-T for the Treatment of Metastatic Hormone-Relapsed Prostate Cancer: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal; An Evidence Review Group Perspective

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Emma L. Simpson ; Sarah Davis ; Praveen Thokala ; Penny R. Breeze…
• 刊名：PharmacoEconomics
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：November 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：33
• 期：11
• 页码：1187-1194
• 全文大小：422 KB
• 参考文献：1.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.
  2.Dendreon Corporation. Submission to NICE: single technology appraisal (STA) sipuleucel-T for the treatment of asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic (non-visceral) metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Company submission. 2014.
  3.European Public Assessment Report: Provenge. EMA/440011/2013. European Medicines Agency; 2013.
  4.Heidenreich A, Bastian P, Bellmunt J. Guidelines on prostate cancer. http://?www.?uroweb.?org/-/span> . 2013. Accessed 31 Mar 2013.
  5.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guidelines [CG175] Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment. Lodnon: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
  6.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Single technology appraisal (STA): abiraterone acetate (Zytiga) for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in men not previously treated with chemotherapy. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
  7.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Final appraisal determination sipuleucel-T for treating asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic hormone-relapsed prostate cancer. [ID573]. 2015. (10-2-2015).
  8.Small EJ, Schellhammer PF, Higano CS, Redfern CH, Nemunaitis JJ, Valone FH, et al. Placebo-controlled phase III trial of immunologic therapy with sipuleucel-T (APC8015) in patients with metastatic, asymptomatic hormone refractory prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(19):3089-4.CrossRef PubMed
  9.Frohlich MW. Sipuleucel-T for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Semin Oncol. 2012;39(3):245-2.CrossRef PubMed
  10.Kantoff PW, Higano CS, Shore ND, Berger ER, Small EJ, Penson DF, et al. Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(5):411-2.CrossRef PubMed
  11.Rathkopf DE, Smith MR, de Bono JS, et al. Updated interim efficacy analysis and long-term safety of abiraterone acetate in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients without prior chemotherapy (COU-AA-302). Eur Urol. 2014;66(5):815-5.CrossRef PubMed
  12.Hall SJ, Klotz L, Pantuck AJ, George DJ, Whitmore JB, Frohlich MW, et al. Integrated safety data from 4 randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of autologous cellular immunotherapy with sipuleucel-T in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011;186(3):877-1.CrossRef PubMed
  13.Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683-1.CrossRef PubMed
  14.Bremner KE, Chong CA, Tomlinson G, Alibhai SM, Krahn MD. A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(3):288-8.CrossRef
  15.Sandblom G, Carlsson P, Sennfalt K, Varenhorst E. A population-based study of pain and quality of life during the year before death in men with prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004;90(6):1163-.PubMed Central CrossRef PubMed
  16.Guest JF, Ruiz FJ, Greener MJ, Trotman IF. Palliative care treatment patterns and associated costs of healthcare resource use for specific advanced cancer patients in the UK. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2006;15(1):65-3.CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Emma L. Simpson (1)
  Sarah Davis (1)
  Praveen Thokala (1)
  Penny R. Breeze (1)
  Peter Bryden (2)
  Ruth Wong (1)
  
  1. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK
  2. University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
  
• 刊物主题：Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes; Quality of Life Research; Health Economics; Health Administration;
• 出版者：Springer International Publishing
• ISSN：1179-2027

文摘

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Dendreon, the company manufacturing sipuleucel-T, to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of sipuleucel-T for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic, non-visceral hormone-relapsed prostate cancer patients in whom chemotherapy is not yet clinically indicated, as part of NICE’s single technology appraisal process. The comparator was abiraterone acetate (AA) or best supportive care (BSC). The School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company submission (CS), ERG review, and subsequent decision of the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence of sipuleucel-T based upon the CS. Clinical-effectiveness data relevant to the decision problem were taken from three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of sipuleucel-T and a placebo (PBO) comparator of antigen-presenting cells (APC) being re-infused (APC-PBO) (D9901, D9902A and D9902B), and one RCT (COU-AA-302) of AA plus prednisone vs. PBO plus prednisone. Two trials reported a significant advantage for sipuleucel-T in median overall survival compared with APC-PBO: for trial D9901, an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.47; (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.29, 0.76) p < 0.002; for D9902B, adjusted HR 0.78 (95 % CI 0.61, 0.98) p = 0.03. There was no significant difference between groups in D9902A, unadjusted HR 0.79 (95 % CI 0.48, 1.28) p = 0.331. Sipuleucel-T and APC-PBO groups did not differ significantly in time to disease progression, in any of the three RCTs. Most adverse events developed within 1 day of the infusion, and resolved within 2 days. The CS included an indirect comparison of sipuleucel-T (D9902B) and AA plus prednisone (COU-AA-302). As trials differed in prior use of chemotherapy, an analysis of only chemotherapy-na?ve patients was included, in which the overall survival for sipuleucel-T and AA was not significantly different, HR 0.94 (95 % CI 0.69, 1.28) p = 0.699. The ERG had several concerns regarding the data and assumptions incorporated within the company’s cost-effectiveness analyses and conducted exploratory analyses to quantify the impact of making alternative assumptions or using alternative data inputs. The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sipuleucel-T vs. BSC when using the ERG’s preferred data and assumptions was ￡108,585 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the whole licensed population and ￡61,204/QALY in the subgroup with low prostate-specific antigen at baseline. The ERG also conducted an incremental analysis comparing sipuleucel-T with both AA and BSC in the chemotherapy-na?ve subgroup. Sipuleucel-T had a deterministic ICER of ￡111,682/QALY in this subgroup, when using the ERG’s preferred assumptions, and AA was extendedly dominated. The ERG also concluded that estimates of costs and benefits for AA should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the indirect comparison. The AC noted that the ICER for sipuleucel-T was well above the range usually considered cost effective, and did not recommend sipuleucel-T for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic, non-visceral hormone-relapsed prostate cancer.