Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ibrutinib for Treating Waldenström’s Macroglobulinaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ibrutinib (Janssen) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib for treating Waldenström’s macroglobulinaemia (WM). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Assessment Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib based on the company’s submission to NICE. The clinical evidence was derived from one phase II, single-arm, open-label study of ibrutinib in adult patients with WM who had received at least one prior therapy (Study 1118E) and an indirect comparison using a matched cohort from a retrospective European chart review of patients receiving various treatments for WM. The indirect comparison suggested a hazard ratio for progression-free survival (PFS) of 0.25 (95% confidence interval 0.11–0.57). The ERG had concerns regarding the high risk of bias in Study 1118E, the limited generalisability of the study, and the absence of randomised controlled trial evidence. The company’s Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) WM from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) over a lifetime horizon. Based on the company’s original Patient Access Scheme (PAS), the company’s probabilistic model generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy of £58,905 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG’s preferred analysis, which corrected cost errors and used the observed mortality rate from Study 1118E, generated a probabilistic ICER of £61,219 per QALY gained. Based on this amended model, additional exploratory analyses produced ICERs for ibrutinib that were > £60,000 per QALY gained. Subsequently, the company offered to provide ibrutinib at a price that resulted in ibrutinib being cost effective within the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF). The Committee recommended ibrutinib for use in the CDF as an option for treating WM in adults who have had at least one prior therapy, only if the conditions in the managed access agreement for ibrutinib are followed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781.

  2. Tappenden P, Carroll C, Stevens J, Simpson E, Thokala P, Sanderson J, et al. Ibrutinib for treating Waldenström’s macroglobulinaemia: evidence review group report submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Sheffield; University of Sheffield; 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta491/documents/committee-papers.

  3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ibrutinib for treating Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinaemia: final appraisal determination. London: NICE; 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta491/documents/final-appraisal-determination-document.

  4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ibrutinib for treating Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinaemia: technology appraisal guidance 491. London: NICE; 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta491.

  5. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ibrutinib for treating Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinaemia. London: NICE; 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta491/history.

  6. European Medicines Agency. Imbruvica—Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) assessment report variation. London: EMA; 2015. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/003791/human_med_001801.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124.

  7. Morel P, Duhamel A, Gobbi P, Dimopoulos MA, Dhodapkar MV, McCoy J, et al. International prognostic scoring system for Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Blood. 2009;113(18):4163–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Janssen Ltd. Ibrutinib for treating Waldenström’s macroglobulinaemia. Company’s evidence submission to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire: Janssen; 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta491/documents/committee-papers.

  9. Buske C, Leblond V, Dimopoulos M, Kimby E, Jager U, Dreyling M, et al. Waldenström’s macroglobulinaemia: ESMO Clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;2013(Suppl. 6):vi155–9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Owen R, Pratt G, Auer R, Flatley R, Kyriakou C, Lunn M, et al. Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Waldenström macroglobulinaemia. Br J Haematol. 2014;165(3):316–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ibrutinib for treating Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinaemia: Final scope. London: NICE; 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta491/documents/committee-papers.

  12. Janssen Ltd. Ibrutinib for treating Waldenström’s macroglobulinaemia. Company’s response to the ERG’s clarification questions. High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire: Janssen; 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta491/documents/committee-papers.

  13. Treon SP, Tripsas CK, Meid K, Warren D, Varma G, Green R, et al. Ibrutinib in previously treated Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(15):1430–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pharmacyclics Inc. Clinical Study Report: Phase 2 study of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTK), ibrutinib (PCI-32765). In: Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia. PCYC-118E. California; 2014.

  15. Buske C, Sadullah S, Kastritis E, Benevolo G, Garcia-Sanz R, Bolkun Lukasz, et al. Generation of a large observational Pan-European data platform for treatment and outcome patterns in patients with Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia. Blood. 2015;126(23):2096.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Byrd JC, Brown JR, O’Brien S, Barrientos JC, Kay NE, Reddy NM, et al. Ibrutinib versus ofatumumab in previously treated chronic lymphoid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(3):213–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Burger JA, Tedeschi A, Barr PM, Robak T, Owen C, Ghia P, et al. Ibrutinib as initial therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(25):2425–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Byrd JC, Furman RR, Coutre SE, Burger JA, Blum KA, Coleman M, et al. Three-year follow-up of treatment-naive and previously treated patients with CLL and SLL receiving single-agent ibrutinib. Blood. 2015;125(6):2497–506.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Byrd JC, Furman RR, Coutre SE, Flinn IW, Burger JA, Blum KA, et al. Targeting BTK with ibrutinib in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(1):32–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang ML, Blum KA, Martin P, Goy A, Auer R, Kahl BS, et al. Long-term follow-up of MCL patients treated with single-agent ibrutinib: updated safety and efficacy results. Blood. 2015;126(6):739–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Owen RG, Kyle RA, Stone MJ, Rawstron AC, Leblond V, Merlini G, et al. Response assessment in Waldenström macroglobulinaemia: update from the VIth International Workshop. Br J Haematol. 2013;160(2):171–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Office for National Statistics. National Life Tables. London: ONS; 2015. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2015-09-23.

  23. Beusterien KM, Davies J, Leach M, Meiklejohn D, Grinspan JL, O’Toole A, et al. Population preference values for treatment outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a cross-sectional utility study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Tolley K, Goad C, Yi Y, Maroudas P, Haiderali A, Thompson G. Utility elicitation study in the UK general public for late-stage chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(5):749–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. BMJ Group. RCPCH Publications Ltd and The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary (BNF); 2016. https://bnf.nice.org.uk/.

  26. Department of Health. NHS Reference Costs 2014/15. London: DH; 2015. https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/.

  27. Round J, Jones L, Morris S. Estimating the cost of caring for people with cancer at the end of life: A modelling study. Palliat Med. 2015;29(10):899–907.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Tappenden P, Thokala P, Sanderson J. Ibrutinib for treating Waldenström’s macroglobulinaemia: ERG commentary on the company’s response to the ACD. Sheffield: University of Sheffield; 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta491/documents/committee-papers-4.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    Paul Tappenden, Christopher Carroll, John Stevens, Emma Simpson, Praveen Thokala & Ruth Wong

  2. Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK

    Josh Wright

  3. Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK

    Rebecca Auer

Authors
  1. Paul Tappenden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher Carroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emma Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Praveen Thokala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ruth Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Josh Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Rebecca Auer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Christopher Carroll and Emma Simpson summarised and critiqued the clinical effectiveness data reported within the CS. Paul Tappenden and Praveen Thokala critiqued the health economic analysis submitted by the company. Ruth Wong critiqued the company’s search strategies. John Stevens critiqued the statistical analysis contained within the CS. Josh Wright and Rebecca Auer provided clinical advice to the ERG throughout the project. This summary has not been externally reviewed by PharmacoEconomics.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Tappenden.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (Project No. 15/148/03) [see the HTA programme website for further project information; http://www.hta.ac.uk]. 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 expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR HTA Programme. Any errors are the responsibility of the authors.

Conflicts of interest

Rebecca Auer acted as an advisor for Janssen for their submission to NICE and was paid a small advisory fee for this role. Since the completion of this appraisal, she has received a grant for a clinical trial that is anticipated to begin in November 2018. Paul Tappenden, Christopher Carroll, John Stevens, Emma Simpson, Praveen Thokala, Ruth Wong and Josh Wright declare no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tappenden, P., Carroll, C., Stevens, J. et al. Ibrutinib for Treating Waldenström’s Macroglobulinaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal. PharmacoEconomics 37, 7–18 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0680-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0680-z

Search

Navigation