ReviewPharmacoEconomics2013
Trabectedin for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: 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 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Evaluations of Pharmaceuticals Granted a Marketing Authorisation Without the Results of Randomised Trials: A Systematic Review and Taxonomy.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Pooled it
- Evaluation of the ASCO Value Framework for Anticancer Drugs at an Academic Medical Center.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2017Article
- 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
- Rituximab for the first-line maintenance treatment of follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma : a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Golimumab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 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 trabectedin (PharmaMar) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (aMSTS), as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The ERG produced a review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology contained within the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently modified the manufacturer's decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. The main evidence was derived from a single phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma only, in which the licensed dose of trabectedin was compared with a different dose of trabectedin. Additional data were also presented from three uncontrolled phase II trials. Supplementary studies were used to represent best supportive care (BSC). The median overall survival (OS) was 13.9 months for the licensed dose of trabectedin in the main randomized controlled trial (RCT) and ranged from 9.2 months to 12.8 months in the other studies included. Supplementary studies supplied by the manufacturer, and assumed to represent BSC, had median OS of 5.9-6.6 months. The progression-free survival (PFS) rates at 6 months for trabectedin were 35.5 % in the main RCT and 24.4-29 % in the other studies included. The PFS rates at 6 months were 8-14 % for BSC. In the manufacturer's original submission to NICE, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of trabectedin compared with BSC was approximately £44,000 per QALY gained. After amendment of errors identified by the ERG, the ICER reported by the manufacturer increased to approximately £61,000. The ERG concluded that, despite clarifications from the manufacturer and the revisions made to the model, there was still considerable uncertainty in the ICER. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) gave a negative initial recommendation, although indicated that trabectedin in aMSTS met the end-of-life criteria. Subsequently, the manufacturer submitted a patient access scheme (PAS) where any cycles beyond the fifth were provided at no cost by the manufacturer. This improved the ICER to approximately £34,000 per QALY gained. The AC gave a positive recommendation, subject to the implementation of the PAS.
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.