Real-World Evidence of Caplacizumab Use in the Management of Acute TTP

The cornerstone of life-saving therapy in immune mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) has been plasma exchange (PEX) combined with immunomodulatory strategies. Caplacizumab, a novel anti-von Willebrand factor nanobody, trialled in two multicentre, randomised-placebo-controlled trials leading to EU and FDA approval, has been available in the UK through a patient-access scheme. Data was collected retrospectively from 2018-2020 for 85 patients receiving caplacizumab, including 4 children, from 22 UK hospitals. Patient characteristics and outcomes in the real-world clinical setting were compared with caplacizumab trial endpoints and historical outcomes in the pre-caplacizumab era. 84/85 patients received steroid and rituximab alongside PEX; 26% required intubation. Median time to platelet count normalisation (3 days), duration of PEX (7 days) and hospital stay (12 days) was comparable with RCT data. Median duration of PEX and time from PEX initiation to platelet count normalisation was favourable compared with historical outcomes (p<0.05). TTP recurrence occurred in 5/85 patients; all with persistent ADAMTS13 activity <5iu/dL. Of 31 adverse events in 26 patients, 17/31 (55%) were bleeding episodes and 5/31 (16%) were thrombotic events (two unrelated to caplacizumab); mortality was 6% (5/85), with no deaths attributed to caplacizumab. In 4/5 deaths caplacizumab was introduced >48 hours after PEX initiation (3-21 days). This real-world evidence represents the first and largest series of TTP patients receiving caplacizumab outside clinical trials, including paediatric patients. Representative of true clinical practice, the findings provide valuable information for clinicians treating TTP globally.

Selective internal radiation therapies for unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review, network meta-analysis and economic evaluation

Background Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of primary liver cancer. Treatment choice is dependent on underlying liver dysfunction and cancer stage. Treatment options include conventional transarterial therapies for patients with intermediate-stage disease and systemic therapy [e.g. sorafenib (Nexavar®; Bayer plc, Leverkusen, Germany)] for patients with advanced-stage disease. Selective internal radiation therapies deliver radiation to liver tumours via microspheres that are injected into the hepatic artery. There are three selective internal radiation therapies: TheraSphere™ [BTG Ltd, London, UK (now Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)], SIR-Spheres® (Sirtex Medical Ltd, Woburn, MA, USA) and QuiremSpheres® (Quirem Medical BV, Deventer, the Netherlands). Objective To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for treating patients with unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods A search was undertaken to identify clinical effectiveness literature relating to selective internal radiation therapies and relevant comparators for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies were critically appraised and summarised. The network of evidence was mapped to estimate the relative effectiveness of the different selective internal radiation therapies and comparator treatments. An economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness. Results Twenty studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two large randomised controlled trials rated as having a low risk of bias [SARAH: Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, Guiu B, Ilonca AD, Pageaux GP, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1624–36; and SIRveNIB: Chow PKH, Gandhi M, Tan SB, Khin MW, Khasbazar A, Ong J, et al. SIRveNIB: selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in Asia-Pacific patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1913–21] found no significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between SIR-Spheres and sorafenib (systemic therapy) in an advanced population, despite greater tumour response in the SIR-Spheres arm of both trials. There were some concerns regarding generalisability of the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials to UK practice. All other studies of SIR-Spheres, TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres were either rated as being at a high risk of bias or caused some concerns regarding bias. A network meta-analysis was conducted in adults with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had Child–Pugh class A liver cirrhosis and were ineligible for conventional transarterial therapies. The analysis included the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials as well as a trial comparing lenvatinib (Kisplyx®; Eisai Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) (systemic therapy) with sorafenib. There were no meaningful differences in overall survival between any of the treatments. The base-case economic analysis suggested that TheraSphere may be cost-saving relative to both SIR-Spheres and QuiremSpheres. However, incremental cost differences between TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres were small. In a fully incremental analysis, which included confidential Patient Access Scheme discounts, lenvatinib was the most cost-effective treatment and dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. In pairwise comparisons of sorafenib with each selective internal radiation therapy, sorafenib also dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. Limitations The existing evidence cannot provide decision-makers with clear guidance on the comparative effectiveness of treatments in early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma or on the efficacy of TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres. Conclusions In the advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma population, two large randomised trials have shown that SIR-Spheres have similar clinical effectiveness to sorafenib. None of the selective internal radiation therapies was cost-effective, being more costly and less effective than lenvatinib, both at list price and with Patient Access Scheme discounts. Future work Future studies may wish to include early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients and the low tumour burden/albumin–bilirubin 1 subgroup of advanced-stage patients. Future high-quality studies evaluating alternative selective internal radiation therapies would be beneficial. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019128383. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

PP148 Your Money Or Your Life? Are Price Negotiations Health Technology Assessment Best Practice?

Introduction:Many countries use Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organizations to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of new therapeutic interventions. In some markets, HTA outcomes directly link to reimbursement decision-making based on the manufacturer's submitted price (e.g. NICE and SMC [UK]). In others, the HTA outcome leads to price negotiations with manufacturers by a separate body (e.g. HAS/CEPS [France] and G-BA/GKV [Germany]). This research compares major examples of each approach to inform a discussion on whether such price negotiations align with HTA best practice.Methods:Publically-available technology assessment outcomes for G-BA/GKV, NICE and SMC (01/01/2011-31/12/2015) were extracted and compared.Results:Of 112 G-BA benefit assessments, 45 percent offered no additional benefit with automatic reference pricing; 55 percent offered additional benefit, qualifying for price negotiations; 77 percent had prices negotiated, 14 percent had price fixed by court, and eight percent withdrew from market. Of 156 NICE Single Technology Appraisals, 51 percent were recommended, 17 percent restricted, 20 percent not recommended, and 12 percent non-submissions. Of 497 SMC appraisals, 35 percent were accepted, 28 percent restricted, 17 percent not recommended and 19 percent non-submissions. Forty-eight percent and 24 percent of NICE and SMC positive appraisals were associated with a Patient Access Scheme (PAS), with 86 percent and 88 percent being simple discounts schemes, respectively.Conclusions:Making reimbursement decisions for new medicines based on a clear set of criteria may be the most objectively fair and transparent method of HTA; however, as the NICE and SMC examples show, although strong downward price pressure is exerted (high frequency of PASs), this may come at the cost of many therapies (~33 percent) being denied access. By contrast, the flexibility enabled by a distinct price negotiation phase may enable more therapies access, as shown by the G-BA/GKV example (<10% medicines withdrawn). Nevertheless, the relative effectiveness of the downward price pressures, a key determinant of HTA process effectiveness, cannot be compared due to the confidential nature of UK PAS discounts.

Sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sorafenib according to its licensed indication for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The ERG report was based on the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The licensed indication for sorafenib specifies advanced HCC patients for whom locoregional intervention and surgery are unsuitable or had been unsuccessful. The clinical evidence came from a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Study of Heart and Renal Protection; SHARP) of sorafenib plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care, with 602 participants of a predominantly European ethnicity broadly comparable to the UK population. The submitted evidence indicated that for advanced HCC patients with Child–Pugh grade A liver function and relatively good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, sorafenib on average improves overall survival by 83 days relative to placebo, and also increases time-to-radiological disease progression. Sorafenib therapy had little or no effect on time-to-symptom progression or on quality of life as measured using a disease-specific questionnaire. Sorafenib treatment was associated with increased incidence of hypertension and of gastrointestinal and dermatological problems. However, the therapy was reasonably well tolerated and, in SHARP, withdrawals from treatment due to adverse events were similar in the sorafenib and placebo arms, although more temporary reductions in dose were required in the sorafenib than in the placebo group. In the base case, the manufacturer’s submitted economic analysis generated a deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £64,754 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The ERG extracted individual patient data for overall survival and disease progression, reran the economic model to check the submitted cost-effectiveness results, and performed new analyses which the ERG considered relevant to the decision problem; these analyses delivered ICERs between £76,000/QALY and £86,000/QALY. The guidance issued by NICE (7 May 2009) stated that sorafenib, within its licensed indication, is not recommended for the treatment of advanced (Barcelona-Clínic Liver Cancer stage C) HCC patients for whom surgical or locoregional therapies have failed or are not suitable, and people currently receiving sorafenib for the treatment of HCC should have the option to continue treatment until they and their clinician consider it appropriate to stop. Subsequently the manufacturer submitted a patient access scheme to the Department of Health. The base-case ICER submitted by the manufacturer for this scheme was £51,899/QALY. When the ERG reran the model with inputs considered relevant to the decision problem the ICER estimates ranged between £53,000 to £58,000/QALY and substantially higher values depending on the nature of the sensitivity analyses. NICE considered the impact of the patient access scheme and determined that it was not sufficient to alter the guidance.