PharmacoEconomics Italian Research Articles

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 143–152 | Cite as

Eltrombopag per il trattamento della porpora trombocitopenica immune o idiopatica cronica

Valutazione di tecnologia singola presso il NICE

Eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura—a NICE single technology appraisal


The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of eltrombopag (GlaxoSmithKline) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of patients with chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), as part of the their Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Aberdeen Technology Assessment Review (TAR) Group, commissioned to act as the evidence review group (ERG), critically reviewed and supplemented the submitted evidence. This paper describes the company submission, the ERG review and NICE’s subsequent decisions.

The ERG critically appraised the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by the manufacturer, independently searched for relevant literature, conducted a critical appraisal of the submitted economic models and explored the impact of altering some of the key model assumptions as well as combining relevant sensitivity analyses.

Three trials were used to inform the safety and efficacy aspects of this submission; however, one high-quality randomized controlled trial (RAISE study) was the principal source of evidence and was used to inform the economic model. Eltrombopag had greater odds of achieving the primary outcome of a platelet count between 50×109/L and 400×109/L during the 6-month treatment period than placebo (odds ratio [OR] 8.2, 99% CI 3.6, 18.7). In the eltrombopag group, 50/83 (60%) of non-splenectomized patients and 18/49 (37%) of splenectomized patients achieved this outcome. The median duration of response was 10.9 weeks for eltrombopag (splenectomized 6 and non-splenectomized 13.4) compared with 0 for placebo. Eltrombopag patients required less rescue medication and had lower odds of bleeding events for both the splenectomized and the non-splenectomized patients.

For a watch-and-rescue strategy of care, the comparator was placebo and the ERG found that substantial reductions in the cost of eltrombopag are needed before the incremental cost per QALY is less than £30 000. There was significant uncertainty, with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) reported varying from £33 561 to £103 500 per QALY (splenectomized) and £39 657 to £150 245 per QALY (non-splenectomized). All costs are presented in £, year 2008 values, as this was the costing year for the manufacturer’s model. Other than bleeding, no adverse events were modelled. In relation to the long-term treatment model, the ERG questioned the robustness of the use of non-randomized non-comparative data. The base-case results restricting the time horizon to 2 years and prescribing eltrombopag as second-line treatment post-rituximab were found to be favourable towards eltrombopag. As rituximab is not a licensed treatment for ITP, the ERG were concerned that its inclusion may not be reflective of clinical practice. None of the treatment sequences resulted in an ICER approaching the recommended threshold of £30 000 per QALY gained.

Eltrombopag appears to be a safe treatment for ITP (although longterm follow-up studies are awaited) and has short-term efficacy. However, NICE found based on the evidence submitted and reviewed that there was no robust evidence on the long-term efficacy or cost effectiveness of eltrombopag and a lack of direct evidence for eltrombopag tested against other relevant comparators.



Questo progetto è stato finanziato dal National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (progetto numero 08/81/01) e sarà pubblicato come parte di un compendio di articoli sull’attività degli ERG nella rivista Health Technology Assessment. Per ulteriori informazioni sul progetto si veda il sito del programma HTA ( Questo sommario del rapporto dell’ERG è stato redatto dopo l’esame della documentazione da parte dell’AC. Questo sommario non è stato sottoposto a peer-reviewers esterni da parte di PharmacoEconomics.

Il Professor Luke Vale, Health Economics Research Unit and Health Services Research Unit dell’Università di Aberdeen, ha avuto la funzione di garante e ha fornito consigli e commenti sul lavoro nel corso di tutto il progetto. Il Dott. Mark Crowther, Department of Haematology at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, ha fornito l’indirizzo clinico e Ms Cynthia Fraser (Documentalista), Health Services Research Unit dell’Università di Aberdeen, ha condotto le ricerche della letteratura e commentato le bozze del rapporto alla HTA.

Altri riconoscimenti e contributi sono riportati in dettaglio nel rapporto dell’ERG [30].

Le vedute e le opinioni espresse sono quelle degli autori e non riflettono necessariamente quelle del NICE o del Dipartimento della Sanità.

Dwayne Boyers ha completato uno stage (soggiorno di 3 mesi a Dublino, Irlanda) con GlaxoSmithKline come parte di un Master in scienze economiche presso la National University di Irele (NUI), Galway, durante il quale ha completato una tesina sulle modalità di fornitura e rimborso dei farmaci in Irlanda. Come parte del programma tra NUI Galway e GlaxoSmithKline, ha ricevuto un piccolo stipendio per coprire le spese di vitto e alloggio durante il soggiorno a Dublino nel 2009. Gli altri autori non hanno conflitti di interesse da dichiarare.


  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the single technology appraisal process. London: NICE. 2009. Available from: [Accessed 2011 Jan 10].
  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.
    Yang H, Craig D, Epstein D, et al. Golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(4):257–70. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burch J, Griffin S, McKenna C, et al. Omalizumab for severe and persistent asthma in children aged 6 to 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. Pazopanib for the firstline 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.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Thrombocytopenic purpura: eltrombopag. London: NICE. 2010. Available from: [Accessed 2011 Jan 10].
  16. 16.
    Neylon AJ, Saunders PW, Howard MR, et al. Clinically significant newly presenting autoimmune thrombocytopenic purpura in adults: a prospective study of a population-based cohort of 245 patients. Br J Haematol. 2003;122:966–74. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    George JN, El-Harake MA, Aster RH. Thrombocytopenia due to enhanced platelet destruction by immunologic mechanisms. In: Beutler E, Lichtman MA, Coller BS, Kipps TJ, editors. Williams hematology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995. pp. 1315–55. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheng G, Saleh MN, Bussel JB, et al. Oral eltrombopag for the long-term treatment of patients with chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: results of a phase III, doubleblind, placebo-controlled study (RAISE) [abstract]. Blood. 2008;112:400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bussel JB, Cheng G, Saleh MN, et al. Eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2237–47. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bussel JB, Provan D, Shamsi T, et al. Effect of eltrombopag on platelet counts and bleeding during treatment of chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;373:641–8. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    GlaxoSmithKline Inc. Product monograph: RevoladeTM eltrombopag tablets 25 mg and 50 mg eltrombopag (as eltrombopag olamine), thrombopoietin receptor agonist. Mississauga (ON): GSK, 2011. Available from: [Accessed 2012 Jan 19].
  22. 22.
    Kuter DJ, Bussel JB, Lyons RM, et al. Efficacy of romiplostim in patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura: a double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371:395–403. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    George JN, Woolf SH, Raskob GE, et al. Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a practice guideline developed by explicit methods for the American society of hematology. Blood. 1996;88:3–40. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen S, Pi D, Ansari M, et al. Polyclonal intravenous immunologlobulin in patients with immune thrombocytopenic purpura: clinical systematic review [report no. 108]. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. 2008. Available from: [Accessed 2011 Jan 10].
  25. 25.
    Cohen YC, Djulbegovic B, Shamai-Lubovitz O, Mozes B. The bleeding risk and natural history of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura in patients with persistent low platelet counts. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1630–8. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bruneneberg D, Joore MA, Boonen A, et al. Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D: data from 4 patient populations [abstract]. 6th World Congress on Health Economics; 2007 Jul 8–11; Copenhagen. Available from: [Accessed 2011 Jan 10].
  28. 28.
    Seymour J, McNamme P, Scott A, et al. Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses. Health Econ. 2009;19:683–96. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Romiplostim for the treatment of chronic immune (idiopathic) thrombocytopenic purpura [guidance no. 221]. London: NICE. Available from: [Accessed 2011 Oct 10]
  30. 30.
    Boyers D, Jia X, Crowther M, et al. Eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic idiopathic (immune) thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP): a single technology appraisal. 2009. Available from: [Accessed 2012 Jan 19].

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Health Services Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations