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



Houten, Rachel ORCID: 0000-0002-4315-7732, Greenhalgh, Janette ORCID: 0000-0003-4812-1904, Mahon, James, Nevitt, Sarah ORCID: 0000-0001-9988-2709, Beale, Sophie ORCID: 0000-0003-0164-103X, Boland, Angela ORCID: 0000-0002-5435-8644, Lambe, Tosin ORCID: 0000-0002-6229-2454, Dundar, Yenal, Kotas, Eleanor and McEntee, Joanne
(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 Appraisal. PHARMACOECONOMICS-OPEN, 5 (1). pp. 13-22.

Access the full-text of this item by clicking on the Open Access link.

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.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness Research, Clinical Research, Cancer, 3 Good Health and Well Being
Depositing User: Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited: 16 Apr 2020 10:15
Last Modified: 14 Mar 2024 17:34
DOI: 10.1007/s41669-020-00206-x
Open Access URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41669-0...
Related URLs:
URI: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3083474