Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 36, Issue 7, pp 759–768 | Cite as

Ponatinib for Treating Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

  • Matt Stevenson
  • Abdullah Pandor
  • Jean Hamilton
  • John Stevens
  • Clare Rowntree
  • Marrissa Martyn-St James
  • Andrew Rawdin
  • Ruth Wong
Review Article

Abstract

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Incyte Corporation) of ponatinib (Inclusig®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL) and chronic myeloid leukaemia. This paper focusses on Ph+ ALL. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company’s submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company’s submission was derived from a phase II, single-arm, open-label, non-comparative study. Given the lack of comparative evidence, a naïve indirect comparison was performed against re-induction chemotherapy comparing major cytogenetic response and complete remission. Best supportive care (BSC) was assumed to produce no disease response. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment for patients with Ph+ ALL. The company submitted a state transition model that analysed the incremental cost effectiveness of ponatinib versus re-induction therapy and BSC for the treatment of Ph+ ALL in patients whose disease is resistant to dasatinib, who are intolerant to dasatinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate or who have the threonine-315-isoleucine mutation. This population was further subdivided into those who were suitable for allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) and those who were not. The company’s revised economic evaluation, following the clarification process, estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in those suitable for allo-SCT of £31,123 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ponatinib compared with re-induction chemotherapy and £26,624 per QALY gained compared with BSC. For those for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, the company-estimated ICER compared with BSC was £33,954 per QALY gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that, when combined, produced a range in ICERs (due to uncertainty of the most appropriate overall survival function) of dominant (being less expensive and providing more QALYs) to £11,727 per QALY gained compared with re-induction chemotherapy and between £7892 and £31,696 per QALY gained compared with BSC for those in whom allo-SCT was suitable. For those in whom allo-SCT was not suitable, the ERG estimated that ponatinib was dominant. During the consultation period, the company agreed a revised patient access scheme (PAS) that reduced the ICER ranges to £7156 to £29,995 per QALY gained versus BSC and to less than £5000 per QALY gained versus re-induction chemotherapy. In people for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, ponatinib dominated BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of UK NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This summary of the ERG report was compiled after NICE issued the FAD. All authors have commented on the submitted manuscript and have given their approval for the final version to be published. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of NICE or the Department of Health. Any errors are the responsibility of the authors.

Author Contributions

Matt Stevenson and Andrew Rawdin critiqued the mathematical model provided and the cost-effectiveness analyses submitted by the company. Abdullah Pandor and Marrissa Martyn-St James critiqued the clinical-effectiveness data reported by the company. Jean Hamilton and John Stevens critiqued the statistical aspects of the submission and the analyses performed by the company. Ruth Wong critiqued the literature searches undertaken by the company. Clare Rowntree provided clinical advice to the ERG throughout the project. All authors were involved in drafting and commenting on the final document. Matt Stevenson acts as the guarantor of the manuscript. This summary has not been externally reviewed by PharmacoEconomics.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (Project Number 16/51/11). Visit the HTA programme website for further project information (http://www.hta.ac.uk).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Dr Clare Rowntree undertook some consulting work in 2015–2016 for ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of ponatinib. This work resulted in an authored published abstract in a health economics journal. MS, AP, JH, JS, MMSJ, AR, RW have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013—process and methods [PMG9]. London: NICE. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/. Accessed 23 November 2016.
  2. 2.
    Pandor A, Stevenson M, Martyn-St James M, Stevens J, Hamilton J, Rawdin A et al. Ponatinib for treating acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a single technology appraisal. School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR). 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta451/documents/committee-papers. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.
  3. 3.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ponatinib for treating chronic myeloid leukaemia and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Final Scope. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta451/documents/committee-papers. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.
  4. 4.
    Alvarnas JC, Brown PA, Aoun P, Ballen KK, Bellam N, Blum W, et al. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012;10(7):858–914.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia. Version 1.0. 2016. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp. Accessed 23 Nov 2016.
  6. 6.
    Radich JP. Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphocytic leukemia. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2001;15(1):21–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Medicines Agency (EMA). Assessment Report for Inclusig® (ponatinib). Procedure No EMEA/H/C/002695/0000. London: EMA. 2013. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/002695/WC500145648.pdf. Accessed 23 November 2017.
  8. 8.
    Fielding AK, Richards SM, Chopra R, Lazarus HM, Litzow MR, Buck G, et al. Outcome of 609 adults after relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL); an MRC UKALL12/ECOG 2993 study. Blood. 2007;109(3):944–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fielding AK. Current treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Hematol Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2011:231–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Public Health England. National Cancer Intelligence Network Trends in incidence and outcome for haematological cancers in England: 2001–2010. London: Public Health England. 2015. http://www.ncin.org.uk/view?rid=2818. Accessed 20 November 2017.
  11. 11.
    Ravandi F. Managing Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: role of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2011;11(2):198–203.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Novartis Europharm Limited. Glivec® (imatinib) 50-mg and 100-mg hard capsules and 100-mg and 400-mg film-coated tablets: Summary of Product Characteristics. [updated 28 November 2016]. 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000406/WC500022207.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2016.
  13. 13.
    Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma. Sprycel® (dasatinib) 20-mg, 50-mg, 70-mg, 80-mg, 100-mg, 140-mg film-coated tablets: Summary of Product Characteristics. [updated 20 July 2016]. 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000709/WC500056998.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2016.
  14. 14.
    ARIAD Pharma Ltd. Iclusig® (ponatinib) 15-mg, 30-mg, and 45-mg film-coated tablets: summary of product characteristics. [updated 16 September 2016]. 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002695/WC500145646.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2016.
  15. 15.
    Adcock A, Powell T. Removal of drugs from Cancer Drugs Fund list. London: House of Commons Library. 2016. http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2016-0009. Accessed 1 Dec 2016.
  16. 16.
    Incyte Corporation. Ponatinib for treating chronic myeloid leukaemia and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia [ID671]. Response to clarification letter. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta451/documents/committee-papers. Accessed 22 Nov 2017.
  17. 17.
    Cortes JE, Kantarjian H, Shah NP, Bixby D, Mauro MJ, Flinn I, et al. Ponatinib in refractory Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemias. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(22):2075–88.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1205127.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Talpaz M, Cortes JE, Kantarjian HM, Shah NP, Bixby DL, Flinn I et al. Four-year minimum follow-up of ongoing patients (pts) with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) in a phase 1 trial of ponatinib (PON). J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts). 2015;33(15_suppl):7047.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cortes JE, Kim D-W, Pinilla-Ibarz J, le Coutre P, Paquette R, Chuah C, et al. A phase 2 trial of ponatinib in Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemias. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(19):1783–96.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1306494.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cortes JE, Kim D-W, Pinilla-Ibarz J, le Coutre P, Paquette R, Chuah C, et al. Ponatinib efficacy and safety in heavily pretreated leukemia patients: 3-Year results of the pace trial. P234. Haematologica. 2015;100(S1):64.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hochhaus A, Cortes JE, Kim DW, Pinilla-Ibarz J, le Coutre PD, Paquette R, et al. Efficacy and safety of ponatinib in CP-CML patients by number of prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors: 4-year follow-up of the phase 2 PACE trial. Blood. 2015;126(23):4025.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Application number: 203469Orig1s000 Medical review. 2012. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/203469Orig1s000MedR.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2016.
  23. 23.
    Chambers D, Rodgers M, Woolacott N. Not only randomized controlled trials, but also case series should be considered in systematic reviews of rapidly developing technologies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(12):1253–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Evans S. Clinical trial structures. J Exp Stroke Transl Med. 2010;3(1):8–18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tavernier E, Boiron JM, Huguet F, Bradstock K, Vey N, Kovacsovics T, et al. Outcome of treatment after first relapse in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia initially treated by the LALA-94 trial. Leukemia. 2007;21(9):1907–14.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.leu.2404824.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pagano L, Mele L, Casorelli I, Fianchi L, Di Febo A, Leone G. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the elderly. A twelve-year retrospective, single center study. Haematologica. 2000;85(12):1327–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Szabo SM, Levy AR, Davis C, Holyoake TL, Cortes J. A multinational study of health state preference values associated with chronic myelogenous leukemia. Val Health. 2010;13(1):103–11.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00573.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK population norms for EQ-5D. 1999. http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:chy:respap:172chedp. Accessed 1 Dec 2016.
  29. 29.
    van Agthoven M, Vellenga E, Fibbe WE, Kingma T, Uyl-de Groot CA. Cost analysis and quality of life assessment comparing patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation or autologous bone marrow transplantation for refractory or relapsed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or Hodgkin’s disease. a prospective randomised trial. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990). 2001;37(14):1781–9.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Loveman E, Cooper K, Bryant J, Colquitt JL, Frampton GK, Clegg A. Dasatinib, high-dose imatinib and nilotinib for the treatment of imatinib-resistant chronic myeloid leukaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2012;16(23):iii–xiii, 1–137.  https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16230.
  31. 31.
    UK Stem Cell Strategy Oversight Committee. NHS Blood and Transplant. Unrelated Donor Stem Cell Transplantation in the UK. Effective Affordable Sustainable. 2014. http://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/download/unrelated_donor_stem_cell_transplantation_in_the_uk.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2016.
  32. 32.
    Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJ, Welton NJ. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan–Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes factors. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90(430):773–95.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2291091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Ponatinib for treating chronic myeloid leukaemia and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia—technology appraisal guidance [TA451]. NICE, London. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta451/. Accessed 23 Nov 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR)University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.University Hospital of WalesCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations