<!-- page 1 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

# **NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE** 

## **Final appraisal determination** 

# **Evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia** 

## **1 Recommendations** 

1.1 Evolocumab is recommended as an option for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia, only if: 

- The dosage is 140 mg every 2 weeks. 

- Low-density lipoprotein concentrations are persistently above the thresholds specified in table 1 despite maximal tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. That is, either the maximum dose has been reached, or further titration is limited by intolerance (as defined in NICE’s guideline on familial hypercholesterolaemia: identification and management). 

- The company provides evolocumab with the discount agreed in the patient access scheme. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 1 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 

> Issue date: April 2016 



<!-- page 2 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## **Table 1 Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations above which evolocumab is recommended** 

||**Without CVD**|**With CVD**|**With CVD**|
|---|---|---|---|
|||**High risk of**<br>**CVD1**|**Very high risk**<br>**of CVD2**|
|**Primary non-familial**<br>**hypercholesterolaemia**<br>**or mixed dyslipidaemia**|Not<br>recommended at<br>any LDL-C<br>concentration|Recommended<br>only if LDL-C<br>concentration is<br>persistently<br>above<br>4.0 mmol/litre|Recommended<br>only if LDL-C<br>concentration is<br>persistently<br>above<br>3.5 mmol/litre|
|**Primary heterozygous-**<br>**familial**<br>**hypercholesterolaemia**|Recommended<br>only if LDL-C<br>concentration is<br>persistently<br>above<br>5.0 mmol/litre|Recommended only if LDL-C<br>concentration is persistently above<br>3.5 mmol/litre||
|1High risk of CVD is defined as a history of any of the following: acute coronary<br>syndrome (such as myocardial infarction or unstable angina needing hospitalisation);<br>coronary or other arterial revascularisation procedures; chronic heart disease;<br>ischaemic stroke; peripheral arterial disease.<br>2Very high risk of CVD is defined as recurrent cardiovascular events or<br>cardiovascular events in more than 1 vascular bed (that is, polyvascular disease).<br>Abbreviations: CVD, cardiovascular disease; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein<br>cholesterol.||||



1High risk of CVD is defined as a history of any of the following: acute coronary syndrome (such as myocardial infarction or unstable angina needing hospitalisation); coronary or other arterial revascularisation procedures; chronic heart disease; ischaemic stroke; peripheral arterial disease. 

2Very high risk of CVD is defined as recurrent cardiovascular events or cardiovascular events in more than 1 vascular bed (that is, polyvascular disease). Abbreviations: CVD, cardiovascular disease; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. 

1.2 This guidance is not intended to affect the position of patients whose treatment with evolocumab was started within the NHS before this guidance was published. Treatment of those patients may continue without change to whatever funding arrangements were in place for them before this guidance was published until they and their NHS clinician consider it appropriate to stop. 

## **2 The technology** 

2.1 Evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen) is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), an National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 2 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 3 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

enzyme involved in down-regulation of low-density lipoprotein receptors. This increases receptor density and lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Evolocumab has a marketing authorisation in the UK for treating adults with primary hypercholesterolaemia (heterozygous-familial and non-familial) or mixed dyslipidaemia, as an adjunct to diet: 

- in combination with a statin, or a statin plus other lipid-lowering therapies in patients unable to reach LDL-C goals with the maximum tolerated dose of a statin or, 

- alone or in combination with other lipid-lowering therapies in patients who cannot tolerate or cannot be given statins. 

Evolocumab is given by subcutaneous injection. The recommended dose in the summary of product characteristics is either 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg once monthly. 

2.2 Commonly reported adverse reactions with evolocumab include nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, influenza, back pain, arthralgia (joint pain) and nausea. For full details of adverse reactions and contraindications, see the summary of product characteristics. 

- 2.3 Evolocumab costs £170.10 for a 140-mg prefilled pen or syringe (excluding VAT; MIMS, March–May 2016). The annual cost of treatment per patient is about £4,448.60 for 140 mg every 2 weeks, and £6,123.60 for 420 mg monthly. The company has agreed a patient access scheme with the Department of Health. This scheme provides a simple discount to the list price of evolocumab, with the 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 3 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 4 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

discount applied at the point of purchase or invoice. The level of the discount is commercial in confidence. The Department of Health considered that this patient access scheme does not constitute an excessive administrative burden on the NHS. 

## **3 Evidence** 

The appraisal committee (section 9) considered evidence submitted by Amgen and a review of this submission by the evidence review group (ERG; section 10). See the committee papers for full details of the evidence. 

## _**Clinical effectiveness**_ 

3.1 The company did a systematic literature review, and identified 4 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of evolocumab for primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia: LAPLACE-2; RUTHERFORD-2; GAUSS-2; and DESCARTES. Of these, LAPLACE-2 and GAUSS-2 gave head-tohead evidence for evolocumab compared with ezetimibe, whereas RUTHERFORD-2 and DESCARTES compared evolocumab with placebo only. GAUSS-2 and RUTHERFORD-2 only studied evolocumab in subgroups specified in the scope; people who cannot tolerate statins (defined as people who had tried at least 2 statins, but could not tolerate any dose or increase the dose above the smallest tablet strength because of intolerable musclerelated side effects), and those with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia respectively. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 5 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 3.2 All the trials were phase III, double-blind RCTs, including a combined total of 3500 patients who were included only if they had an low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration equal to or greater than a certain concentration; this was 2.1 mmol/litre in LAPLACE-2, 2.6 mmol/litre in RUTHERFORD-2 and GAUSS-2, and 1.9 mmol/litre in DESCARTES. All patients had background therapy during the trials: moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy (LAPLACE-2), a statin with or without other lipid-lowering therapies (RUTHERFORD-2), non-ezetimibe lipid-lowering therapy (GAUSS-2), or diet alone or in combination with atorvastatin, ezetimibe, or both (DESCARTES). All trials except DESCARTES lasted for 12 weeks; DESCARTES was a long-term study that lasted for 52 weeks. 

- 3.3 All the trials used a 2:1 randomisation to the evolocumab or control treatment arms. They gave evidence on the following treatment comparisons: 

   - LAPLACE-2 (n=1899): eligible patients were randomised to one of 5 open-label statin cohorts; atorvastatin 10 mg or 80 mg, rosuvastatin 5 mg or 40 mg, or simvastatin 40 mg. 

      - Within the atorvastatin cohorts: evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly in combination with placebo was compared with placebo every 2 weeks or monthly in combination with ezetimibe or placebo respectively. 

      - Within the rosuvastatin and simvastatin cohorts: evolocumab 140 mg 2 weekly or 420 mg monthly alone was compared with placebo every 2 weeks or monthly alone respectively. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 5 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 6 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

   - RUTHERFORD-2 (n=331): evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly was compared with placebo every 2 weeks or monthly respectively. 

   - GAUSS-2 (n=307): evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly in combination with placebo was compared with placebo every 2 weeks or monthly in combination with ezetimibe respectively. 

   - DESCARTES (n=905): evolocumab 420 mg monthly was compared with placebo monthly. 

- 3.4 The co-primary end points in LAPLACE-2, RUTHERFORD-2 and GAUSS-2 were the percent change from baseline in LDL-C level at week 12, and the mean percent change from baseline in LDL-C level at weeks 10 and 12. In DESCARTES, the primary end point was the percent change from baseline in LDL-C level at week 52. Other lipid parameters (including triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol implicated in mixed dyslipidaemia) were measured in the trials as secondary end points, but the company’s submission did not focus on them. None of the trials collected data on health-related quality of life. 

## **Evidence review group’s comments** 

- 3.5 The ERG considered the trials identified for evolocumab to be relevant, good-quality RCTs. It noted that the patient and disease characteristics at baseline were generally well-balanced across treatment arms. However, all 4 trials excluded patients with type 1 diabetes, or newly diagnosed or poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. The ERG questioned whether this could affect the generalisability 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 6 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 7 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

of the trials because, in clinical practice, these patients are likely to present with co-morbid hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia. 

- 3.6 The ERG pointed out that the change in LDL-C concentration is clinically important if it can be used as a surrogate for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although the effect of statins on cardiovascular (CV) events is established, that of evolocumab has not been robustly shown in purposely designed clinical trials. The ERG noted that the ongoing FOURIER RCT will test whether LDL-C is a valid surrogate for CV outcomes for evolocumab, which it considered to be a key area of uncertainty in the current evidence. 

## **Clinical trial results** 

- 3.7 All efficacy and safety analyses were based on the modified intention-to-treat populations, that is, all patients who had at least 1 dose of study treatment. The results for the primary end points are shown in tables 2 and 3. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 7 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 8 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## **Table 2 Difference in percent change from baseline in LDL-C concentration at week 12 (week 52 in DESCARTES)** 

|**Evolocumab**<br>**dosage**|**Cohort**|**Versus placebo**<br>**(%, 95% CI)**|**Versus ezetimibe**<br>**(%, 95% CI)**|
|---|---|---|---|
|**LAPLACE-2**||||
|140 mg every 2<br>weeks|Atorvastatin 10 mg|−74* (−81 to −68)|−44* (−50 to −37)|
||Atorvastatin 80 mg|−80* (−91 to −68)|−50* (−61 to −39)|
||Any atorvastatin|N/A|−47* (−53 to −41)1|
||Rosuvastatin 5 mg|−71* (−78 to −64)|N/A|
||Rosuvastatin 40 mg|−71* (−80 to −63)|N/A|
||Simvastatin 40 mg|−74* (−80 to −67)|N/A|
||Any statin|−74* (−77 to −70)1|N/A|
|420 mg monthly|Atorvastatin 10 mg|−61* (−68 to −54)|−43* (−50 to −36)|
||Atorvastatin 80 mg|−74* (−84 to −65)|−41* (−51 to −32)|
||Any atorvastatin|N/A|−43* (−48 to −37)1|
||Rosuvastatin 5 mg|−66* (−73 to −59)|N/A|
||Rosuvastatin 40 mg|−59* (−70 to −48)|N/A|
||Simvastatin 40 mg|−62* (−71 to −52)|N/A|
||Any statin|−65* (−69 to −61)1|N/A|
|**GAUSS-2**||||
|140 mg every 2<br>weeks|N/A|N/A|−39* (−45 to −34)|
|420 mg monthly|N/A|N/A|−38* (−43 to −33)|
|**RUTHERFORD-2**||||
|140 mg every 2<br>weeks|N/A|−61* (−67 to −55)|N/A|
|420 mg monthly|N/A|−60* (−68 to −53)|N/A|
|**DESCARTES**||||
|420 mg monthly|N/A|−59* (−64 to −55)|N/A|
|*p<0.001||||
|1Using a fixed-effects model||||
|Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol;<br>N/A, not applicable.||||



National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 9 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## **Table 3 Difference in mean percent change from baseline in LDL-C concentration at weeks 10 and 12** 

|**Evolocumab**<br>**dosage**|**Cohort**|**Versus placebo**<br>**(%, 95% CI)**|**Versus ezetimibe**<br>**(%, 95% CI)**|
|---|---|---|---|
|**LAPLACE-2**||||
|140 mg every 2<br>weeks|Atorvastatin 10 mg|−73* (−78 to −67)|−41* (−47 to −35)|
||Atorvastatin 80 mg|−78* (−88 to −68)|−48* (−58 to −38)|
||Any atorvastatin|N/A|−45* (−50 to −39)1|
||Rosuvastatin 5 mg|−70* (−76 to −63)|N/A|
||Rosuvastatin 40 mg|−69* (−77 to −62)|N/A|
||Simvastatin 40 mg|−73* (−78 to −67)|N/A|
||Any statin|−72* (−75 to −69)1|N/A|
|420 mg monthly|Atorvastatin 10 mg|−65* (−71 to −58)|−45* (−52 to −39)|
||Atorvastatin 80 mg|−78* (−86 to −70)|−46* (−54 to −38)|
||Any atorvastatin|N/A|−46* (−51 to −41)1|
||Rosuvastatin 5 mg|−69* (−75 to −62)|N/A|
||Rosuvastatin 40 mg|−67* (−76 to −58)|N/A|
||Simvastatin 40 mg|−70* (−79 to −61)|N/A|
||Any statin|−70* (−73 to −66)1|N/A|
|**GAUSS-2**||||
|140 mg every 2<br>weeks|N/A|N/A|−38* (−44 to −33)|
|420 mg monthly|N/A|N/A|−39* (−44 to −35)|
|**RUTHERFORD-2**||||
|140 mg every 2<br>weeks|N/A|−61* (−67 to −55)|N/A|
|420 mg monthly|N/A|−66* (−72 to −61)|N/A|
|*p<0.001||||
|1Using a fixed-effects model||||
|Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol;<br>N/A, not applicable.||||



3.8 The company presented subgroup analyses. It stated that in all of these evolocumab, compared with placebo or ezetimibe, was 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 10 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

consistently effective in lowering LDL-C, with no notable differences between subgroups. 

3.9 The company presented interim results from 2 ongoing, long-term, extension studies, OSLER and OSLER-2, which compared evolocumab plus standard of care (defined according to local guidelines) with standard of care alone. Eligible patients were those who completed treatment in a ‘parent’ study, including the RCTs identified for evolocumab. The company stated that OSLER and OSLER-2 showed that the effect of evolocumab continued for over 2 years. It also presented a pre-specified exploratory analysis, which combined data from OSLER and OSLER-2 (n=4465) on adjudicated CV events including death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary revascularisation, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, and heart failure. The rate of CV events at 1 year was 0.95% and 2.18% among patients randomised to evolocumab or standard of care respectively (hazard ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; p=0.003). 

- 3.10 TAUSSIG is an ongoing non-randomised, non-controlled, 5-year extension study of evolocumab for severe familial hypercholesterolaemia. Among 142 patients with severe heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia, the percent reduction from baseline in LDL-C level at week 36 was 50.5%, with reductions ranging from 42.0% to 54.3% at earlier time points. 

## _**ERG’s comments**_ 

- 3.11 The ERG noted that evolocumab, at both licensed doses, effectively reduced LDL-C concentration from baseline compared 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 10 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 11 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

with ezetimibe or placebo (p<0.001), with consistent results seen across all subgroups, including patients who can or cannot tolerate statins. 

3.12 The ERG noted that, although none of the RCTs studied evolocumab in combination with ezetimibe, RUTHERFORD-2 and DESCARTES included a subgroup in which patients had ezetimibe as background therapy with (DESCARTES) or without (RUTHERFORD-2) high-dose atorvastatin. The ERG reported the results for these subgroups: 

   - DESCARTES: The difference in percent change from baseline in LDL-C level at week 52 between evolocumab 420 mg monthly plus ezetimibe plus statin and placebo plus ezetimibe plus statin was −49.3% (95% CI −59.5 to −39.1; p<0.001) in favour of evolocumab. 

   - RUTHERFORD-2: At week 12, the percent change from baseline in LDL-C level favoured evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks plus ezetimibe compared with placebo plus ezetimibe, with a difference of −58.4% (95% CI −67.1 to −49.7; p<0.001). Evolocumab monthly plus ezetimibe was also more effective than placebo plus ezetimibe, with a difference of −60.9% (95% CI −71.0 to −50.8; p<0.001). 

- 3.13 The ERG considered that the evidence from OSLER and OSLER-2 was arguably not relevant to this appraisal. This was because the studies included populations from trials that were themselves excluded from the systematic review of clinical evidence. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 11 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 12 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## **Adverse effects of treatment** 

- 3.14 In addition to the data on adverse effects from the individual studies for evolocumab, the company presented integrated analyses of safety data from 6026 patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia who had any dose of evolocumab. The key results of these analyses are summarised below: 

   - Overall, evolocumab had a safety profile similar to the control treatment (placebo or ezetimibe) arms, with the incidence of adverse events being 51.1% compared with 49.6%. Most adverse events were mildly to moderately severe. 

   - Serious adverse events occurred in 2.8% and 2.1% of patients who had evolocumab or any control treatment (placebo or ezetimibe) respectively. 

   - Of patients who had evolocumab, 1.9% stopped treatment because of an adverse event compared with 2.3% of those who had placebo or ezetimibe. 

   - The most common adverse events for evolocumab compared with placebo or ezetimibe were: nasopharyngitis (5.9% compared with 4.8%), upper respiratory tract infection (3.2% compared with 2.7%), headache (3.0% compared with 3.2%) and back pain (3.0% compared with 2.7%). 

   - The company stated that anti-evolocumab antibodies were infrequent, non-neutralising, and not associated with clinically relevant adverse events. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 12 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 

> Issue date: April 2016 



<!-- page 13 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## _**ERG’s comments**_ 

- 3.15 The ERG stated that evolocumab seemed to have an acceptable safety profile. 

## _**Cost effectiveness**_ 

- 3.16 The company submitted a de novo Markov economic model to assess the cost effectiveness of evolocumab in reducing CVD for primary hypercholesterolaemia (heterozygous-familial and nonfamilial) or mixed dyslipidaemia. The perspective of the analysis was that of the NHS and personal social services. Costs and health effects were modelled over a lifetime time horizon, and discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%. The cycle length in the model was 1 year. 

## **Population, intervention and comparators** 

- 3.17 The company modelled 3 separate subpopulations: 

   - non-familial hypercholesterolaemia without CVD 

   - non-familial hypercholesterolaemia with CVD 

   - heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia (with or without CVD). 

The company modelled the 2 non-familial hypercholesterolaemia 

populations based on the characteristics of the respective populations in LAPLACE-2 with or without CVD. However, it only used data from the subset of patients who had an LDL-C concentration over 2.5 mmol/litre to represent a population at high risk of CVD. For patients with heterozygous-familial 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 13 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 14 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

hypercholesterolaemia, the company used the modified intentionto-treat population in RUTHERFORD-2. 

3.18 The intervention modelled in the base case was evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks; the company explored using the monthly dosage of evolocumab in scenario analyses (see section 3.48). For each population modelled, the company presented separate results for 4 treatment comparisons; 2 relevant to patients who can tolerate statins (who had atorvastatin as background therapy), and 2 relevant to those who cannot (who did not have any background lipid-lowering therapy): 

- For patients who can tolerate statins: 

   - evolocumab plus atorvastatin compared with ezetimibe plus atorvastatin 

   - evolocumab plus ezetimibe plus atorvastatin compared with ezetimibe plus atorvastatin. 

- For patients who cannot tolerate statins: 

   - evolocumab compared with ezetimibe 

   - evolocumab plus ezetimibe compared with ezetimibe. 

The company represented statins with atorvastatin because this is the statin recommended in NICE’s guideline on lipid modification for people with or without CVD. 

## _**ERG’s comments**_ 

- 3.19 The ERG’s clinical advisers suggested that modelling a non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with an LDL-C concentration over 2.5 mmol/litre only was likely to have excluded many patients 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 14 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 15 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

within this population. This was because many UK patients will have an LDL-C concentration lower than 2.5 mmol/litre after taking statins. 

- 3.20 The ERG noted that the company assumed that patients who can tolerate statins have the same characteristics as those who cannot. However, the risk of CVD was likely to be related to whether LDL-C concentration can be controlled on statins. The ERG advised that GAUSS-2 would have better represented patients with non-familial hypercholesterolaemia who cannot tolerate statins than LAPLACE-2, noting that the company’s analyses reflected the overall populations in LAPLACE-2 and RUTHERFORD-2, which included both patients who can and cannot tolerate statins, rather than either of these individual groups. 

- 3.21 The ERG noted that the modelled heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population included patients with, and those without, CVD. It advised that modelling these groups separately may be more clinically appropriate. 

## **Model structure** 

- 3.22 The company’s model consisted of 24 mutually exclusive states: 

   - 3 acute states (in which the patient could stay for a maximum of 

      - 1 year unless the same event occurred in the next cycle) 

      - acute coronary syndrome (including myocardial infarction and unstable angina) 

      - ischaemic stroke 

      - heart failure 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 15 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 16 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 5 chronic states 

   - no CVD 

   - established CVD (including patients who had a history of stable angina, transient ischaemic attack, carotid stenosis, revascularisation without a history of myocardial infarction, abdominal aortic aneurism, or peripheral vascular disease) 

   - 3 post-event states 

      -  post-acute coronary syndrome 

      -  post-ischaemic stroke 

      -  post-heart failure 

- 13 composite CVD states (formed of a combination of 2 or 3 acute and post-event states; these were used to remember the history of CV events and model the corresponding outcomes of recurring CV events) 

- 3 death states: death from CHD, death from stroke and death from other causes. 

Patients who had CVD could have either 1 of the events modelled separately (acute coronary syndrome, ischaemic stroke or heart failure), or 1 of the events in the established CVD state. This was because the events in the established CVD state were less severe than those modelled separately, and so would be associated with lower costs and better health outcomes. The company assumed that patients who started treatment in the model had it continuously over their lifetime. 

- 3.23 Patients entered the model in different states depending on the population to which they belonged: 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 16 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 17 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- All patients with non-familial hypercholesterolaemia who did not have CVD entered the model in the no CVD state. 

- Patients with non-familial hypercholesterolaemia who had CVD entered the model in one of the 3 post-event states, or the established CVD state. 

- Patients with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia (with or without CVD) entered the model in one of the 3 post-CVD event states, the established CVD state, or the no CVD state. 

Patients who entered the model in the no CVD state stayed in this state until they had CVD (that is, acute coronary syndrome, ischaemic stroke, heart failure, or one of the events in the established CVD state), or died. After the first CV event, patients could have no further CV events and move to the corresponding post-event state, have the same event again and stay in the same acute event state, have a different acute event and move to a composite state representing the post-event state for previous events and the new event, or die. Patients in a post-event state could have the same acute event and move to the corresponding acute state or composite state (if the patient had had other CV events), a different acute event and move to the relevant composite state, or die. 

## _**ERG’s comments**_ 

- 3.24 The ERG considered that the company did not describe how it selected the states in the model, nor did it explain why they were more relevant than those used in previous models for primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia, including the model 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 17 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 18 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

for the NICE clinical guideline on lipid modification. The ERG was particularly concerned about the composite states in the model. This was because there were no data to inform them, and the company made several arbitrary assumptions about the costs and health effects in these states, which the ERG considered to have increased the uncertainty in the model. 

## **Estimation of CVD risks** 

- 3.25 To estimate the risk of CVD in the model, the company used a 3-step approach. First, it predicted the risk of CVD before treatment in patients in LAPLACE-2 with an LDL-C concentration at baseline over 2.5 mmol/litre (non-familial hypercholesterolaemia), and the modified intention-to-treat population in RUTHERFORD-2 (Heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia). To do so, the company used published risk equations from the Framingham Heart Study for patients without CVD, and the REACH registry for patients with CVD. Second, the company estimated calibration (adjustment) factors from an analysis of data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Third, it adjusted the predicted risks of CVD based on the Framingham and REACH registry equations using these calibration factors to reflect real-world data (CPRD and HES data). Because there was no CV risk equation specifically for patients with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia, the company adjusted the predicted risks of CVD in this population using a rate ratio of 7.1 (relative to patients without heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia) derived from a study by Benn et al. (2012). 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 18 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 19 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## _**ERG’s comments**_ 

- 3.26 The ERG considered the process by which the company estimated the risks of CVD to be circular, and unnecessarily complicated, with several assumptions and adjustments needed to estimate these risks. The ERG noted that the company used published equations to predict risks and then adjusted these to reflect real-world data, although it could have estimated the risks directly from the analysis of real-world data (CPRD and HES) without using risk equations. In the ERG’s opinion, the company’s approach did not add information compared with the CPRD and HES data. 

- 3.27 The ERG stated that the company did not sufficiently justify why it selected the US-based Framingham risk equations for patients without CVD, instead of alternative equations such as the QRISK2 assessment tool, which was used in the model for NICE’s guideline on lipid modification. 

- 3.28 The ERG noted that the company added several constraints to prevent the model from generating negative transition probabilities. It considered that some of these constraints seemed arbitrary, and it was difficult to follow the logic supporting them from the information given by the company. 

- 3.29 The ERG noted that the company predicted the risks of CVD in the heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population using the Framingham and REACH registry risk equations based on the entire RUTHERFORD-2 population (which included patients with or without CVD). It did not consider this to be appropriate because these equations were only created for patients with or without a 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 19 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 20 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

history of CVD. Also, the company used the study by Benn et al. (2012) to adjust the risk of CVD at baseline in patients with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia. The ERG noted that this study compared the risk of CV events between the general population and patients with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia. However, in the model, the rate ratio was not applied to the general population, but to the RUTHERFORD-2 trial population, which was already at high risk of CVD. This was likely to overestimate the risk of CVD, and produce more favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for evolocumab. The ERG also highlighted other studies, which suggested that the rate ratio derived from Benn et al. was likely to be an overestimate (see section 3.42). 

## **Treatment effect** 

- 3.30 The objective of the model was to capture the lifetime progression of CVD among adults with primary hypercholesterolaemia (heterozygous-familial and non-familial) or mixed dyslipidaemia. Because none of the clinical trials for evolocumab had data on the direct effect of evolocumab on CVD, the company used estimates from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) meta-analysis to convert the surrogate outcomes measured in the trials (LDL-C concentration) to ‘real-world’ outcomes (CV events). 

- 3.31 The company used the estimates of treatment effect on LDL-C concentrations from the head-to-head RCTs comparing evolocumab with ezetimibe. The data on other lipid parameters were not included in the model. For patients with non-familial hypercholesterolaemia, the company used LAPLACE-2 for the 

- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 20 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 21 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

treatment comparisons relevant to patients who can tolerate statins, and GAUSS-2 for the comparisons relevant to those who cannot (see section 3.18). To source the clinical effectiveness in patients with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia who can tolerate statins, the company used RUTHERFORD-2 for evolocumab and LAPLACE-2 for ezetimibe because 

RUTHERFORD-2 compared evolocumab with placebo only. For patients with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia who cannot tolerate statins, the company used GAUSS-2. The company assumed that the treatment effect in the model lasted throughout the time horizon. 

## _**ERG’s comments**_ 

- 3.32 The ERG noted that the company used LDL-C concentration as a surrogate for CVD. It considered that, without robust data on the effect of evolocumab on CV outcomes, relying on a surrogate end point could be uncertain. 

- 3.33 The ERG was concerned about the following assumptions in the model, which it considered uncertain: 

   - For patients with non-familial hypercholesterolaemia who can tolerate statins, the treatment effect from LAPLACE-2 could be generalised to the subset of patients with an LDL-C concentration over 2.5 mmol/litre. 

   - The treatment effects from LAPLACE-2 and GAUSS-2 would be the same in all patients whether or not they have diabetes or other risk factors for CVD. 

   - The treatment effect would last indefinitely in the model. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 21 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 22 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 3.34 The ERG considered the following assumptions made by the company to estimate the relationship between changes in LDL-C concentration and CV events to be arbitrary, implausible or uncertain: 

   - The relationship between LDL-C concentration and CVD was the same for patients with or without a history of CVD. 

   - The effect of reducing LDL-C concentration on non-fatal myocardial infarction was the same as that on heart failure (first event). The ERG also noted that the company assumed that reducing LDL-C concentration in patients with heart failure (either acute, post-event state or combined state) would reduce death from coronary heart disease even though it recognised the lack of benefit for lipid-lowering therapies once patients had heart failure. 

   - The relationship between LDL-C concentration and non-fatal myocardial infarction (secondary prevention) would apply to patients moving from the no CVD state to the established CVD state. 

   - Reducing LDL-C concentration had no effect on death from stroke. 

## **Health-related quality of life and costs** 

- 3.35 To populate the base-case model with utility data, the company used the utility values informing the model developed for NICE’s guideline on lipid modification, with some adjustments to match the states in the model: 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 22 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 23 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- Established CVD: in the company’s model, this state included various CV events, 1 of which was stable angina. The original utility value for stable angina was 0.808 (for both acute and post event). This was unexpectedly lower than the value for post myocardial infarction (0.880) and post unstable angina (0.880), which are considered more severe than stable angina. Because of this, the company used the utility value for the post-acute coronary syndrome state (0.880) for the established CVD state. 

- Acute states: in the model, the acute coronary syndrome state included myocardial infarction and unstable angina. The original utility values for the acute events of these 2 diseases were 0.760 and 0.77 respectively. The company chose the higher utility value (0.77) for the acute coronary syndrome state. The utility values for the ischaemic stroke and heart failure were 0.63 and 0.68 respectively. 

- Post-event states: the utility value was 0.88 for acute coronary syndrome, 0.63 for ischaemic stroke, and 0.68 for heart failure. 

- Composite states: the company assumed the lowest utility value in the individual acute or post-event states included in that composite state. 

In line with NICE’s guideline on lipid modification, the company assumed that the utility depends on age, and so it multiplied the utility values (multipliers) by age-adjusted utility values for the general population based on a study by Dolan et al. (1996). The company also gave details of a company-sponsored study that used the time trade-off method to estimate utility values for patients 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 23 of 80 Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 24 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

with CVD. It explored using utility values from this study in scenario analyses (see section 3.48). 

- 3.36 The company’s model included treatment and monitoring costs, and those associated with the model health states. The cost of evolocumab in the model included the patient access scheme discount. The company assumed that patients who started treatment with evolocumab had 1-hour training by a nurse to selfadminister the treatment at a cost of £84.00; no additional monitoring was assumed for patients having evolocumab compared with those having ezetimibe. The company equated the costs in the composite states to the highest cost in the individual states included in that state. 

## _**ERG’s comments**_ 

- 3.37 The ERG stated that, of the 7 acute and post-event states in the model, only 3 states (acute coronary syndrome, heart failure and post heart failure) were based on the EQ-5D questionnaire. The other utility multipliers were taken from studies that used the time trade-off method, and so did not meet the NICE reference case (the methods considered by NICE to be the most appropriate for technology appraisals). The ERG also noted that some of the utility multipliers did not match the states in the model for which they were used. 

- 3.38 Overall, the ERG did not have major concerns about the costs used in the company’s model. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 24 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 25 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## **Original base-case results (including the patient access scheme)** 

- 3.39 In its patient access scheme submission accompanying the original submission, the company presented incremental cost-effectiveness analyses for all 3 populations. The original base-case ICERs, including the patient access scheme, are shown in table 4. All of these ICERs are based on the every 2 weeks dosage of evolocumab 140 mg. 

**Table 4 Company’s original base-case ICERs (including the patient access scheme)** 

|**access scheme)**||||
|---|---|---|---|
|**Treatment comparison**|**ICER (£/QALY)**|||
||Non-familial<br>hypercholesterolaemia||Heterozygous-familial<br>hypercholesterolaemia|
||Without CVD|With CVD|With or without CVD|
|Ezetimibe plus statin|N/A|N/A|N/A|
|Evolocumab plus statin|74,331|46,005|22,902|
|Ezetimibe|N/A|N/A|N/A|
|Evolocumab|78,879|49,278|23,927|
|Ezetimibe|Not presented|N/A|N/A|
|Evolocumab plus ezetimibe||52,811|25,609|
|Ezetimibe plus statin|Not presented|N/A|N/A|
|Evolocumab plus ezetimibe<br>plus statin||50,880|24,826|
|Abbreviations: CVD, cardiovascular disease; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness<br>ratio; N/A, not applicable; QALY, quality-adjusted life year.||||



The company also presented sensitivity analyses (deterministic and probabilistic), scenario analyses, and subgroup analyses for selected populations and treatment comparisons. All the analyses presented in the company’s patient access scheme submission accompanying the original submission were superseded by the 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 25 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 26 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

company’s new evidence in response to consultation (see sections 3.44–3.50). 

- 3.40 At the start of treatment evolocumab is prescribed in specialist secondary care clinics, but people may move from secondary to primary care after 2–3 years because routine lipid management is an area of standard GP practice. This has potential implications for the proposed simple discount patient access scheme because simple discounts do not apply when drugs are prescribed by GP’s using FP10 prescriptions. In response to a request from NICE, the company presented sensitivity analyses varying the proportion of patients who may move from secondary care to primary care (after which point the simple discount does not apply), and the time patients spend in secondary care before this happens. 

## _**ERG’s comments**_ 

- 3.41 In summary, the ERG advised some caution in the interpretation of the company’s results because of: 

   - the selected populations used in the model (see sections 3.19– 3.21) 

   - the use of multiple composite states, which were populated using many assumptions and little evidence (see section 3.24) 

   - the circular approach used by the company to predict risks of CVD (see section 3.26) 

   - the likely overestimation of the risk of CVD in the heterozygousfamilial hypercholesterolaemia population (see section 3.29) 

   - the uncertainty about the relationship between LDL-C reduction and reductions in CV events (see section 3.32). 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 26 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 27 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 3.42 The ERG stated that calibration rate of 7.1, which was likely to be overestimated (see section 3.29), was a key driver of the cost effectiveness of evolocumab for heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia. It noted that the company estimated that about 50% of the patients having statins would have a CV event or die from other causes 8–9 years after starting treatment. In comparison, a long-term cohort study identified by the ERG (Versmissen et al. 2008) indicated that, within the same time period, 10% of patients with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia having statins would have coronary heart disease. The ERG also highlighted other studies, which suggested that the rate of death from cardiovascular or coronary artery disease may increase in patients with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia, although not to the extent assumed by the company; these studies also reported no statistically significant difference for all-cause mortality. Specifically, a UK study by Neil et al. (2008) reported standardised mortality ratios in patients with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia treated with statins of 1.03 (primary prevention) and 3.88 (secondary prevention) for death from coronary artery disease, and 0.94 for all-cause mortality, which was not statistically significant (p=0.31). Similar results were also reported by a recent Norwegian study by Mundal et al. (2014). 

- 3.43 The ERG did a threshold analysis to determine the minimum calibration factor that must be applied to the predicted CV risks in the heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population for the ICER comparing evolocumab with ezetimibe to be below £30,000 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 27 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 28 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. This suggested that the ICER increased considerably as the assumed calibration factor decreased, with calibration factors greater than 4.5–5.6 needed for evolocumab compared with ezetimibe to have an ICER below £30,000 per QALY gained. 

## **Company’s new evidence in response to consultation** 

- 3.44 In response to consultation on the first appraisal consultation document, in which evolocumab was not recommended for primary hypercholesterolaemia (heterozygous-familial and non-familial) or mixed dyslipidaemia, the company was permitted to submit revised cost-effectiveness analyses. These incorporated the following changes, which reflected the committee’s preferred analyses in the first appraisal consultation document: 

   - Use of the baseline characteristics of the population in GAUSS-2 to model patients with non-familial hypercholesterolaemia who cannot tolerate statins. 

   - Modelling of the heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with or without CVD separately. 

   - Use of the QRISK2 assessment tool to estimate the level of CVD risk in people without CVD (non-familial or heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia). 

   - Adjustment of the risk of CVD in the heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population using a rate ratio of 6.1 derived from Benn et al. (2012). 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 28 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 

> Issue date: April 2016 



<!-- page 29 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

   - Use of the equation from the Health Survey for England to inform the relationship between age and background healthrelated quality of life. 

   - Modelling of subgroups reflecting all the characteristics of the actual subgroup in clinical trials. 

- 3.45 The company’s revised base-case ICERs, including the patient access scheme, are presented in table 5. All of these ICERs are based on the every 2 weeks dosage of evolocumab 140 mg. 

**Table 5 Company’s revised base-case ICERs (including the patient access scheme)** 

|**access scheme)**|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Treatment comparison**|**ICER (£/QALY)**||||
||Non-familial<br>hypercholesterolaemia||Heterozygous-familial<br>hypercholesterolaemia||
||Without<br>CVD|With CVD|Without<br>CVD|With CVD|
|Ezetimibe plus statin|N/A|N/A|N/A|N/A|
|Evolocumab plus statin|69,249|45,439|23,536|29,910|
|Ezetimibe|N/A|N/A|N/A|N/A|
|Evolocumab|38,458|30,985|21,921|25,293|
|Ezetimibe|N/A|N/A|N/A|N/A|
|Evolocumab plus ezetimibe|41,911|33,814|23,602|27,390|
|Ezetimibe plus statin|N/A|N/A|N/A|N/A|
|Evolocumab plus ezetimibe plus<br>statin|78,459|50,257|25,583|32,698|
|Abbreviations: CVD, cardiovascular disease; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness<br>ratio; N/A, not applicable; QALY, quality-adjusted life year.|||||



3.46 The company revised its deterministic sensitivity analyses, varying the input values in the model for 1 parameter at a time. Among the most influential parameters were the treatment duration assumed in the model, the effect of reducing LDL-C concentration on death National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 29 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 30 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

from coronary heart disease or ischaemic stroke, and the heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia calibration rate ratio. 

- 3.47 The company revised its probabilistic sensitivity analyses, varying parameters simultaneously with values from a probability distribution. The probabilistic ICERs were slightly higher than the deterministic ones. The company reported the following probabilities of evolocumab being cost effective: 

   - Non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population without CVD: 0% compared with any comparator at a maximum acceptable ICER of £30,000 per QALY gained. 

   - Non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with CVD: 0% compared with ezetimibe plus statin at a maximum acceptable ICER of £30,000 per QALY gained. Compared with ezetimibe alone, the probability was 5.4% when used as an add-on to ezetimibe, and 30.1% when used as an alternative to ezetimibe. 

   - Heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia without CVD: there was a low probability of evolocumab being cost effective at a maximum acceptable ICER of £20,000 per QALY gained (less than 20%). At a maximum acceptable ICER of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability exceeded 85% for all comparisons. 

   - Heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia with CVD: there was a low probability of evolocumab being cost effective at a maximum acceptable ICER of £20,000 per QALY gained (less than 5%). At a maximum acceptable ICER of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability ranged from 15% to 42% compared with ezetimibe plus statin, and from 69% to 84% compared with ezetimibe alone. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 30 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 31 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 3.48 The company revised its scenario analyses, varying the input values for certain parameters. The model was most sensitive to applying alternative discount rates (0% for costs, and 0% or 6% for health effects), having evolocumab monthly (as opposed to every 2 weeks), having treatment for a shorter duration of 5 or 10 years, and using utility values from the company-sponsored time trade-off study. 

## _**Subgroups**_ 

- 3.49 The company presented a range of subgroup analyses based on actual patient-level characteristics when possible. It used LAPLACE-2 and GAUSS-2 for the subgroups of the non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with CVD who can or cannot tolerate statins respectively, and RUTHERFORD-2 for the subgroups of the heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population. For the subgroups of the non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with CVD who can tolerate statins, the company also used CPRD data to model additional high-risk subgroups. The company presented results for the following subgroups: 

   - Non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with CVD who can tolerate statins: 

      - People with 1, and separately those with 2, of the following risk factors: 

         -  Based on LAPLACE-2: mean LDL-C concentration of 3.0– 6.0 mmol/litre (intervals of 0.5 mmol/litre), diabetes, and acute coronary syndrome. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 31 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 32 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

         -  Based on CPRD: mean LDL-C concentration of 3.0– 6.0 mmol/litre (intervals of 0.5 mmol/litre), diabetes, 2 vascular beds, 3 vascular beds, atrial fibrillation, and acute coronary syndrome. 

      - People with 3 of the following risk factors (based on CPRD): mean LDL-C concentration of 3.0–6.0 mmol/litre (intervals of 0.5 mmol/litre), diabetes, 2 vascular beds, 3 vascular beds, atrial fibrillation, and acute coronary syndrome. 

   - Non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with CVD who cannot tolerate statins: 

      - People with 1, and separately those with 2, of the following risk factors (based on GAUSS-2): mean LDL-C concentration of 3.0–6.0 mmol/litre (intervals of 0.5 mmol/litre), diabetes, and acute coronary syndrome. 

   - Heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with or without CVD who can tolerate statins: 

      - People with 1 risk factor (based on RUTHERFORD-2): mean LDL-C concentration of 3.0–6.0 mmol/litre (intervals of 0.5 mmol/litre). 

- 3.50 The ICER ranges from the company’s analyses are presented below: 

   - Non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with CVD who can tolerate statins (evolocumab plus statin compared with ezetimibe plus statin; base-case ICER £45,439 per QALY gained): 

      - People with 1 risk factor: 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 33 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

      -  Based on LAPLACE-2: from £34,277 to £51,571 per QALY gained (mean LDL-C concentrations of 6.0 mmol/litre and 3.0 mmol/litre respectively). 

      -  Based on CPRD: from £32,622 (mean LDL-C concentration of 6.0 mmol/litre) to £49,404 (diabetes) per QALY gained. 

   - People with 2 risk factors: 

      -  Based on LAPLACE-2: from £31,340 (mean LDL-C concentration of 4.5 mmol/litre and diabetes) to £41,509 (mean LDL-C concentration of 3.5 mmol/litre and acute coronary syndrome) per QALY gained. 

      -  Based on CPRD: from £21,203 (mean LDL-C concentration of 4.5 mmol/litre and 3 vascular beds) to £33,631 (mean LDL-C concentration of 3.5 mmol/litre and diabetes) per QALY gained. 

   - People with 3 risk factors (based on CPRD): from £18,343 (mean LDL-C concentration of 4.0 mmol/litre, acute coronary syndrome and 3 vascular beds) to £30,524 (mean LDL-C concentration of 3.0 mmol/litre, diabetes and 2 vascular beds) per QALY gained. 

- Non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with CVD who cannot tolerate statins (evolocumab compared with ezetimibe; base-case ICER £30,985 per QALY gained): 

   - People with 1 risk factor (based on GAUSS-2): from £24,007 (acute coronary syndrome) to £43,180 (mean LDL-C concentration of 3.0 mmol/litre) per QALY gained. 

   - People with 2 risk factors (based on GAUSS-2): from £25,347 (mean LDL-C concentration of 4.5 mmol/litre and diabetes) to 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 33 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 34 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

£31,842 (mean LDL-C concentration of 3.5 mmol/litre and acute coronary syndrome) per QALY gained. 

- Heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population without CVD who can tolerate statins (evolocumab plus statin compared with ezetimibe plus statin; base-case ICER £23,536 per QALY 

gained): 

   - People with 1 risk factor (based on RUTHERFORD-2): from £18,436 to £29,304 per QALY gained (mean LDL-C concentrations of 6.0 mmol/litre and 3.0 mmol/litre respectively). 

- Heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with CVD who can tolerate statins (evolocumab plus statin compared with ezetimibe plus statin; base-case ICER £29,910 per QALY gained): 

   - People with 1 risk factor (based on RUTHERFORD-2): from £23,244 to £38,133 per QALY gained (mean LDL-C concentrations of 6.0 mmol/litre and 3.0 mmol/litre respectively). 

## _**ERG’s critique of the company’s new evidence**_ 

3.51 The ERG noted that although the company appeared to have used the QRISK2 assessment tool appropriately, several assumptions and adjustments were still needed to estimate and apply the calibration factors for the non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population. 

- 3.52 The ERG was concerned about the rate ratio of 6.1 used to adjust the risk of CVD for heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia, 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 34 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 35 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

reiterating that this was inappropriately applied to the RUTHERFORD-2 trial population, which was already at high risk of CVD (see section 3.29). The ERG maintained that it would be more appropriate to estimate the risk of CVD directly from the CPRD and HES data, or other routine data. 

- 3.53 The ERG considered that the company’s revised subgroup analyses were broadly reasonable. However, it highlighted uncertainties relating to the following: 

   - Applying the same calibration factors from the whole non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with CVD to the subgroups of that population. 

   - Assuming that the association between reduced LDL-C concentrations and improved CV outcomes did not depend on risk factors. 

   - Assuming that the treatment effect in subgroups was the same as in the full trial populations. 

## **4 Consideration of the evidence** 

The appraisal committee reviewed the data available on the clinical and cost effectiveness of evolocumab, having considered evidence on the nature of primary hypercholesterolaemia (heterozygousfamilial and non-familial) or mixed dyslipidaemia and the value placed on the benefits of evolocumab by people with the condition, those who represent them, and clinical experts. It also took into account the effective use of NHS resources. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 35 of 80 Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 36 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

4.1 The committee considered the aim of treating primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia. It heard from the patient experts that having primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia affects day-to-day life, impinging also on family and friends. The Committee was aware that the recommendations in NICE’s guideline on lipid modification place greater emphasis on managing cardiovascular risk than meeting target cholesterol concentrations, although cholesterol targets are routinely used in clinical practice. The committee understood from the clinical experts that treating people with familial hypercholesterolaemia is a priority because lifelong exposure to high concentrations of lowdensity lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), even if these concentrations are not very high. The committee heard from patient experts that in their experience diet and lifestyle changes, in addition to medication, were important to lose weight and further reduce the risk of CVD. The committee concluded that in clinical practice, lowering LDL-C concentrations in people with primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia aims primarily to prevent CVD, as recommended in the NICE guideline on lipid modification. 

4.2 The committee noted that the scope for this appraisal included people with primary hypercholesterolaemia (heterozygous-familial and non-familial) or mixed dyslipidaemia for whom lipid-modifying therapies, in line with current NICE guidance, would be considered. This was consistent with the marketing authorisation for evolocumab, which recommends treatment, as an adjunct to diet, for primary hypercholesterolaemia (heterozygous-familial and non- 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 36 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 37 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

familial) or mixed dyslipidaemia. The committee discussed whether evolocumab would be used for mixed dyslipidaemia, which is also associated with elevated LDL-C concentrations. It understood from the clinical experts that although evolocumab was likely to mainly be used for primary hypercholesterolaemia in clinical practice, it may also be used for mixed dyslipidaemia when LDL-C concentrations remain very high despite maximum statin and ezetimibe management. 

4.3 The committee considered the current treatment pathway and comparators for people with primary hypercholesterolaemia. It was aware that statins (particularly atorvastatin) are the mainstay of treatment for familial and non-familial hypercholesterolaemia (as described in NICE’s guideline on familial hypercholesterolaemia and on lipid modification), but that some people may not tolerate them. The committee noted that NICE technology appraisal - guidance on ezetimibe for treating primary heterozygous familial - and non familial hypercholesterolaemia recommends ezetimibe monotherapy for primary hypercholesterolaemia when statin therapy is contraindicated or not tolerated. It also recommends ezetimibe, co-administered with initial statin therapy, when cholesterol levels are not low enough, even when the dose is increased, or if a person is unable to tolerate higher doses of the statin. The committee concluded that ezetimibe is used to treat primary hypercholesterolaemia (heterozygous-familial and nonfamilial) in adults who are unable to have a statin, or need to supplement statin therapy, and therefore was an appropriate comparator for evolocumab in this appraisal. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 37 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 38 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

4.4 The committee discussed the prevalence of statin intolerance among people with primary hypercholesterolaemia, noting that in NICE’s guideline on familial hypercholesterolaemia: identification and management intolerance to initial statin therapy was defined as ‘the presence of clinically significant adverse effects from statin therapy that are considered to represent an unacceptable risk to the patient or that may compromise adherence to therapy’. The committee understood from the clinical experts that absolute statin intolerance is rare, accounting for less than 5% of people. However, the clinical experts pointed out that up to 25% of people may have some degree of muscle pain that they perceive as being caused by statin intolerance. The committee concluded that absolute statin intolerance was in line with the definition in NICE’s guideline on familial hypercholesterolaemia: identification and management, and that only a few people would have it. 

4.5 The committee discussed the clinical situations in which treatment with evolocumab would be started. It heard from the clinical experts that evolocumab would be used in people with a high clinical unmet need such as people with severe forms of heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia, and those who cannot tolerate statins and who are benefitting only marginally from ezetimibe, which will leave them with a high residual risk of CVD. For these people the only option was lipoprotein apheresis, which has its disadvantages (see section 4.6), and so evolocumab would be a welcome alternative. The committee heard that clinicians were likely to use evolocumab as an add-on, rather than an alternative, to statins and ezetimibe because statins and ezetimibe have well-established safety data, 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 38 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 39 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

are not expensive, and have been robustly shown to improve cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. The committee concluded that, in clinical practice, evolocumab was likely to be reserved for people who are at a high risk of CVD as an add-on to statins and ezetimibe. 

4.6 The committee discussed the place of lipoprotein apheresis in managing primary hypercholesterolaemia. The committee was aware that, although apheresis is recommended in the NICE guideline on familial hypercholesterolaemia as an option for severe heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia, it is not only costly and onerous for the patient, but also difficult to access because only a few centres offer it. The committee noted that current guidelines recommend lipoprotein apheresis for patients with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia or other forms of severe hypercholesterolaemia and with progressive coronary heart disease whose low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains above 5.0 mmol/litre or decreases by less than 40% on maximally tolerable doses of combined drug therapy. The committee concluded that treatments that avoid the need for lipoprotein apheresis would be welcomed. 

## _**Clinical effectiveness**_ 

- 4.7 The committee considered the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for evolocumab, noting that the company’s submission focussed on the results for LDL-C. It was aware that 2 of the 4 RCTs (LAPLACE-2 and GAUSS-2) compared evolocumab directly with ezetimibe, the sole comparator treatment in the scope. However, 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 39 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 40 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

this was only for the non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population, and none of the trials compared evolocumab with ezetimibe for heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia. RUTHERFORD-2 and GAUSS-2 studied evolocumab in 2 subgroups defined in the scope: people with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia, and those who cannot tolerate statins. The committee was aware that none of the trials studied evolocumab plus ezetimibe in any population. The committee agreed that the RCTs were otherwise relevant, and of good quality. It concluded that the trials were suitable for assessing the clinical effectiveness of evolocumab for primary hypercholesterolaemia (non-familial and heterozygousfamilial). 

4.8 The committee discussed whether the RCTs for evolocumab represented people who present with primary hypercholesterolaemia in clinical practice in England. It noted that the trials did not include some people with diabetes (see section 3.5), who may also have primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia. The clinical experts did not consider this to have affected the generalisability of the trial results because, in clinical practice, people with diabetes would have their blood glucose levels controlled before being treated for primary hypercholesterolaemia. In general, the clinical experts agreed that the trials included people who reflected those with primary hypercholesterolaemia seen in clinical practice in England. The committee concluded that the trial results could be generalised to clinical practice. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 41 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 4.9 The committee noted that at both dosages (140 mg every 2 weeks and 420 mg monthly), evolocumab effectively reduced LDL-C by 60–70% compared with placebo, and around 40% compared with ezetimibe. Consistent results were seen across high-risk subgroups including people with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia, and those who cannot tolerate statins. The committee also noted that evolocumab was well tolerated. The committee concluded that, compared with placebo or ezetimibe, evolocumab was clinically effective in reducing LDL-C in people with primary hypercholesterolaemia. 

- 4.10 The committee discussed the effect of evolocumab on CVD in people with primary hypercholesterolaemia. It noted that the RCTs primarily measured surrogate end points (such as LDL-C), and were not powered to measure CV outcomes, which the committee considered to be an important limitation of the evidence base. The committee was aware that the reduction in CV events with statins has been confirmed by many large RCTs. By contrast, adding other lipid-modifying drugs to statins has not consistently been shown to further decrease CV events. The clinical experts generally considered LDL-C to be a reasonable surrogate for future CV events, although they advised that this relationship was uncertain when the LDL-C concentration at baseline is low (below 2.0 mmol/litre). The committee understood that the currently accepted relationship between LDL-C and CV events is based on the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) meta-analysis of statin trials. Further data on the benefit of non-statins on CVD came from RCTs of ileal bypass surgery (POSCH), and recently of ezetimibe 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 41 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 42 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

(IMPROVE-IT), which showed that when ezetimibe was added to a statin, this further reduced CV events compared with statins alone. The committee noted the consultation comments suggesting that the association between reduced LDL-C concentrations and improved CV outcomes was well established and shown in many clinical trials. The committee understood that evolocumab should have a beneficial effect on CV outcomes because it has the same ultimate mechanism for LDL-C reduction as statins. The committee noted the data from OSLER and OSLER-2 on CV events (see section 3.9). However, it considered that these data were based on an exploratory analysis with few events, and were yet to be validated in larger trials. The committee noted that an ongoing RCT, FOURIER, would test whether or not LDL-C is a valid surrogate for CV outcomes for evolocumab. It agreed that this trial would give useful data on the direct effect of evolocumab on CVD, and recommended that the consideration of the review of the guidance is scheduled so that the results of FOURIER could be taken into account (see section 8.1). The committee concluded that, although it was reasonable to infer that evolocumab would reduce CVD, the extent of this reduction was still uncertain, particularly with low concentrations of LDL-C at baseline. 

4.11 The committee discussed the long-term effects of evolocumab. It heard from the clinical experts that the treatment effect could gradually weaken over time, and more likely so when people start treatment with relatively low LDL-C concentrations, but the committee agreed that evolocumab is only likely to be targeted to people with LDL-C concentrations at the high end of the spectrum. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 42 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 43 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

However, the committee also noted the statement from clinical experts suggesting that with evolocumab, there is a theoretical potential for neutralising antibodies to develop and for treatment to lose its effectiveness, although there was no positive evidence that this would be the case. The committee was aware that long-term data were limited, but what data there were did not show that evolocumab may lose its effect over long treatment durations because of neutralising antibodies. The committee heard from the company that in an integrated safety analysis of more than 6000 patients (representing 7,235 patient years of exposure), antievolocumab antibodies were infrequent, non-neutralising, and not associated with clinically relevant adverse events. However, the committee did not consider this analysis to have followed up people for long enough to draw firm conclusions about the long-term effect of evolocumab. Without robust, long-term data the committee could not ascertain whether the effect of evolocumab would be maintained over time at the same level as when therapy was started, although the limited evidence available suggested that any loss of effect would be likely to be infrequent. 

## _**Cost effectiveness**_ 

4.12 The committee considered the company’s model, noting that this reflected the effect of evolocumab on LDL-C, but not on other lipid parameters, including those implicated in mixed dyslipidaemia. The evidence review group (ERG) was concerned about the overall structure of the model, and in particular the 13 composite states, which it considered to be based on many arbitrary assumptions and little evidence (see section 3.24). The committee agreed that the 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 43 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 44 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

composite states reflected specific combinations of CV events, which were unlikely to be robustly modelled given the existing evidence. The committee acknowledged the company’s response to consultation suggesting that the composite states prevented clinically implausible scenarios from occurring in the model, and used assumptions that were endorsed by expert opinion. Although the committee appreciated the logic of using the composite states, it concluded that, without evidence to support the modelling of these states, the internal validity of the model was unclear. 

- 4.13 The committee discussed the modelled populations (that is, nonfamilial hypercholesterolaemia and heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia). It understood that the company initially assumed that people who can tolerate statins have the same characteristics as those who cannot, although the risk of CVD is likely to be affected by whether or not the person can tolerate statins. In response to consultation, the company used GAUSS-2, which only included people who could not tolerate statins, to model people with non-familial hypercholesterolaemia who cannot tolerate statins. The committee concluded that it was more appropriate to model people with non-familial hypercholesterolaemia who can or cannot tolerate statins separately. 

- 4.14 The committee discussed the heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population for which cost-effectiveness results were originally presented (see section 3.39). It noted that the company had modelled patients with or without CVD together. The committee heard from the clinical experts that, in clinical practice, people with CVD are treated more intensively than those 

- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 44 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 45 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

without, and so it would be useful to separate the results for each of these groups. In response to consultation, the company split the heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population by whether or not people had CVD (see section 3.45). The committee concluded that the company’s revised analyses more appropriately reflected clinical practice. 

- 4.15 The committee discussed how the company estimated the risk of CVD in the model. It noted the ERG’s comment that several assumptions and adjustments were needed to predict the risk of CVD before treatment, even though the company could have estimated the risks directly from its analysis of real-world data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD] and Hospital Episode Statistics) without using risk equations that needed secondary modification. The committee heard from the company that it used risk equations to be able to model the profiles of specific high-risk populations, such as those with CVD who have additional risk factors. The committee concluded that using published risk equations, although introducing additional uncertainty, could be accepted if these reliably estimated the risks of CVD. 

- 4.16 The committee discussed whether the risk equations used by the company to predict the risks of CVD at baseline were appropriate. It noted that the company initially used the Framingham Heart Study risk equations for patients without CVD, and the REACH registry risk equations for patients with CVD. The committee was aware that extensive validation studies had shown that the Framingham risk equations systematically overestimated the risk of CVD in UK patients. In response to consultation, the company used 

- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 45 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 46 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

the QRISK2 assessment tool for the non-familial and heterozygousfamilial hypercholesterolaemia populations without CVD. The committee was aware that QRISK2 was more widely used in the UK, being recommended in NICE’s guideline on lipid modification, and targeted to UK patients. It concluded that QRISK2 was more appropriate than the Framingham risk equations for patients without CVD, acknowledging that neither was derived from people with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia. 

4.17 The committee discussed how the company adjusted the risks of CVD predicted from the Framingham and REACH registry risk equations for the heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population. It noted that the company applied a rate ratio of 6.1, derived from a study by Benn et al. (2012), to reflect the increased risk of CVD in this population. The committee was aware that the model was highly sensitive to this parameter (see section 3.43). The committee heard from the ERG that this adjustment was not appropriate mainly because Benn et al. compared the risk of CV events between people with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia and those with non-familial 

hypercholesterolaemia. However, the company applied the rate ratio estimated from Benn et al. to the RUTHERFORD-2 trial population, who were already at high risk of CVD from having heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia. Furthermore, the clinical experts considered that the estimate based on Benn et al. was likely to have significantly overestimated the risk of CVD in patients with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia, although they acknowledged that there was no robust evidence on 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 46 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 47 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

the increased risk of CVD in these patients compared with the general population. The committee also heard from the ERG that the risk of CVD predicted by the model for people with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia, both with or without CVD, was much higher than the risks for the same populations in ‘real-world’ databases, including the CPRD. The committee concluded that the rate ratio from Benn et al. highly overestimated the risk of CVD among people with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia, and cast doubt about the validity of the estimated cost effectiveness of evolocumab for this population. 

4.18 The committee considered how the company captured the lifetime progression of CVD among people with primary hypercholesterolaemia. It noted that the company used estimates from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) meta-analysis to convert the surrogate outcomes measured in the trials (LDL-C concentration) to ‘real-world’ outcomes (CV events). However, the company did not use the 21 trials of ‘statin versus control’. Instead, it used the 5 trials of ‘more versus less intensive statin therapy’ for most CV events from the CTT meta-analysis published in 2010. The committee was aware that a more recent CTT meta-analysis (including a total of 27 trials) was published in 2012. The committee considered that, without a justification for not doing so, the most recent analysis should be used because it provides the most mature data. It also heard from the clinical experts that using the 2012 meta-analysis was preferable. The committee concluded that the 2012 meta-analysis would be more appropriate than earlier data. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 47 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 48 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 4.19 The committee considered how the company applied the treatment effect in the model. It noted that patients in the model had treatment continually over their lifetime, and that the treatment effect lasted throughout the time horizon at the same level as that observed in the short-term trials. The committee agreed that there were no long-term data on the extent to which evolocumab could reduce CVD, or whether this effect would be sustained over time (see sections 4.10 and 4.11). It noted the company’s response to consultation suggesting that there was no evidence that the treatment effect diminished over time, or that neutralising antibodies developed with evolocumab. The committee would have liked the company to have explored further the uncertainty in the long-term effects of evolocumab. The committee concluded that the company’s modelling of the treatment effect was uncertain, although the available evidence suggested that it was unlikely to have a significant impact on the cost effectiveness of treatment. 

- 4.20 The committee considered the utility multipliers used in the model. It agreed that these were generally in line with other values used for people with primary hypercholesterolaemia. However, the committee noted that the relationship assumed between age and utility was based on a study by Dolan et al. (1996), which the ERG considered to be crude and outdated by a more recent equation based on the Health Survey for England. In response to consultation, the company used the equation from the Health Survey for England to inform the relationship between age and background health-related quality of life. The committee concluded that the utility multipliers could be accepted in this appraisal. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 48 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 49 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 4.21 The committee considered the cost effectiveness of the 2 dosages of evolocumab (140 mg every 2 weeks and 420 mg monthly). It recognised that the available cost-effectiveness evidence related to the every 2 weeks dosage and that the company had not presented evidence, apart from a scenario analysis, for the monthly dosage. The committee was aware that evolocumab 420 mg monthly was more expensive than evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks. Without evidence for the monthly dosage, the committee was unable to recommend evolocumab 420 mg monthly. 

- 4.22 The committee discussed the company’s revised incremental costeffectiveness ratios (ICERs), including the patient access scheme, presented as part of the company’s new evidence in response to consultation (see section 3.45). It discussed the ICERs for evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks in people without CVD and, separately, in those with CVD, noting that they all needed considerable caution in their interpretation: 

   - Non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population: the committee noted that the company’s base-case ICERs with the patient access scheme for the non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with or without CVD (£31,000–78,500 per qualityadjusted life year [QALY] gained) were all above the maximum acceptable ICERs normally considered to represent a costeffective use of NHS resources (£20,000–30,000 per QALY gained). 

- Heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population: the committee noted that the ICERs for people without CVD (£21,900–25,600 per QALY gained) were lower than those for 

- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 49 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 50 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

people with CVD (£25,300–32,700 per QALY gained). This was inconsistent with the results for the non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population, and counter-intuitive because people with CVD have a higher risk of CV events, and so would be expected to gain more QALYs from treatment than those without CVD. The committee heard from the company that people without CVD may be benefitting from the prevention of a first CV event. However, it considered that this did not explain why the non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population without CVD would not benefit in the same manner, and have lower ICERs than the population with CVD. The committee heard from the ERG that different CV events were assumed for the nonfamilial and heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia populations and, further, the calibration of CV events for the nonfamilial hypercholesterolaemia population was event-specific, whereas a single rate ratio (6.1) from Benn et al. (2012) was applied to all CV events for the heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population. Therefore, the committee had doubts about the resulting ICERs and their face validity, especially those for people without CVD. 

In addition to the magnitude of the company’s ICERs, and the concerns about their validity for certain subpopulations, the committee recalled its misgivings about using the composite states in the model (see section 4.12), and modelling treatment 

continually over the person’s lifetime, while assuming that its effect would be maintained throughout the time horizon (see section 4.19). Furthermore, the committee had concerns about 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 50 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 51 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

using Benn et al. (2012) to reflect the increased risk of CVD for heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia (see section 4.17). Because of this, it concluded not to recommend evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks for the primary hypercholesterolaemia (heterozygous-familial and non-familial) or mixed dyslipidaemia population as a whole. 

## **Subgroups** 

- 4.23 The committee considered the cost effectiveness of evolocumab in clinically relevant subgroups. It agreed that the company’s analyses had limitations, which made the committee question the validity of the results, particularly those for heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia. Nevertheless, the committee agreed that there was merit in exploring potential subgroups of patients with the highest need. It also noted that most responses to consultation advocated using evolocumab in selected subgroups. The committee considered how it could reconcile the uncertainty in the evidence base with the clinical unmet need in the primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia population. It noted the consistent trend in the company’s results suggesting that the cost effectiveness of evolocumab would improve within a given population as the risk of CVD increases (see section 3.50). The committee acknowledged that evolocumab is a new therapy with a novel mechanism of action, which consistently reduced LDL-C concentrations compared with placebo and ezetimibe, while also being well-tolerated by patients. Taken together, the committee concluded that, although the ICERs were not as robust as it would have liked, they could be used to check a proposed set of 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 51 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 52 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

recommendations guided by the clinical unmet need in the primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia population. 

4.24 The committee discussed which subgroups would have a high clinical unmet need. It noted that the Royal College of Pathologists and a clinical expert considered that evolocumab would be particularly valued for: 

- non-familial hypercholesterolaemia with progressive, symptomatic CVD, and persistently high LDL-C concentrations above 4.0 mmol/litre despite maximal tolerated lipid-lowering therapy 

- heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia with progressive, symptomatic CVD, and persistently high LDL-C concentrations above 4.0 mmol/litre despite maximal tolerated lipid-lowering therapy 

- severe heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia with pretreatment LDL-C concentrations above 8.0 mmol/litre and persistently high LDL-C concentrations above 4.0 mmol/litre despite maximal tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. 

The committee understood that ‘persistent’ LDL-C means ontreatment LDL-C concentrations confirmed by repeated measures. Other consultation comments received also suggested specific subgroups. However, these suggestions would be difficult to implement in the NHS because the subgroups did not reflect clinical practice. The committee agreed that the suggestions from the Royal College of Pathologists and the clinical expert highlighted the areas where the clinical unmet need was highest, concluding 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 52 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 53 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

that it would be appropriate to use them as a starting point in its decision-making. 

4.25 The committee was aware that there was an ongoing NICE appraisal of another PCSK9 inhibitor (alirocumab) and that the evidence submitted for that appraisal differed from this one in a number of ways. Firstly, the risks of CVD at baseline for most populations were estimated directly from observational data without using risk equations, and then modifying the estimated risks to approximate the characteristics of the respective population. Secondly, the 2012 CTT meta-analysis was used to convert the surrogate outcomes measured in the trials to ‘real world’ outcomes, which the committee agreed was more appropriate than using the earlier meta-analysis published in 2010 (see section 4.18). Thirdly, the ICERs were for triple therapy (that is, alirocumab plus statin plus ezetimibe), which the committee heard was likely to be the combination in which PCSK9 inhibitors would be mainly used. For these reasons, the committee was generally satisfied that the ICERs in the appraisal of alirocumab were suitable for decisionmaking. The committee recognised that evolocumab and alirocumab had similar efficacy in clinical trials, and that clinicians generally regarded them as being clinically equivalent. Because of this, the committee concluded that it should refer to the appraisal of alirocumab in its discussion about the subgroups of people who would be prioritised for treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors. 

4.26 The committee considered the subgroups identified as being at high risk of CVD in the appraisal of alirocumab. It was aware that that appraisal defined 2 levels of CVD risks: 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 53 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 54 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- High risk of CVD: previous acute coronary syndrome (such as myocardial infarction or unstable angina needing hospitalisation), coronary or other arterial revascularisation procedures, chronic heart disease, ischaemic stroke, or peripheral arterial disease. 

- Very high risk of CVD: recurrent CV events or CV events in more than 1 vascular bed (that is, polyvascular disease). 

The committee noted that the CV events defining these risk levels meant that the definition of CVD was more restricted in the appraisal of alirocumab than in this appraisal (see section 3.22). The committee concluded that it would be mindful of the distinction between high and very high risk of CVD in the appraisal of alirocumab when considering subgroups with a high unmet need. 

## _**Non-familial hypercholesterolaemia with CVD**_ 

- 4.27 The Royal College of Pathologists and the clinical expert recommended persistently high LDL-C concentrations above 4.0 mmol/litre for non-familial hypercholesterolaemia with progressive, symptomatic CVD. The committee understood that most people in this subgroup will not have been able to tolerate statins, and would consequently have a high residual risk of CVD. The committee agreed that the company’s subgroup with acute coronary syndrome could be considered a reasonable proxy for progressive, symptomatic CVD. The company estimated that people with a mean LDL-C concentration of 4.0 mmol/litre and acute coronary syndrome who can tolerate statins had ICERs of £37,700 (LAPLACE-2) and £29,200 (CPRD) per QALY gained for 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 54 of 80 Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 55 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

evolocumab plus statin compared with ezetimibe plus statin. These ICERs would be lower for a minimum, as opposed to a mean, LDL-C concentration of 4.0 mmol/litre. The committee recognised that the company’s ICERs for evolocumab were high. However, it noted from the ongoing appraisal of alirocumab that when a more restricted definition of CVD is used, the ICERs were likely to decrease. The committee agreed that the remaining uncertainty around the ICER could be accepted because evolocumab would represent an important treatment option for this group of patients, who have a relatively high risk of CVD and few treatment options. The committee concluded that it could recommend evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks for primary non-familial hypercholesterolaemia with CVD in people with LDL-C concentrations persistently above 4.0 mmol/litre. 

4.28 The committee discussed whether there would be people with LDL-C concentrations below 4.0 mmol/litre at very high risk of CVD who could benefit from evolocumab. It considered the response to the second appraisal consultation document, which suggested that specifying a minimum LDL-C concentration above 4.0 mmol/litre to start treatment would exclude some people at high risk of CVD because of a poor response to statins, statin intolerance, or a high pre-treatment LDL-C concentration. The response noted that in one-sixth of people, high-dose statins will reduce LDL-C concentrations by less than 39%. The committee heard from the clinical experts that LDL-C concentrations below 4.0 mmol/litre in themselves would not pose as high a risk of CVD as those above 4.0 mmol/litre, but other factors will sometimes increase the risk of 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 55 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 56 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

CVD. The committee recalled that in the ongoing appraisal of alirocumab, a group considered to be at even higher risk of CVD than the non-familial hypercholesterolaemia population with CVD as a whole was defined (group at ‘very high risk of CVD’; see section 4.26). The committee accepted that requiring a minimum LDL-C concentration of 4.0 mmol/litre may exclude a small group with additional risk factors for CVD who do not have an effective option to reduce their risk of CVD. It revisited the company’s subgroup analyses, noting that these suggested that evolocumab would be cost effective for people with more than 1 risk factor, or with disease in multiple vascular beds (see section 3.50). The committee discussed whether a lower LDL-C concentration of 3.5 mmol/litre for starting treatment would be more appropriate than 4.0 mmol/litre for that group. It heard from the clinical experts that the benefit of treatment on CV outcomes below an LDL-C concentration of 3.5 mmol/litre was still being researched. 

Therefore, the committee concluded that for primary non-familial hypercholesterolaemia with very high risk of CVD (as defined in section 4.26), evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks could be recommended in people with LDL-C concentrations persistently above 3.5 mmol/litre. 

## _**Heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia with CVD**_ 

- 4.29 The Royal College of Pathologists and the clinical expert recommended persistently high LDL-C concentrations above 

4.0 mmol/litre for heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia with progressive, symptomatic CVD. The committee recognised that people in this subgroup with LDL-C concentrations above 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 56 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 57 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

5.0 mmol/litre would be eligible for apheresis according to the current guidelines (see section 4.6), reflecting a high clinical unmet need. Although it recalled its misgivings about the calculations, the committee noted that the company’s ICER for people with an LDL-C concentration above 4.0 mmol/litre would be lower than £30,200 per QALY gained. It also considered responses to the second appraisal consultation document, suggesting that a minimum LDL-C concentration above 4 mmol/litre to start treatment would exclude some people at high risk of CVD. The committee noted that the company’s ICER for heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia with CVD in people with a mean LDL-C concentration of 3.5 mmol/litre was £33,600 per QALY gained, but would be lower for people with progressive symptomatic CVD whose minimum, rather than mean, LDL-C concentration was 3.5 mmol/litre. Also, restricting the definition of CVD as in the appraisal of alirocumab would further reduce the ICER. The committee, accepting that a minimum LDL-C concentration of 4 mmol/litre may exclude a group at high risk of CVD, agreed that a lower LDL-C concentration of 3.5 mmol/litre for starting treatment would be more appropriate than 4.0 mmol/litre for heterozygousfamilial hypercholesterolaemia with CVD. The committee concluded that for this population, it could recommend evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks in people at high risk, or very high risk, of CVD (as defined in section 4.26) with LDL-C concentrations persistently above 3.5 mmol/litre. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 58 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## _**Heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia without CVD**_ 

- 4.30 For the subgroup with heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia without CVD, the Royal College of Pathologists and the clinical expert recommended a pre-treatment LDL-C concentration above 8.0 mmol/litre, and a persistently high LDL-C concentration above 4.0 mmol/litre. The company’s estimated ICER for people with a mean LDL-C concentration of 4.0 mmol/litre was less than £23,500 per QALY gained. However, the committee had doubts about the validity of the ICERs for the heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population without CVD (see section 4.22). The committee was aware that in the ongoing appraisal of alirocumab the risks of CVD for most populations were estimated directly from real-world data without using the rate ratio from Benn et al., and the ICERs for heterozygous-familial 

hypercholesterolaemia were higher for people without CVD than those with CVD. The committee noted the response to the second appraisal consultation document suggesting that the 4.0 mmol/litre threshold already defined a higher risk subgroup within the heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia population, and that the additional criterion for pre-treatment LDL-C concentration (above 8.0 mmol/litre) would exclude some people at high risk of CVD in whom evolocumab would be cost effective. The committee understood from the clinical experts that the risk of CVD varies widely among people with heterozygous-familial 

hypercholesterolaemia. A pre-treatment LDL-C concentration above 8 mmol/litre, corresponding to the 90th percentile, has historically been used to define 'severe heterozygous-familial 

hypercholesterolaemia’, which reflects long exposure to high LDL-C National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 58 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 59 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

concentrations. This is associated with an increased risk of CVD of 25% compared with non-severe heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia. The committee agreed that a minimum LDL-C concentration on repeated measures, rather than a single pre-treatment measure, would capture severe heterozygousfamilial hypercholesterolaemia with less potential to exclude people at high risk of CVD (young people, for example, because LDL-C concentrations increase with age). The committee was aware that the current criteria for apheresis require the LDL-C concentration to remain above 5.0 mmol/litre. Without further evidence on how to identify people at high risk of CVD within this subgroup, the committee agreed that this threshold would adequately capture such people. The committee concluded that it could recommend evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks for heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia without CVD in people with LDL-C concentrations persistently above 5.0 mmol/litre. 

## **Overall conclusion** 

- 4.31 The committee agreed that evolocumab would be a clinically and cost-effective use of NHS resource in certain subgroups. It concluded that it could recommend evolocumab, only if: 

   - the dosage is 140 mg every 2 weeks 

   - the person has primary non-familial hypercholesterolaemia and 

      - a history of any of the following: acute coronary syndrome (such as myocardial infarction or unstable angina needing hospitalisation); coronary or other arterial revascularisation 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 59 of 80 Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 60 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

procedures; chronic heart disease; ischaemic stroke; or peripheral arterial disease and 

   - an LDL-C concentration persistently above 4.0 mmol/litre 

- the person has primary non-familial hypercholesterolaemia and 

   - recurrent CV events or CV events in more than 1 vascular bed (that is, polyvascular disease) and 

   - an LDL-C concentration persistently above 3.5 mmol/litre 

- the person has primary heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia and 

   - a history of any of the following: acute coronary syndrome (such as myocardial infarction or unstable angina needing hospitalisation); coronary or other arterial revascularisation procedures; chronic heart disease; ischaemic stroke; or peripheral arterial disease and 

   - an LDL-C concentration persistently above 3.5 mmol/litre 

- the person has primary heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia and 

   - no CVD and 

   - an LDL-C concentration persistently above 5.0 mmol/litre 

- the company provides evolocumab with the discount agreed in the patient access scheme. 

Without evidence for the monthly dosage, the committee was unable to recommend evolocumab 420 mg monthly for primary hypercholesterolaemia (heterozygous-familial and non-familial) or mixed dyslipidaemia. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 60 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 61 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

|4.32|The committee was aware that the company’s model did not|
|---|---|
||include people with mixed dyslipidaemia. It discussed whether its|
||recommendations for primary hypercholesterolaemia could be|
||generalised to mixed dyslipidaemia. The committee recalled its|
||conclusion that evolocumab may be used for mixed dyslipidaemia|
||when LDL-C concentrations remain very high despite maximum|
||statin and ezetimibe management (see section 4.2). The committee|
||was aware that people with mixed dyslipidaemia also have|
||elevated LDL-C concentrations, and that treatment for mixed|
||dyslipidaemia is partly determined by the LDL-C concentration. The|
||committee was aware that people with heterozygous-familial|
||hypercholesterolaemia are considered to be at high risk of CVD not|
||only because of the high LDL-C concentrations, but also because|
||of the lifelong exposure to such concentrations. Because of this,|
||the committee concluded that the recommendations for mixed|
||dyslipidaemia should follow those for non-familial|
||hypercholesterolaemia because mixed dyslipidaemia is not|
||associated with additional risk factors that warrant intervention at|
||lower LDL-C concentrations.|



- 4.33 The committee was aware that the Royal College of Pathologists and the clinical expert recommended that LDL-C concentrations had to be persistently high despite maximal tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. It recalled that statins with or without ezetimibe are the mainstay of treatment for primary hypercholesterolaemia. However, some people may be misidentified as being unable to tolerate statins (see section 4.4), and this may worsen the cost effectiveness of subsequent treatment. Because of this, the 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 61 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 62 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

committee emphasised that its recommendations for evolocumab should only apply when maximal tolerated lipid-lowering therapy has failed. It clarified that this meant that either the maximum dose has been reached or further titration is limited by intolerance (as defined in NICE’s guideline on familial hypercholesterolaemia: identification and management). The committee was aware that there may also be people in whom statins are contraindicated. These people have the same unmet clinical need as those who cannot tolerate statins, and so should have the same treatment options. In addition, there is no biologically plausible reason for the effect to differ between these 2 groups. Because of this, the committee concluded that its recommendations should also apply to people in whom statins are contraindicated. 

4.34 The committee discussed whether the ICERs presented reflect the cost of evolocumab to the NHS. It understood that the actual discount received by the NHS may be less than the percentage discount offered in the patient access scheme. This is because people may move from secondary to primary care after 2–3 years, and simple discounts do not apply when drugs are prescribed through GP’s FP10 prescriptions. The committee considered that the subgroups for which evolocumab is recommended have severe hypercholesterolaemia and a high risk of CVD, so people should continue treatment under secondary care where simple patient access schemes apply. The committee concluded that the discounted patient access scheme price of evolocumab would be consistently applied for all people for whom evolocumab is recommended. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 62 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 63 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 4.35 The committee considered whether it should take into account the consequences of the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) 2014, and in particular the PPRS payment mechanism, when appraising evolocumab. The committee noted NICE's position statement in this regard, and accepted the conclusion 'that the 2014 PPRS payment mechanism should not, as a matter of course, be regarded as a relevant consideration in its assessment of the cost effectiveness of branded medicines'. The committee heard nothing to suggest that there is any basis for taking a different view with regard to the relevance of the PPRS to this appraisal of evolocumab. It therefore concluded that the PPRS payment mechanism was not applicable for considering the cost effectiveness of evolocumab. 

## _**Summary of appraisal committee’s key conclusions**_ 

|**TAXXX**|**Appraisal title: Evolocumab for treating**<br>**primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed**<br>**dyslipidaemia**|**Section**|
|---|---|---|
|**Key conclusion**|||
|Evolocumab is recommended, only if:<br>the dosage is 140 mg every 2 weeks and<br>the person has primary non-familial hypercholesterolaemia or<br>mixed dyslipidaemia and<br>a history of any of the following: acute coronary syndrome (such<br>as myocardial infarction or unstable angina needing<br>hospitalisation); coronary or other arterial revascularisation||1.1,<br>4.23,<br>4.25,<br>4.31|
|National Institute for Health and Care Excellence<br>Page 63 of 80|||



Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 64 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

procedures; chronic heart disease; ischaemic stroke; or peripheral arterial disease and  a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration persistently above 4.0 mmol/litre  the person has primary non-familial hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia and  recurrent cardiovascular (CV) events or CV events in more than 1 vascular bed (that is, polyvascular disease) and  an LDL-C concentration persistently above 3.5 mmol/litre  the person has primary heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia and  a history of any of the following: acute coronary syndrome (such as myocardial infarction or unstable angina needing hospitalisation), coronary or other arterial revascularisation procedures, chronic heart disease, ischaemic stroke, or peripheral arterial disease and  an LDL-C concentration persistently above 3.5 mmol/litre  the person has primary heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia and  no cardiovascular disease (CVD) and  an LDL-C concentration persistently above 5.0 mmol/litre  the company provides evolocumab with the discount agreed in the patient access scheme. The committee agreed that the company’s analyses had limitations, which made the committee question the validity of the results. Nevertheless, the committee agreed that there was merit in exploring 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 64 of 80 Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 65 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

|potential subgroups of patients with the highest need.<br>To reconcile the uncertainty in the evidence base with the clinical<br>unmet need in the primary hypercholesterolaemia population, the<br>committee concluded that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios<br>(ICERs) could be used to check a proposed set of recommendations<br>guided by the clinical unmet need in this population.<br>The committee also concluded that it should refer to the appraisal of<br>alirocumab in its discussion about the subgroups of people who<br>would be prioritised for treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors because<br>evolocumab and alirocumab belonged to the same class of drugs,<br>and were regarded as being clinically equivalent.|potential subgroups of patients with the highest need.<br>To reconcile the uncertainty in the evidence base with the clinical<br>unmet need in the primary hypercholesterolaemia population, the<br>committee concluded that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios<br>(ICERs) could be used to check a proposed set of recommendations<br>guided by the clinical unmet need in this population.<br>The committee also concluded that it should refer to the appraisal of<br>alirocumab in its discussion about the subgroups of people who<br>would be prioritised for treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors because<br>evolocumab and alirocumab belonged to the same class of drugs,<br>and were regarded as being clinically equivalent.||
|---|---|---|
|**Current practice**|||
|Clinical need of<br>patients, including<br>the availability of<br>alternative<br>treatments|The committee heard that the clinical unmet<br>need was high in some groups, such as<br>people with severe forms of heterozygous-<br>familial hypercholesterolaemia, and those who<br>cannot tolerate statins and who are benefitting<br>only marginally from ezetimibe.<br>The committee was aware that lipoprotein<br>apheresis is not only costly and onerous for<br>the patient, but also difficult to access. It<br>concluded that treatments that avoid the need<br>for lipoprotein apheresis would be welcomed.|4.5, 4.6,|
|**The technology**|||



National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 66 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

|Proposed benefits of<br>the technology<br>How innovative is<br>the technology in its<br>potential to make a<br>significant and<br>substantial impact<br>on health-related<br>benefits?|The committee acknowledged that<br>evolocumab is a new therapy with a novel<br>mechanism of action, which consistently<br>reduced LDL-C concentrations compared with<br>placebo and ezetimibe, while also being well-<br>tolerated by patients.|4.23|
|---|---|---|
|What is the position<br>of the treatment in<br>the pathway of care<br>for the condition?|The committee concluded that, in clinical<br>practice, evolocumab was likely to be<br>reserved for people who are at a high risk of<br>CVD as an add-on to statins and ezetimibe.|4.5|
|Adverse reactions|The committee noted that evolocumab was<br>well tolerated.|4.9|
|**Evidence for clinical effectiveness**|||
|Availability, nature<br>and quality of<br>evidence|The committee was aware that 2 of the<br>4 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for<br>evolocumab gave direct evidence for the<br>comparison with ezetimibe, although this was<br>only for the non-familial<br>hypercholesterolaemia population, and<br>2 RCTs studied evolocumab in subgroups<br>defined in the scope. The committee agreed|4.7,<br>4.10|



National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 67 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

||that the RCTs were relevant, and of good<br>quality.<br>The committee noted that the RCTs primarily<br>measured surrogate end points, and were not<br>powered to measure CV outcomes, which the<br>committee considered to be an important<br>limitation of the evidence base.||
|---|---|---|
|Relevance to<br>general clinical<br>practice in the NHS|The committee concluded that the trial results<br>could be generalised to clinical practice in<br>England.|4.8|
|Uncertainties<br>generated by the<br>evidence|The committee concluded that the extent to<br>which evolocumab could reduce CVD was still<br>uncertain, particularly with low concentrations<br>of LDL-C at baseline.<br>Without robust, long-term data the committee<br>could not ascertain whether the effect of<br>evolocumab would be maintained over time at<br>the same level as when therapy was started.|4.10,<br>4.11|
|Are there any<br>clinically relevant<br>subgroups for which<br>there is evidence of<br>differential<br>effectiveness?|The committee noted that the clinical trial<br>results were consistent across high-risk<br>subgroups including people with<br>heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia,<br>and those who cannot tolerate statins.|4.9|



National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 67 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 68 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

|Estimate of the size<br>of the clinical<br>effectiveness<br>including strength of<br>supporting evidence|The committee noted that evolocumab<br>effectively reduced LDL-C by 60–70%<br>compared with placebo, and around 40%<br>compared with ezetimibe.|4.9|
|---|---|---|
|**Evidence for cost effectiveness**|||
|Availability and<br>nature of evidence|The committee concluded that the internal<br>validity of the model was unclear because the<br>composite states were unlikely to be robustly<br>modelled given the existing evidence.|4.12|
|Uncertainties around<br>and plausibility of<br>assumptions and<br>inputs in the<br>economic model|The committee concluded that the rate ratio<br>from Benn et al. (2012) highly overestimated<br>the risk of CVD among people with<br>heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia,<br>and cast doubt about the validity of the<br>estimated cost effectiveness of evolocumab<br>for this population.<br>The committee concluded that the company’s<br>modelling of the treatment effect was<br>uncertain because there were no long-term<br>data on the extent to which evolocumab could<br>reduce CVD, or whether this effect would be<br>sustained over time.|4.17,<br>4.19|



National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 69 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

|Incorporation of<br>health-related<br>quality-of-life<br>benefits and utility<br>values<br>Have any potential<br>significant and<br>substantial health-<br>related benefits been<br>identified that were<br>not included in the<br>economic model,<br>and how have they<br>been considered?|The committee concluded that the utility<br>multipliers were generally in line with other<br>values used for people with primary<br>hypercholesterolaemia, and could be<br>accepted in this appraisal.|4.20|
|---|---|---|
|Are there specific<br>groups of people for<br>whom the<br>technology is<br>particularly cost<br>effective?|The committee noted the consistent trend in<br>the company’s results suggesting that the cost<br>effectiveness of evolocumab would improve<br>within a given population as the risk of CVD<br>increases.|4.23|
|What are the key<br>drivers of cost<br>effectiveness?|The committee was aware that the model was<br>highly sensitive to the rate ratio used to reflect<br>the increased risk of CVD in the<br>heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia<br>population.|4.17|



National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 69 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 70 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

|Most likely cost-<br>effectiveness<br>estimate (given as<br>an ICER)|The company estimated the following ICERs<br>for the subgroups for whom evolocumab is<br>recommended:<br>Non-familial hypercholesterolaemia or<br>mixed dyslipidaemia with CVD in people at<br>high risk of CVD whose LDL-C<br>concentrations are persistently above<br>4.0 mmol/litre: lower than £37,700 (based<br>on the LAPLACE-2 population) and<br>£29,200 (based on the Clinical Practice<br>Research Datalink population) per quality-<br>adjusted life–year (QALY) gained.<br>Non-familial hypercholesterolaemia or<br>mixed dyslipidaemia with CVD in people at<br>very high risk of CVD whose LDL-C<br>concentrations are persistently above<br>3.5 mmol/litre: no specific ICER reported.<br>Heterozygous-familial<br>hypercholesterolaemia with CVD in people<br>whose LDL-C concentrations are<br>persistently above 3.5 mmol/litre: lower<br>than £33,600 per QALY gained.<br>Heterozygous-familial<br>hypercholesterolaemia without CVD in<br>people whose LDL-C concentrations are<br>persistently above 5.0 mmol/litre: no<br>specific ICER reported.|4.27–<br>4.30|
|---|---|---|



National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 70 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 71 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

|**Additional factors taken into account**|**Additional factors taken into account**||
|---|---|---|
|Patient access<br>schemes (PPRS)|The company has agreed a simple discount<br>patient access scheme with the Department of<br>Health.|2.3|
|End-of-life<br>considerations|Not applicable.||
|Equalities<br>considerations and<br>social value<br>judgements|The clinical experts noted that community<br>nursing support will be needed if patients<br>cannot self-inject. They also noted that<br>patients in geographically remote areas may<br>have difficulty accessing specialist care to<br>start therapy.<br>None of these was considered an equality<br>issue according to the legislation, and so the<br>committee did not need to change its<br>recommendations in any way.||



**5 Implementation** 5.1 Section 7(6) of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Constitution and Functions) and the Health and Social Care Information Centre (Functions) Regulations 2013 requires clinical commissioning groups, NHS England and, with respect to their public health functions, local authorities to comply with the 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 71 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 72 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

recommendations in this appraisal within 3 months of its date of publication. 

- 5.2 The Welsh Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services has issued directions to the NHS in Wales on implementing NICE technology appraisal guidance. When a NICE technology appraisal recommends the use of a drug or treatment, or other technology, the NHS in Wales must usually provide funding and resources for it within 3 months of the guidance being published. 

- 5.3 When NICE recommends a treatment ‘as an option’, the NHS must make sure it is available within the period set out in the paragraphs above. This means that, if a patient has primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia and the doctor responsible for their care thinks that evolocumab is the right treatment, it should be available for use, in line with NICE’s recommendations. 

- 5.4 The Department of Health and Amgen have agreed that evolocumab will be available to the NHS with a patient access scheme which makes it available with a discount. The size of the discount is commercial in confidence. It is the responsibility of the company to communicate details of the discount to the relevant NHS organisations. Any enquiries from NHS organisations about the patient access scheme should be directed to [NICE to add details at time of publication]. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 73 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## **6 Recommendations for research** 

6.1 The committee was aware that an ongoing randomised controlled trial, FOURIER, would test whether or not low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a viable surrogate for cardiovascular outcomes for evolocumab. The committee agreed that this trial would give useful data on the direct effect of evolocumab on cardiovascular disease. 

## **7 Related NICE guidance** 

Details are correct at the time of consultation and will be removed when the final guidance is published. Further information is available on the NICE website. 

## **Published** 

- Ezetimibe for treating primary heterozygous-familial and non-familial hypercholesterolaemia. (2016) NICE technology appraisal guidance 385 

- Cardiovascular disease: risk assessment and reduction, including lipid modification. (2014) NICE guideline CG181 

- Familial hypercholesterolaemia: identification and management. (2008) NICE guideline CG71 

- Ezetimibe for the treatment of primary (heterozygous-familial and nonfamilial) hypercholesterolaemia. (2007) NICE technology appraisal guidance 132 

## **Under development** 

- Hypercholesterolaemia (primary) and dyslipidaemia (mixed) – alirocumab. 

NICE technology appraisal guidance (publication expected June 2016) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 73 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 74 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- Familial hypercholesterolaemia (standing committee update). NICE guideline (publication expected January 2017) 

## **8 Review of guidance** 

- 8.1 The guidance on this technology will be considered for review when the FOURIER trial is completed (planned for February 2018) so that the results of the trial can be taken into account. The guidance executive will decide whether the technology should be reviewed based on information gathered by NICE, and in consultation with consultees and commentators. 

Andrew Stevens 

Chair, appraisal committee January 2016 


> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 




<!-- page 75 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## **9 Appraisal committee members, guideline representatives and NICE project team** 

## _**Appraisal committee members**_ 

The appraisal committees are standing advisory committees of NICE. Members are appointed for a 3-year term. A list of the committee members who took part in the discussions for this appraisal appears below. There are 4 appraisal committees, each with a chair and vice chair. Each appraisal committee meets once a month, except in December when there are no meetings. Each committee considers its own list of technologies, and ongoing topics are not moved between committees. 

Committee members are asked to declare any interests in the technology to be appraised. If it is considered there is a conflict of interest, the member is excluded from participating further in that appraisal. 

The minutes of each appraisal committee meeting, which include the names of the members who attended and their declarations of interests, are posted on the NICE website. 

## **Professor Andrew Stevens** 

Chair of appraisal committee C, Professor of Public Health, University of Birmingham 

## **Professor Eugene Milne** 

Vice Chair of appraisal committee C, Director of Public Health, City of Newcastle upon Tyne 

## **Dr Ian Bernstein** 

General Practitioner and Musculoskeletal Physician, NHS Ealing CCG 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 75 of 80 

Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 76 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## **Dr David Black** 

Medical Director, NHS South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw 

## **Mr David Chandler** 

Lay Member 

## **Mrs Gail Coster** 

Advanced Practice Sonographer, Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust 

## **Professor Peter Crome** 

Honorary Professor, Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London 

## **Professor Rachel A Elliott** 

Lord Trent Professor of Medicines and Health, University of Nottingham 

## **Dr Nigel Langford** 

Consultant in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics and Acute Physician, Leicester Royal Infirmary 

## **Dr Andrea Manca** 

Health Economist and Senior Research Fellow, University of York 

## **Dr Patrick McKiernan** 

Consultant Paediatrician, Birmingham Children’s Hospital 

## **Dr Iain Miller** 

Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Health Strategies Group 

## **Dr Paul Miller** 

Director, Payer Evidence, Astrazeneca UK Ltd 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 77 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## **Professor Stephen O’Brien** 

Professor of Haematology, Newcastle University 

## **Dr Anna O’Neill** 

Deputy Head of Nursing & Health Care School, Senior Clinical University 

Teacher, University of Glasgow 

## **Professor Andrew Renehan** 

Professor of Cancer Studies and Surgery, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust 

## **Dr Claire Rothery** 

Research Fellow in Health Economics, University of York 

## **Professor Matt Stevenson** 

Technical Director, School of Health and Related Research, University of 

Sheffield 

## **Dr Paul Tappenden** 

Reader in Health Economic Modelling **,** School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield 

## **Professor Robert Walton** 

Clinical Professor of Primary Medical Care, Barts and The London School of Medicine & Dentistry 

## **Dr Judith Wardle** 

Lay Member 

## _**NICE project team**_ 

Each technology appraisal is assigned to a team consisting of 1 or more health technology analysts (who act as technical leads for the appraisal), a technical adviser and a project manager. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 78 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## **Ahmed Elsada** 

Technical Lead 

## **Nicola Hay** 

Technical Adviser 

## **Lori Farrar** and **Stephanie Yates** 

Project Managers 

## **10 Sources of evidence considered by the committee** 

A. The evidence review group (ERG) report for this appraisal was prepared by School of Health and Related Research: 

- Carroll C, Tappenden P, Rafia R et al. Evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia: A Single Technology Appraisal. School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), September 2015 

B. The following organisations accepted the invitation to participate in this appraisal as consultees and commentators. They were invited to comment on the draft scope, the ERG report and the appraisal consultation document (ACD). Organisations listed in I were also invited to make written submissions. Organisations listed in II and III had the opportunity to make written submissions. Organisations listed in I, II and III also have the opportunity to appeal against the final appraisal determination. 

- I. Company: 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 

> Issue date: April 2016 



<!-- page 79 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- Amgen 

## II. Professional/expert and patient/carer groups: 

- HEART UK 

- Royal College of Nursing 

- Royal College of Pathologists 

- Royal College of Physicians 

- UK Clinical Pharmacy Association 

## III. Other consultees: 

- Department of Health 

- NHS Barking and Dagenham Clinical Commissioning Group 

- NHS England 

- NHS Walsall Clinical Commissioning Group 

- Welsh Government 

IV. Commentator organisations (did not provide written evidence and without the right of appeal): 

- Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for Northern Ireland 

- Healthcare Improvement Scotland 

- Merck Sharp & Dohme 

- Sanofi 

C. The following individuals were selected from clinical expert and patient expert nominations from the consultees and commentators. They gave their expert personal view on evolocumab for treating primary hyperlipidaemia and 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 79 of 80 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 




<!-- page 80 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

mixed dyslipidaemia by attending the initial committee discussion and providing a written statement to the committee. They were invited to comment on the ACD. 

- Professor Antony Wierzbicki, Consultant in Metabolic Medicine, nominated by HEART UK – clinical expert 

- Dr Handrean Soren, Consultant Physician and Endocrinologist, nominated by HEART UK – clinical expert 

- Steve Forster, nominated by HEART UK – patient expert 

- Karen Hasid, Patient Representative, nominated by HEART UK – patient expert 

- Simon Williams, Head of Communications and Policy nominated by HEART UK 

E. Representatives from the following company attended committee meetings. They contributed only when asked by the committee chair to clarify specific issues and comment on factual accuracy. 

- Amgen 

> Final appraisal determination – evolocumab for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia 


National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


