When is NICE is not so nice?
“Ipilimumab is not recommended for the treatment of advanced (unresectable or metastatic) malignant melanoma in people who have received prior therapy.
The Committee was satisfied that ipilimumab meets the criteria for being a life-extending, end-of-life treatment and that the trial evidence presented for this consideration was robust.
The Committee acknowledged that few advances had been made in the treatment of advanced melanoma in recent years and ipilimumab could be considered a significant innovation for a disease with a high unmet clinical need.
Despite the combined value of these factors the Committee considered that the magnitude of additional weight that would need to be assigned to the QALY gains for people with advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma would be too great for ipilimumab to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources.”
In other words, it’s too expensive and the NHS doesn’t want to pay the £80K ($120K) sticker price. This news is no great surprise given the cost-benefit ratio when considering that there is no way to tell who might benefit most from treatment upfront.
The is, however, a huge difference between hope and false hope, as NPR Shots astutely noted when discussing Avastin in breast cancer earlier this week and in some ways that sentiment applies here too. By this I mean it would be much more compelling to both patients and NICE if an oncologist could talk about a new therapy in specific and useful terms.
Examples of doctor-patient conversations about treatment in the near future might look more like this….
Either:
“You have an 70-80% chance of responding to this therapy because you have X (mutation, translocation, biomarker etc), where this drug has been shown to be highly effective and extends life by over 2 years in many of our advanced patients with this disease to date.”
Or:
“This drug may do more harm than good in your case, as it has been shown to effectively target X (mutation, translocation, biomarker etc), which you do not have, and therefore, are unlikely to respond. I believe it would be better to consider these alternatives in your situation… “
We all know about heterogeneity – it’s the very underpining of what makes a cancer survive despite our best efforts to tame it until we can subset into more homogenous and predictable groups. This means that offering a broad therapy to all patients with a given advanced cancer without any idea of its predictive value is fast becoming a misnomer in today’s world of emerging targeted therapies. Now, manufacturers (marketers even) might think it’s better not to ‘limit’ their market opportunity, but the reality is many healthcare systems are looking at ways to limit treatments to where it’s needed most, not only for cost reasons, but also to direct resources where they are more likely to work. The current model is not sustainable in the long run.
Of course, if a predictive biomarker was available to determine which patients are more likely to respond to ipilimumab, then the QALY calculation would be considerably different, and possibility even within the realms of the current guidelines.
That’s a whole different ballgame, but hopefully one that will begin to emerge as we have seen with new targeted therapies such as vemurafenib (Zelboraf) in BRAF V600E malignant melanoma, crizotinib (Xalkori) in ALK-positive advanced lung cancers and everolimus (Afinitor) in combination with exemestane in ER/PR+ HER2- breast cancers that have relapsed after initial aromatase inhibitor therapy.
It will be interesting to see how NICE handles all of those situations in the future, since they are all targeted agents showing a significant impact on a patients ability to live longer,with a more precise, and therefore, limited patient definition. As a Brit and a scientist, I may have reasonable expectations that NICE will make a rational and logical decision in the face of limited resources, but this is also tinted with a large dose of healthy scepticism after the trastuzumab (Herceptin) debacle in HER2-positive breast cancers that lead to the utterly ridiculous and unfair post code lottery in the UK.
We are not talking absolute costs here, but the relative costs of seeing real efficacy benefits of six months or more in those patients most likely to respond, while at the same time giving an offering that truly extends life in a meaningful fashion without exposing too many to the toxic side effects of a given treatment. Dealing with cancer is tough enough without being treated with a regimen that had absolutely no hope of helping people live longer and feel better.
