ReviewPharmacoEconomics2013
Ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis: 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Article
- Development of a symptom assessment in patients with myelofibrosis: qualitative study findings.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2019Article
- Ruxolitinib combined with vorinostat suppresses tumor growth and alters metabolic phenotype in hematological diseases.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- A Review of Ruxolitinib for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis: A Critique of the Evidence.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Review
- Evolving Therapeutic Strategies for the Classic Philadelphia-Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms.EBioMedicine · 2016Review
- Critical appraisal of the role of ruxolitinib in myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis.OncoTargets and therapy · 2015Review
- Methotrexate Is a JAK/STAT Pathway Inhibitor.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ruxolitinib (Novartis) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for ruxolitinib within its licensed indication (the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adult patients with myelofibrosis), according to the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance TA289 issued in June 2013. The ERG critically reviewed the evidence presented in the manufacturer's submission and identified areas requiring clarification, for which the manufacturer provided additional evidence. The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from two phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trials (RCTs): Controlled myelofibrosis study with oral JAK inhibitor treatment (COMFORT)-II compared ruxolitinib with best available therapy (BAT), and COMFORT-I compared ruxolitinib with placebo. These RCTs demonstrated that ruxolitinib confers significant benefits in terms of spleen size reduction and improvement in symptom burden. In the COMFORT-II trial, a reduction in spleen volume of ≥35 % was achieved in 28 % of ruxolitinib-treated patients compared with 0 % of patients in the BAT group (p < 0.001) at 48 weeks, and there was a mean change in spleen volume of -30.1 versus +7.3 % (p < 0.001). Ruxolitinib also provided significant improvements in myelofibrosis-associated symptoms and health-related quality-of-life compared with BAT and placebo. The ERG concluded that ruxolitinib appears to reduce splenomegaly and its associated symptoms, but that there was considerable uncertainty surrounding the manufacturer's cost-effectiveness estimates due to limitations in the manufacturer's model. The manufacturer's model did not allow for disease progression, did not accurately capture symptomatic relief, had several implausible or unjustified assumptions, and there were several parameter choices that the ERG found sub-optimal. ERG sensitivity analyses found that nearly all plausible adjustments to the model reduced the cost effectiveness of ruxolitinib. It is very likely that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £73,980/quality-adjusted life-year presented by the manufacturer represents a best-case scenario. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ruxolitinib was clinically effective, but could not be considered a cost effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for treating disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adults with myelofibrosis. Ruxolitinib is not recommended for the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adult patients with primary myelofibrosis (also known as chronic idiopathic myelofibrosis), post-polycythaemia vera myelofibrosis and post-essential thrombocythaemia myelofibrosis in NICE TA289.
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.