IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v5y2021i1d10.1007_s41669-020-00206-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Encorafenib with Binimetinib for the Treatment of Patients with BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel Houten

    (University of Liverpool)

  • Janette Greenhalgh

    (University of Liverpool)

  • James Mahon

    (Coldingham Analytical Services)

  • Sarah Nevitt

    (University of Liverpool)

  • Sophie Beale

    (University of Liverpool)

  • Angela Boland

    (University of Liverpool)

  • Tosin Lambe

    (University of Liverpool)

  • Yenal Dundar

    (University of Liverpool)

  • Eleanor Kotas

    (University of Liverpool)

  • Joanne McEntee

    (North West Medicines Information Centre)

Abstract

As part of the Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Pierre Fabre to submit evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with binimetinib (Enco + Bini) versus dabrafenib with trametinib (Dab + Tram) as a first-line treatment for advanced (unresectable or metastatic) BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG’s review of the company’s evidence submission (CS), and the Appraisal Committee’s (AC’s) final decision. The main clinical evidence in the CS was derived from the COLUMBUS trial and focused on the efficacy of Enco + Bini (encorafenib 450 mg per day plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily) compared to vemurafenib. The company conducted network meta-analyses (NMAs) to indirectly estimate the relative effects of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for Enco + Bini versus Dab + Tram. None of the results from the NMAs demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the treatment regimens for any outcomes. The ERG advised caution when interpreting the results from the company’s NMAs due to limitations relating to the methods. The ERG considered that use of the OS and PFS hazard ratios (HRs) generated by the company’s NMAs to model the relative effectiveness of Enco + Bini versus Dab + Tram in the company model was inappropriate as these estimates were not statistically significantly different. The ERG amended the company’s economic model to include estimates of equivalent efficacy, safety and HRQoL for Enco + Bini and Dab + Tram. The ERG considered use of different estimates of relative dose intensity to be inappropriate and used the same estimate for both drug combinations. The ERG also concluded that as only the prices of drug combinations were different, a cost comparison was an appropriate method of economic analysis. Using this approach (combined with confidential discounted drug prices for Enco + Bini and Dab + Tram), treatment with Enco + Bini was more cost effective than treatment with Dab + Tram. The AC raised concerns that an absence of evidence of a difference in outcomes between Enco + Bini and Dab + Tram did not constitute evidence of absence. However, as the numerical differences in outcomes generated by the company’s networks were small, the AC did not have a preferred approach and considered that both the company’s and the ERG’s methods of incorporating outcome estimates into the economic model were suitable for decision making. The NICE AC recommended Enco + Bini as a first-line treatment for unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel Houten & Janette Greenhalgh & James Mahon & Sarah Nevitt & Sophie Beale & Angela Boland & Tosin Lambe & Yenal Dundar & Eleanor Kotas & Joanne McEntee, 2021. "Encorafenib with Binimetinib for the Treatment of Patients with BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Apprai," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 13-22, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-020-00206-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-020-00206-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-020-00206-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-020-00206-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Journal round-up: PharmacoEconomics – Open 5(1)
      by Rita Faria in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-04-29 06:00:05

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-020-00206-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.