ReviewPharmacoEconomics2013
Vemurafenib for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive malignant melanoma: 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 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of microsimulation models for skin cancer.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Drug Treatments for Advanced Melanoma: A Systematic Literature Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Pooled it
- INEAS's Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vemurafenib: Paving the Way for Value-Based Pricing in Tunisia.Journal of market access & health policy · 2024Article
- Gene Interaction Network Analysis Reveals IFI44L as a Drug Target in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Periodontitis.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Exploration of the Immune-Related Signatures and Immune Infiltration Analysis in Melanoma.Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam) · 2021Article
- Current challenges for assessing the long-term clinical benefit of cancer immunotherapy: a multi-stakeholder perspective.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2020Article
- Update on advanced melanoma treatments: small molecule targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and future combination therapies.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2019Article
- The challenges associated with molecular targeted therapies for glioblastoma.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2016Review
- Network Meta-analysis of Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival in First-Line Treatment of BRAF Mutation-Positive Metastatic Melanoma.Oncology and therapy · 2016Article
- Biologic activity of the novel orally bioavailable selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) KPT-335 against canine melanoma cell lines.BMC veterinary research · 2014Article
- New developments in the treatment of metastatic melanoma - role of dabrafenib-trametinib combination therapy.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2014Review
- Vemurafenib for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive malignant melanoma: 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Vemurafenib is an oral BRAF inhibitor licenced for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutation positive malignant melanoma. The manufacturer of vemurafenib, Roche Products Limited, was invited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to submit evidence of the drug's clinical- and cost-effectiveness for its licenced indication, to inform the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) for this appraisal. This article summarises the ERG's review of the evidence submitted by the manufacturer and also includes a summary of the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) decision. The ERG reviewed the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in accordance with the decision problem defined by NICE. The ERG's analysis of the submitted economic model assessed the appropriateness of the approach taken by the manufacturer in modelling the decision problem. It also included an assessment of the reliability of model implementation and the extent of conformity to published standards and prevailing norms of practice within the health economics modelling community. Particular attention was paid to issues likely to impact substantially on the base-case cost-effectiveness results. The clinical evidence was derived from BRIM 3 (BRAF Inhibitor in Melanoma 3), a well-designed, multi-centre, multi-national, phase III, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Clinical outcome results from the October 2011 data cut showed that median overall survival for patients treated with vemurafenib was 13.2 months compared with 9.6 months for those treated with dacarbazine. The ERG's main concern with the trial was the potential for confounding because of the early introduction of the crossover from the comparator drug to vemurafenib or another BRAF inhibitor. The submitted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was considered above the NICE threshold, even when end-of-life criteria were taken into account. The ERG questioned the submitted economic model on a number of grounds, particularly the approach used to project trial results. After the ERG had made appropriate corrections to the model and employed an alternative form of projective modelling, the ICER per quality-adjusted life year more than doubled. Additional evidence was submitted by the manufacturer for consideration at a second AC meeting and at their third meeting the AC concluded that vemurafenib could be recommended as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive malignant melanoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24114739What 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.