Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 537–547 | Cite as

Evolocumab for Treating Primary Hypercholesterolaemia and Mixed Dyslipidaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

  • Christopher Carroll
  • Paul Tappenden
  • Rachid Rafia
  • Jean Hamilton
  • Duncan Chambers
  • Mark Clowes
  • Paul Durrington
  • Nadeem Qureshi
  • Anthony S. Wierzbicki
Review Article

Abstract

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of evolocumab (Amgen) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of evolocumab. The appraisal assessed evolocumab as monotherapy or in combination with a statin with or without ezetimibe, or in combination with ezetimibe (without statin therapy), in adult patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia (which includes mixed dyslipidaemia), for whom statins do not provide optimal control of their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and/or for whom statins are contraindicated or not tolerated. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based on the company’s submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from four randomised controlled trials comparing evolocumab with either ezetimibe or placebo in adults with primary familial or non-familial hypercholesterolaemia, who were either able to take statins or who were statin intolerant. The clinical-effectiveness review found that evolocumab is efficacious at lowering LDL-C but that there was uncertainty regarding its impact on cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes. In response to the ERG’s critique of the submitted health economic model, the company submitted an amended model, which also included a patient access scheme (PAS). Based on this, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for evolocumab against ezetimibe were above £74,000 and £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained within the non-familial primary and secondary prevention populations, respectively, whilst the ICER within the heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH) population was approximately £23,000 per QALY gained. The final determination was that evolocumab would be a clinically and cost-effective use of UK NHS resource in certain patient subgroups.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This summary of the ERG report was compiled after NICE issued its guidance. CC drafted the final version of the manuscript and takes responsibility as the overall guarantor of the content. RR, PT, JH, DC and MC revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. PD, NQ and AW provided clinical advice to the ERG throughout the project. All authors have given their approval for the final version to be published. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of NICE or the Department of Health. This summary has not been externally reviewed by PharmacoEconomics.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (Project No. 14/177/05). See the HTA programme website (http://www.hta.ac.uk) for further project information.

Conflict of interest

CC, PT, RR, JH, DC, MC, PD and NQ have no conflicts of interest. AW has been a clinical trial site investigator for trials of PCSK9 inhibitors, including evolocumab (for Amgen).

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  2. 2.
    Carroll C, Tappenden P, Rafia R, Sanderson J, Chambers D, Clowes M, Durrington P, Qureshi N, Wierzbicki AS. Evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia: A Single Technology Appraisal. Evidence Review Group Report. School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield; 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA394/documents/committee-papers. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  3. 3.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia. Final appraisal determination. Technology appraisal guidanace [TA394]. London: NICE; 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA394/documents/html-content-3. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  4. 4.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Hypercholesterolaemia (primary), dyslipidaemia (mixed)—evolocumab [ID765]. Technology appraisal guidance [TA394]. London: NICE; 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-tag498. Accessed 1 June 2016.
  5. 5.
    Bhatnagar D, Soran H, Durrington P. Hypercholesterolaemia and its management. BMJ. 2008;337:a993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scientific Steering Committee on behalf of the Simon Broome Register Group. Risk of fatal coronary heart disease in familial hypercholesterolaemia. BMJ. 1991;303:893–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wierzbicki A, Humphries S, Minhas R. Guideline Development Group. Familial hypercholesterolaemia: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vandrovcova J, Thomas E, Atanur SA, Norsworthy PJ, Neuwirth C, Tan Y, Kasperaviciute D, Biggs J, Game L, Mueller M, et al. The use of next-generation sequencing in clinical diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia. Genet Med. 2013;15:948–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Robinson JG. Management of familial hypercholesterolemia: a review of the recommendations from the National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. J Manag Care Pharm. 2013;19:139–49.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Civeira F. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Atherosclerosis. 2004;173:55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nordestgaard BG, Chapman MJ, Humphries SE, Ginsbeerg HN, Masana L, Descamps OS, Wiklund O, Hegele RA, Defesche JC. Familial hypercholesterolaemia is underdiagnosed and undertreated in the general population: guidance for clinicians to prevent coronary heart disease: consensus statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:3478–3490a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Durrington P. Dyslipidaemia. Lancet. 2003;263:717–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roth G, Finh S, Mikdad A, Aekplakorn W, Hasegawa T, Lim S. High total serum cholesterol, medication coverage and therapeutic control: an analysis of national health examination survey data from eight countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89:92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bhatnagar P, Wickramasinghe K, Williams J, Rayner M, Townsend N. The epidemiology of cardiovascular disease in the UK 2014. Heart. 2015;101(15):1182–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cardiovascular disease: risk assessment and reduction, including lipid modification. Clinical guideline [CG181]. London: NICE; 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG181. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  16. 16.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ezetimibe for the treatment of primary (heterozygous-familial and non-familial) hypercholesterolaemia. Technology appraisal guideance [TA132]. London: NICE; 2007. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta132. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  17. 17.
    European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Assessment report. Repatha. International non-proprietary name: evolocumab. Procedure no. EMEA/H/C/003766/0000. London: EMA; 2015. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/003766/WC500191400.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  18. 18.
    Baigent C, Blackwell L, Emberson J, Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet. 2010;376:1670–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet. 2005;266:1267–78.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Law MR, Wald NJ, Rudnicka AR. Quantifying effect of statins on low density lipoprotein cholesterol, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003;326:1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cannon CP. IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT). In: Presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions; Chicago, IL; November 15–18, 2014.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anderson K, Odell P, Wilson P, Kannel W. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J. 1991;121:293–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robinson J, Nedergaard B, Rogers W, Flalkow J, Neutel J, Ramstad D, et al. Effect of evolocumab or ezetimibe added to moderate- or high-intensity statin therapy on LDL-C lowering in patients with hypercholesterolemia: the LAPLACE-2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;311:1870–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stroes E, Colquhoun D, Sullivan D, Civeira F, Rosenson R, Watts G, et al. Anti-PCSK9 antibody effectively lowers cholesterol in patients with statin intolerance: the GAUSS-2 randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trial of evolocumab. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2541–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blom D, Hala T, Bolognese M, Lillestol M, Toth P, Burgess L, et al. A 52-week placebo-controlled trial of evolocumab in hyperlipidemia. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1809–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raal F, Stein E, Dufour R, Turner T, Civeira F, Burgess L, et al. PCSK9 inhibition with evolocumab (AMG 145) in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (RUTHERFORD-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:331–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sabatine M, Giugliano R, Wiviott S, Raal F, Blom D, Robinson J, et al. Efficacy and safety of evolocumab in reducing lipids and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1500–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bruckert E, Blaha V, Stein E. Trial Assessing Long-Term Use of PCSK9 Inhibition in Patients with Genetic LDL Disorders (TAUSSIG): efficacy and safety in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia receiving lipid apheresis. In: Poster presented at the AHA (American Heart Association) Scientific Sessions; Chicago, IL; 15–19 November 2014.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Amgen. Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk (FOURIER) [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01764633]. US National Institutes of Health. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01764633. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  30. 30.
    Amgen. Evaluating PCSK9 Binding antiBody Influence oN coGnitive HeAlth in High cardiovascular Risk Subjects (EBBINGHAUS) [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02207634]. US National Institutes of Health. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02207634. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  31. 31.
    D’Agostino R, Vasan R, Pencina M, Wolf P, Cobain M, Massaro J, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2008;117:743–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilson P, D’Agostino R, Bhatt D, Eagle K, Pencina M, Smith S, et al. An international model to predict recurrent cardiovascular disease. Am J Med. 2012;125:695–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia. Technology appraisal guidance [TA394]. Company evidence submission. London: NICE; 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA394/documents/committee-papers. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  34. 34.
    Benn M, Watts G, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Nordestgaard BG. Familial hypercholesterolemia in the danish general population: prevalence, coronary artery disease, and cholesterol-lowering medication. J Clin Epidemiol Metabolism. 2012;97:3956–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    UK Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2013 to 2014. 27 November 2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-2013-to-2014. Accessed 1 Sept 2016.
  36. 36.
    Curtis L. Unit costs of health & social care. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU); 2013. http://www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/2013/. Accessed 1 Sept 2016.
  37. 37.
    National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Familial hypercholesterolaemia: identification and management. Clinical guideline [CG71]. London: NICE; 2008. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg71 Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  38. 38.
    Soran H, Schofield J, Durrington P. Cholesterol, not just cardiovascular risk, is important in deciding who should receive statin treatment. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:2975–83.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Soran H, Adam S, Durrington P. Are recent statin recommendations to employ fixed doses and abandon targets effective for treatment of hypercholesterolaemia. Investigation based on number needed to treat. Eur J Prevent Cardiol. 2017;24(1):76–83.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Robson J, Brindle P. Derivation, validation, and evaluation of a new QRISK model to estimate lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease: cohort study using QResearch database. BMJ. 2010;341:c6624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Economics and Decision Science (HEDS)School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  3. 3.University of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  4. 4.LondonUK

Personalised recommendations