In summary, the Committee believed that the manufacturer’s base case ICER for fingolimod of £55,600 per QALY gained compared with Avonex for population 1b was subject to considerable uncertainty and an underestimation of the most plausible ICER for the following reasons:
- Avonex is not an appropriate comparator for population 1b. Using more appropriate comparators such as best supportive care or Rebif-44 for population 1b increased the ICERs substantially. To establish the most plausible ICERs for population 2, a comparison with natalizumab would need to be considered.
- More plausible assumptions regarding the long term treatment effectiveness increased the ICERs.
- Inaccuracies in the administration costs employed in the model are likely to have led to an underestimation of the ICERs.
- Data chosen to model the natural history of disease progression were derived from a population that was unrepresentative of the current UK population with multiple sclerosis. This led to uncertainty in the model results.
- Utility data from the clinical trials should have been used in the model and supplemented by published sources only for estimates for higher EDSS scores not represented by the populations in the trials. This led to uncertainty in the model results.
The Committee concluded that an analysis that relied on a combined set of plausible assumptions (see section 4.17) would be certain to produce ICERs that substantially exceed the range it could consider to represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources. The most plausible ICERs for fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in the base case population (population 1b) is likely to be above £94,000 per QALY gained compared with best supportive care and above £79,000 per QALY gained in the subgroup of population 1b in which people with rapidly evolving severe disease were excluded. Therefore fingolimod cannot be recommended as a cost-effective use of NHS resources.Cal llegir el document sencer perquè esdevé més interessant comprendre l'avaluació de l'efectivitat abans que el cost-efectivitat. Les notícies que en sorgiran poden contenir biaixos interessats. Observo una preocupació per l'efectivitat que aporta i en canvi les notícies se centraran en el cost-efectivitat. Ara hi ha unes setmanes per avaluar aquesta decisió i després hi haurà la resolució definitiva.
El medicament ja està aprovat al mercat tant a UK com aquí i podria suposar un nou serial com va succeir amb Tysabri, si bé en aquell cas centrat en qüestions de seguretat.
L'esclerosi múltiple és una malaltia que demana noves teràpies però que hi ha dificultats fonamentals per l'abordatge. El NICE va mantenir un conflicte important amb els interferons ja fa uns anys. Ara amb aquesta decisió pot ser un pròleg de nova controvèrsia. Aquest conflicte es podria resoldre en primer lloc aportant dades sobre efectivitat o també canviant el preu, de fet el preu britànic és un terç inferior al dels USA, però no n'hi hauria prou. Podria ser que aquí la propera reunió de la comissió interministerial de preus ho aprovés sense cap anàlisi similar (preu aprox. tractament anual 22.000 euros). En definitiva, ara tocaria prioritzar sobre bases fonamentades i tinc la impressió que ho deixarem per un altre moment. Crec que per al regulador d'aquí tant li fa la decisió del NICE. Ara bé, i als ciutadans?.
