Romiplostim for the treatment of chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a single technology appraisal
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of romiplostim for the treatment of adults with chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) based upon a review of the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission’s evidence came from two relatively high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The ERG found no evidence that any important data were missed or that data extraction was inaccurate. In both RCTs more patients in the romiplostim than in the placebo group achieved a durable platelet response [non-splenectomised patients: romiplostim 25/41 (61%), placebo 1/21 (5%), odds ratio (OR) 24.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.34 to 179.18; splenectomised patients: romiplostim 16/42 (38%), placebo 0/21 (0%), OR 8.5 (95% CI 1.15 to 372)] and an overall platelet response [non-splenectomised patients: romiplostim 36/41 (88%), placebo 3/21 (14%), OR 34.74, 95% CI 7.77 to 155.38; splenectomised patients: romiplostim 33/42 (79%), placebo 0/21 (0%), OR 16.6 (95% CI 2.37 to 706]. The difference in mean period with a platelet response was 13.9 weeks (95% CI 10.5 to 17.4) in favour of romiplostim in the RCT of non-splectomised patients and 12.1 weeks (95% CI 8.7 to 15.6) in favour of romiplostim in the RCT of splectomised patients. The manufacturer’s economic model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of romiplostim compared with standard care. The ERG had concerns about the way the decision problem was addressed in the economic model and about the non-adjustment of findings for confounding factors. In non-splenectomised patients, using romiplostim as a first option treatment, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £14,840 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In splenectomised patients the ICER was £14,655 per QALY. Additional sensitivity analyses performed by the ERG identified two issues of importance: whether individuals entered the model on watch and rescue or on active therapy in the comparator arm (ICER £21,674 per QALY for non-splenectomised patients, £29,771 per QALY for splenectomised patients); whether it was assumed that any unused medicine would be wasted. Combining all of the separate sensitivity analyses, and assuming that watch and rescue was not the first-line treatment, increased the ICERs further (non-splenectomised £37,290 per QALY; splenectomised £131,017 per QALY). In conclusion, the manufacturer’s submission and additional work conducted by the ERG suggest that romiplostim has short-term efficacy for the treatment of ITP, but there is no robust evidence on long-term effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of romiplostim compared with relevant comparators.
