Dinutuximab Beta for Treating Neuroblastoma: An Evidence Review Group and Decision Support Unit Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (EUSA Pharma) of dinutuximab beta (Qarziba (R)) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for treating neuroblastoma. The BMJ Technology Assessment Group (BMJ-TAG) was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG), reviewing the submission from the company. The Decision Support Unit (DSU) was commissioned to review additional evidence submitted by the company and to undertake further analyses. This article presents the critical review of the company's submissions by the ERG and DSU, further analyses undertaken by the DSU, and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical effectiveness for dinutuximab beta was derived from a phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the safety and efficacy of the addition of interleukin (IL)-2 to dinutuximab beta plus isotretinoin. This trial did not inform the relative effectiveness of dinutuximab beta versus isotretinoin alone, which was established practice in the UK for maintenance treatment. In the absence of direct evidence, the company initially conducted a naive indirect treatment comparison against a historical control, and later performed a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) against the isotretinoin arm of an RCT comparing dinutuximab alpha and isotretinoin. The company submitted a partitioned survival analysis model that calculated the incremental cost effectiveness of dinutuximab beta versus isotretinoin. The company's original incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 22,338 pound per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. However, the ERG were concerned that the company's ICER was not suitable for decision making, and thus carried out initial exploratory analysis as a first step to overcome the naive estimation of treatment effectiveness in the model. The ERG's analysis estimated an ICER of 111,858 pound per QALY gained. In their revised analysis incorporating the MAIC and other changes as requested by the appraisal committee, the company's ICER was 24,661 pound per QALY gained. When the DSU incorporated longer-term isotretinoin data and made corrections to the model, the ICER increased to between 62,886 pound and 87,164 pound per QALY gained depending on the choice of survival model. A confidential Patient Access Scheme (PAS) decreased the ICERs. The ICERs with the PAS were over 40,000 pound per QALY gained, but the NICE committee additionally considered the patient population and its size, the disease severity, the potential for significant survival benefit and uncaptured health benefits, and recommended dinutuximab beta as a treatment option, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.