ReviewPharmacoEconomics2013
Retigabine for the adjunctive treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures in epilepsy with and without secondary generalization : a NICE single technology appraisal.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Joining the Dots: Linking Disconnected Networks of Evidence Using Dose-Response Model-Based Network Meta-Analysis.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
- Emerging drugs for partial-onset epilepsy: a review of brivaracetam.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2016Article
- The indirect NMDAR inhibitor flupirtine induces sustained post-ischemic recovery, neuroprotection and angioneurogenesis.Oncotarget · 2015Article
- Rituximab in combination with corticosteroids for the treatment of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Article
- Aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic and mixed episodes in bipolar I disorder in children and adolescents: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Golimumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Dabigatran for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation: A NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Cabazitaxel for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Trabectedin for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- A comment on Craig et al.: ''Retigabine for the adjunctive treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures in epilepsy with and without secondary generalization: a NICE single technology appraisal''.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Article
- Golimumab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Rituximab for the first-line maintenance treatment of follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma : a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Bivalirudin for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer : a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Retigabine for the adjunctive treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures in epilepsy with and without secondary generalization : a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Pazopanib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma : a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Review
- Omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6-11 years: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Review
- Eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of retigabine (GlaxoSmithKline) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures in epilepsy, with and without secondary generalization, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG undertakes a critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence of the technology based upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently searches for relevant evidence and evaluates modifications to the manufacturer's decision-analytic model. This paper provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The clinical effectiveness data were derived from three placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A meta-analysis pooling across all doses of retigabine found beneficial effects of retigabine in terms of responder rate (odds ratio [OR] 2.79; 95 % CI 2.08, 3.76) and rate of seizure freedom (OR 2.54; 95 % CI 0.92, 6.98) [both double-blind phase analyses]. When compared in a network meta-analysis with the selected comparator antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) [eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide, pregabalin, tiagabine and zonisamide], retigabine offered broadly similar efficacy in terms of responder rate and freedom from seizure. The de novo decision-analytic model presented within the submission evaluated the cost effectiveness of retigabine compared with these AEDs and no treatment (i.e. maintenance therapy). After numerous additional analyses, the ERG considered the use of retigabine to be not cost effective for NICE at thresholds below £43,000 if no treatment was considered a relevant comparator. The NICE Appraisal Committee decided that an appropriate comparator was an active treatment. The Committee recommended that retigabine is offered as an option for the adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization in adults aged 18 years and older with epilepsy, only when previous treatment with carbamazepine, clobazam, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, sodium valproate and topiramate has not provided an adequate response, or has not been tolerated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.