PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 415–425 | Cite as

Golimumab for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal

  • Nigel Armstrong
  • Manuela Joore
  • Thea van Asselt
  • Kate Misso
  • Nathan Manning
  • Florian Tomini
  • Jos Kleijnen
  • Rob Riemsma
Review Article

Abstract

As part of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process, the Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a report to comment on the clinical and cost effectiveness of golimumab (Simponi®, Merck Sharp & Dohme) for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) relative to other comparators as presented in the manufacturer’s submission (MS) to NICE. The population was those with active disease who had not responded to conventional therapy. The specified comparators were conventional care and two other tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors (adalimumab and etanercept). Outcomes to be considered were disease activity, functional capacity, disease progression, adverse effects of treatment and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). There were no head-to-head trials comparing TNF-α inhibitors. The submission included one trial of golimumab versus placebo (the GO-RAISE trial) and additionally seven placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of other TNF-α inhibitor agents (five with etanercept, and two with adalimumab). The results of these trials were generally a statistically significant improvement from each of the TNF-α inhibitors. A Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) showed there was generally overlap in the 95 % credible intervals (CrIs) between the TNF-α inhibitors. Exceptions included a greater risk of discontinuation of treatment for golimumab than for etanercept (relative risk [RR] 4.30; 95 % CrI 1.01–18.50). The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) compared all of these TNF-α inhibitors. Relative effectiveness was informed only by RR of response (proportion achieving at least a 50 % improvement in Bath AS Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] score; BASDAI50) from the MTC. In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of golimumab versus conventional care was £26,597 and adalimumab and etanercept were extendedly dominated by golimumab. The manufacturer concluded that golimumab is a cost-effective treatment option. Generally, the ERG agreed with the MTC analyses. The main problem was that the MS used data from one trial, which included a period of cross-over. The ERG found some problems with the CEA model, mainly that it did not allow for comparison of TNF-α inhibitor sequences and did not use MTC estimates for treatment discontinuation or adverse events (AEs). The ERG could not correct the sequencing problem, but re-ran the CEA with discontinuations and AEs estimated from the MTC and using the correct trial data. The results of the ERG analysis were that golimumab was extendedly dominated by etanercept, and the preferred treatment was either conventional treatment or etanercept, depending on the ICER threshold. Uncertainty was also substantial. NICE issued guidance (technology appraisal [TA] 233), which recommended golimumab according to the indications described in TA143 for etanercept and adalimumab, i.e. as first-line therapy among the TNF-α inhibitors unless patients are intolerant to one or both alternatives. Given the factors cited by NICE for their decision, the ERG recommends that there should be greater clarity in the NICE methods guidance on handling uncertainty in CEAs as well as the incorporation of benefit from process of care.

References

  1. 1.
    Yang H, Craig D, Epstein D, Bojke L, Light K, Bruce IN, et al. Golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(4):257–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sculpher M. Single technology appraisal at the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: a source of evidence and analysis for decision making internationally. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(5):347–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rodgers M, Griffin S, Paulden M, et al. Alitretinoin for severe chronic hand eczema: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(5):351–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bagust A, Greenhalgh J, Boland A, et al. Cetuximab for recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(6):439–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stevenson M, Pandor A. Febuxostat for the management of hyperuricaemia in patients with gout: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(2):133–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scotland G, Waugh N, Royle P, et al. Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in post-menopausal women: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(11):951–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dickson R, Bagust A, Boland A, et al. Erlotinib monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of non-small cell lung cancer after previous platinum-containing chemotherapy: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(12):1051–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McKenna C, Maund E, Sarowar M, et al. Dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(1):35–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holmes M, Carroll C, Papaioannou D. Dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing elective hip and knee surgery: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(2):137–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boyers D, Jia X, Jenkinson D, et al. Eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(6):483–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burch J, Griffin S, McKenna C, Walker S, Paton J, Wright K, et al. Omalizumab for severe persistent asthma in children aged 6–11 years: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(11):991–1004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whyte S, Pandor A, Stevenson M. Bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(12):1119–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kilonzo M, Hislop J, Elders A, Fraser C, Bissett D, McClinton S, et al. Pazopanib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(1):15–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Craig D, Rice S, Paton F, et al. Retigabine for the adjunctive treatment of adults with partial onset seizures in epilepsy with and without secondary generalisation: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(2):101–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spackman E, Rice S, Norman G, Suh D-C, Eastwood A, Palmer S. Trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2 positive metastatic gastric cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(3):185–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rafia R, Simpson E, Stevenson M, Papaioannou D. Trabectedin for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013. doi:10.1007/s40273-013-0044-7.
  17. 17.
    Simpson EL, Fitzgerald P, Evans P, et al. Bivalirudin for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013. doi:10.1007/s40273-013-0036-7.
  18. 18.
    Greenhalgh J, Bagust A, Boland A, Blundell M, Oyee J, Beale S, Dundar Y, Hockenhull J, Proudlove C, Chu P. Rituximab for the first-line maintenance treatment of follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013. doi:10.1007/s40273-013-0043-8.
  19. 19.
    Tosh J, Archer R, Davis S, et al. Golimumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of previous disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. In press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kearns B, Lloyd-Jones M, Stevenson M, Littlewood C. Cabazitaxel for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone refractory prostate cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013. doi:10.1007/s40273-013-0050-9.
  21. 21.
    Faria R, Spackman E, Burch J, Corbacho B, Todd D, Pepper C, et al. Dabigatran for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation: a NICE single technology appraisal. PharmacoEconomics. In press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feldtkeller E, Khan MA, van der Heijde D, van der Linden S, Braun J. Age at disease onset and diagnosis delay in HLA-B27 negative vs. positive patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatol Int. 2003;23(2):61–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rudwaleit M, van der Heijde D, Khan MA, Braun J, Sieper J. How to diagnose axial spondyloarthritis early. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(5):535–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boyer GS, Templin DW, Bowler A, Lawrence RC, Everett DF, Heyse SP, et al. A comparison of patients with spondyloarthropathy seen in specialty clinics with those identified in a communitywide epidemiologic study. Has the classic case misled us? Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(18):2111–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sieper J, Rudwaleit M. How early should ankylosing spondylitis be treated with tumour necrosis factor blockers? Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(Suppl 4):iv61–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chary-Valckenaere I, d’Agostino MA, Loeuille D. Role for imaging studies in ankylosing spondylitis. Jt Bone Spine. 2011;78(2):138–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sieper J, Braun J, Rudwaleit M, Boonen A, Zink A. Ankylosing spondylitis: an overview. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002;61(Suppl 3):iii8–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carette S, Graham D, Little H, Rubenstein J, Rosen P. The natural disease course of ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum. 1983;26(2):186–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gran JT, Skomsvoll JF. The outcome of ankylosing spondylitis: a study of 100 patients. Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36(7):766–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rudwaleit M, Haibel H, Baraliakos X, Listing J, Märker-Hermann E, Zeidler H, et al. The early disease stage in axial spondylarthritis: results from the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60(3):717–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ward MM. Predictors of the progression of functional disability in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol. 2002;29(7):1420–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dagfinrud H, Hagen Kåre B, Kvien Tore K. Physiotherapy interventions for ankylosing spondylitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD002822. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002822.pub3.
  33. 33.
    Chen J, Liu C, Lin J. Methotrexate for ankylosing spondylitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD004524. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004524.pub3.
  34. 34.
    Chen J, Liu C. Sulfasalazine for ankylosing spondylitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004800. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004800.pub2.
  35. 35.
    McLeod C, Bagust A, Boland A, Dagenais P, Dickson R, Dundar Y, et al. Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2007;11(28):1–158, iii–iv.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Centocor Inc. Clinical study report: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of golimumab, a fully human TNF-α inhibitor α monoclonal antibody, administered subcutaneously, in subjects with active ankylosing spondylitis (GO-RAISE), 2007. Horsham: Centocor; 2007.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Inman R, Davis JJ, Heijde D, Diekman L, Sieper J, Kim S, et al. Efficacy and safety of golimumab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(11):3402–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    van der Heijde D, Kivitz A, Schiff MH, Sieper J, Dijkmans BA, Braun J, et al. Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54(7):2136–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Van der Heijde D, Schiff M, Sieper J, Kivitz A, Wong R, Kupper H, et al. Adalimumab effectiveness for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis is maintained for up to 2 years: long-term results from the ATLAS trial. Annals Rheum Dis. 2009;68:922–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brandt J, Khariouzov A, Listing J, Haibel H, Sörensen H, Grassnickel L, et al. Six-month results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of etanercept treatment in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48(6):1667–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gorman JD, Sack KE, Davis JC Jr. Treatment of ankylosing spondylitis by inhibition of tumor necrosis factor alpha. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1349–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zochling J, van der Heijde D, Burgos-Vargas R, et al. ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65:442–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Calin A, Dijkmans B, Emery P, Hakala M, Kalden J, Leirisalo-Repo M, et al. Outcomes of a multicentre randomised clinical trial of etanercept to treat ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(12):1594–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Davis JJ, Van Der Heijde D, Braun J, Dougados M, Cush J, Clegg D, et al. Recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (etanercept) for treating ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48(11):3230–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    van der Heijde D, Da Silva J, Dougados M, Geher P, van der Horst-Bruinsma I, Juanola X, et al. Etanercept 50 mg once weekly is as effective as 25 mg twice weekly in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65(12):1572–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Maksymowych W, Rahman P, Keystone E, Wong R. Efficacy of adalimumab in active ankylosing spondylitis (AS): results of the Canadian AS study. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(Suppl):S217.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    European Medicines Agency. Annex I: summary of product characteristics. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000992/WC500052368.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2013.
  48. 48.
    Connock M, Tubeuf S, McCabe C, Jobanputra P, Hassan A, Bayliss S, et al. Golimumab for the treatment of adults with active Ankylosing spondylitis whose response to conventional therapy has been inadequate: a Single Technology Appraisal. Birmingham: WMHTAC, University of Birmingham; 2010.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Ankylosing spondylitis: golimumab. London: NICE. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA/Wave19/48. Accessed 27 Jun 2012.
  50. 50.
    Schering-Plough Ltd. Golimumab for the treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS)—Response to request for clarification from the ERG. Hoddesdon: Schering-Plough Ltd (part of MSD); 2011.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Single Technology Appraisal: specification for manufacturer/sponsor submission of evidence. London: NICE; 2009.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Ankylosing spondylitis—adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab: Final appraisal determination. London: NICE; 2007.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2007-08. London: Department of Health; 2009. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_098945. Accessed 21 Mar 2013.
  54. 54.
    Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappelleri JC, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011;14(4):429–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Golimumab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (TA233). London: NICE; 2011.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE’s response to the Kennedy study. London: NICE; 2010. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/researchanddevelopment/KennedyStudyNICEResponse.jsp. Accessed 21 March 2013.
  58. 58.
    Riemsma R, Joore M, Van Asselt T, Armstrong N, Misso K, Manning N, et al. Golimumab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a single technology appraisal. York: Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd.; 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nigel Armstrong
    • 1
  • Manuela Joore
    • 2
  • Thea van Asselt
    • 2
  • Kate Misso
    • 1
  • Nathan Manning
    • 1
  • Florian Tomini
    • 2
  • Jos Kleijnen
    • 1
    • 3
  • Rob Riemsma
    • 1
  1. 1.Kleijnen Systematic Reviews LtdYorkUK
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology AssessmentMaastricht University Medical CentreMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI)Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations