Ustekinumab for Treating Moderately to Severely Active Crohn’s Disease after Prior Therapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

  • Robert Hodgson
  • Matthew Walton
  • Mousumi Biswas
  • Teumzghi Mebrahtu
  • Nerys Woolacott
Review Article

Abstract

As part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Janssen to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of their drug ustekinumab, an interleukin-12/23 inhibitor, for treating moderate-to-severe active Crohn’s disease (CD). The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) and Centre for Health Economics (CHE) Technology Appraisal Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the Company’s submission, the ERG’s critical review of submitted evidence, and the resulting NICE guidance. The main supporting clinical evidence was derived from four well conducted, randomised controlled trials, comparing ustekinumab with placebo in two sub-populations (conventional care failure and anti-TNFα failure patients) of adults with moderate-to-severe CD. Three trials assessed treatment induction over 8 weeks, while the fourth recruited successfully induced patients into a maintenance trial for 1 year. These trials showed ustekinumab to be more effective than placebo in terms of its ability to induce and maintain clinical response and remission. In the absence of any direct head-to-head data, the Company conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA), which synthesised induction trial data on ustekinumab and relevant comparators (vedolizumab, adalimumab and infliximab) using placebo data as a common comparator. This analysis found ustekinumab to be of comparable efficacy to previously approved biologics in treatment induction. A ‘treatment sequence analysis’ compared long-term treatment efficacy, finding ustekinumab to be comparable in maintaining treatment response and remission to the three other biologic therapies. However, the ERG had identified many limitations and potential bias in this analysis, and urged caution when interpreting the results. The Company’s economic model estimated ustekinumab to be dominant in both sub-populations compared with conventional care; however, the ERG’s preferred base-case estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £109,279 in the conventional care failure sub-population, and £110,967 in the anti-TNFα failure sub-population when compared with conventional care. However, the ERG identified significant failings in both the model structure and data inputs, which could not be addressed without complete restructuring. The ERG considered that the economic analysis presented by the Company failed to adequately address the decision problem specified in NICE’s scope. The NICE Appraisal Committee recommended ustekinumab within its market authorisation, on the grounds of sufficiently similar efficacy and costs to previously recommended biologic therapies. However, the ERG’s analyses demonstrated that all currently recommended biologics are unlikely to be cost effective relative to conventional care, raising broader questions regarding the appropriateness of cost-comparison exercises for decision making.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Melissa Harden who provided a critical review of the Company’s search strategy and Professor Alan Lobo, Consultant Gastroenterologist and Honorary Professor of Gastroenterology at the University of Sheffield for clinical advice throughout the project.

Author Contributions

Robert Hodgson, Mousumi Biswas, Teumzghi Mebrahtu, Matthew Walton, and Nerys Woolacott all formed part of the ERG that produced the ERG report that this paper describes. Robert Hodgson and Matthew Walton wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors commented on the manuscript and approved the final version. This summary has not been externally reviewed by PharmacoEconomics.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 16/10/12). This summary of the ERG report was compiled after the Appraisal Committee’s review and incorporates additional information and comment from the authors on the STA process and iterations of the NICE guidance not covered by the HTA report. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of NICE or the Department of Health. This work is Crown copyright (UK).

Conflict of interest

Robert Hodgson, Matthew Walton, Mousumi Biswas, Teumzghi Mebrahtu, and Nerys Woolacott have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the processes of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg19/chapter/foreword. Accessed 7 May 2017.
  2. 2.
    Janssen. Ustekinumab for previously treated moderate to severe active Crohn’s disease; submission to National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Single technology appraisal (STA).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hodgson R, Biswas M, Mebrahtu T, Walton M, Harden M, Woolacott N. Evidence review group’s report: ustekinumab for treating moderately to severely active CD after prior therapy [TA456]. York: University of York; 2017.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Ustekinumab for previously treated moderate to severe active Crohn’s disease. Technology appraisal guidance [TA456] London: NICE; 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta456. Accessed 21 June 2017.
  5. 5.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Crohn’s disease overview. NICE Pathways. London: NICE; 2016. http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/crohns-disease. Accessed 15 May 2017.
  6. 6.
    Henriksen M, Jahnsen J, Lygren I, Aadland E, Schulz T, Vatn MH, et al. Clinical course in Crohn’s disease: results of a five-year population-based follow-up study (the IBSEN study). Scand J Gastroenterol. 2007;42(5):602–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Munkholm P, Langholz E, Davidsen M, Binder V. Disease activity courses in a regional cohort of Crohn’s disease patients. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1995;30(7):699–706.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Solberg IC, Vatn MH, Hoie O, Stray N, Sauar J, Jahnsen J, et al. Clinical course in Crohn’s disease: results of a Norwegian population-based ten-year follow-up study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5(12):1430–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Molodecky NA, Soon IS, Rabi DM, Ghali WA, Ferris M, Chernoff G, et al. Increasing incidence and prevalence of the inflammatory bowel diseases with time, based on systematic review. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(1):46–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ananthakrishnan AN. Epidemiology and risk factors for IBD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;12(4):205–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The IBD Standards Group. IBD Standards: Standards for the Healthcare of People who have Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). British Society of Gastroenterology; 2013. https://www.crohnsandcolitis.org.uk/improving-care-services/health-services/ibd-standards. Accessed 23 June 2017.
  12. 12.
    Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Hanauer S, Colombel JF, Sands BE, et al. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(8):711–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Vedolizumab for treating moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease after prior therapy. Technology appraisal guidance [TA352]. London: NICE; 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta352. Accessed 12 Dec 2015.
  14. 14.
    Sandborn WJ, Gasink C, Gao LL, Blank MA, Johanns J, Guzzo C, et al. Ustekinumab induction and maintenance therapy in refractory Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(16):1519–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Summary of opinion (Stelara®). London: European Medicines Agency; 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Summary_of_opinion/human/000958/WC500146594.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2017.
  16. 16.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Ustekinumab for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. Technology appraisal guidance [TA180]. London: NICE; 2009. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta180. Accessed 10 May 2017.
  17. 17.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Ustekinumab for treating active psoriatic arthritis. Technology appraisal guidance [TA340]. London: NICE; 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta340. Accessed 10 May 2017.
  18. 18.
    Sandborn W, Gasink C, Blank M, Lang Y, Johanns J, Gao LL, et al. O-001 A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of ustekinumab, a human IL-12/23P40 mAB, in moderate-severe Crohn’s disease refractory to anti-TNFalpha: UNITI-1. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016;22(Suppl 1):S1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Janssen Research and Development. A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ustekinumab induction therapy in subjects with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (UNITI 2); 13 October 2015.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feagan BG, Sandborn WJ, Gasink C, et al. Ustekinumab as induction and maintenance therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(20):1946–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Targan SR, Hanauer SB, van Deventer SJ, et al. A short-term study of chimeric monoclonal antibody cA2 to tumor necrosis factor alpha for Crohn’s disease. Crohn’s Disease cA2 Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(15):1029–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, et al. Human anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody (adalimumab) in Crohn’s disease: the CLASSIC-I trial. Gastroenterology. 2006;130(2):323–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Watanabe M, Hibi T, Lomax KG, Paulson SK, Chao J, Alam MS, et al. Adalimumab for the induction and maintenance of clinical remission in Japanese patients with Crohn’s disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2012;6(2):160–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, Enns R, Hanauer SB, Colombel JF, Panaccione R, et al. Adalimumab induction therapy for Crohn disease previously treated with infliximab: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(12):829–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sands BE, Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, et al. Effects of vedolizumab induction therapy for patients with Crohn’s disease in whom tumor necrosis factor antagonist treatment failed. Gastroenterology. 2014;147(3):627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, Enns R, Hanauer SB, Panaccione R, et al. Adalimumab for maintenance of clinical response and remission in patients with Crohn’s disease: the CHARM trial. Gastroenterology. 2007;132(1):52–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hanauer SB, Feagan BG, Lichtenstein GR, Mayer LF, Schreiber S, Colombel JF, et al. Maintenance infliximab for Crohn’s disease: the ACCENT I randomised trial. Lancet (London, England). 2002;359(9317):1541–9.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abrams K. Evaluating complex interventions using multi-phase nested trial designs-Management of urinary incontinence across the primary/secondary care interface. Controlled Clinical Trials. New York: Elsevier Science Inc; 2003.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thorlund K, Druyts E, Toor K, Mills EJ. Comparative efficacy of golimumab, infliximab, and adalimumab for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a network meta-analysis accounting for differences in trial designs. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;9(5):693–700.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bodger K, Kikuchi T, Hughes D. Cost-effectiveness of biological therapy for Crohn’s disease: Markov cohort analyses incorporating United Kingdom patient-level cost data. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;30(3):265–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Janssen Research and Development. A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ustekinumab maintenance therapy in subjects with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (44-week Clinical Study Report). (EDMS-ERI-97847519, 1.0) Janssen Research and Development; 2015.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). TA352. Vedolizumab for treating moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease after prior therapy. Costing report. 2015 26 August 2015 [cited 2016 15 October]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta352/costing.
  33. 33.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Vedolizumab for treating moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease after prior therapy. Costing report. London: NICE; 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta352/costing. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  34. 34.
    Royal College of Physicians. National clinical audit of biological therapies: UK inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) audit. Royal College of Physicians; 2015. https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/national-clinical-audit-report-biological-therapies-adult-report-2015. Accessed 15 June 2017.
  35. 35.
    Claxton K, Palmer S, Longworth L, Bojke L, Griffin S, Soares M, et al. A comprehensive algorithm for approval of health technologies with, without, or only in research: the key principles for informing coverage decisions. Value Health. 2016; 19(6):885–91.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Hodgson
    • 1
  • Matthew Walton
    • 1
  • Mousumi Biswas
    • 1
  • Teumzghi Mebrahtu
    • 1
  • Nerys Woolacott
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD)University of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations