<!-- page 1 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

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

# **Final appraisal determination** 

# **Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma** 

## **1 Recommendations** 

- 1.1 Nivolumab as monotherapy is recommended, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma in adults. 

## **2 The technology** 

- 2.1 Nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a human monoclonal antibody (immunoglobulin G4) that blocks the programmed cell death-1 receptor (PD-1). This receptor is part of the immune checkpoint pathway, and blocking its activity may promote an anti-tumour immune response. Nivolumab has a marketing authorisation as monotherapy ‘for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma in adults’. It is administered intravenously over 60 minutes at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The summary of product characteristics recommends that ‘treatment should be continued as long as clinical benefit is observed or until treatment is no longer tolerated’. 

- 2.2 The most common (occurring in 15% or more of people) adverse reactions with nivolumab in clinical trials of advanced melanoma were fatigue, rash, itching, diarrhoea, and nausea. For full details of adverse reactions and contraindications, see the summary of product characteristics. 

- 2.3 The acquisition cost of nivolumab is £439 per 4 ml (40 mg) vial and £1097 per 10 ml (100 mg) vial (excluding VAT; company’s submission). Costs 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 1 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma 




<!-- page 2 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

may vary in different settings because of negotiated procurement discounts. 

## **3 Evidence** 

The Appraisal Committee considered evidence submitted by Bristol-Myers Squibb and a review of this submission by the Evidence Review Group (ERG). See the Committee papers for full details of the evidence. 

## _**Clinical effectiveness**_ 

- 3.1 The company presented evidence from 3 ongoing phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs; CheckMate-066, CheckMate-067 and CheckMate-037). These trials evaluated the clinical effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy, administered intravenously (IV) every 2 weeks at a dose of 3 mg per kg of body weight. The company also included a phase I dose escalating study (CheckMate-033) as supporting evidence. 

- 3.2 CheckMate-066 was a multicentre, international (no centres in the UK), double-blind RCT that compared nivolumab (n=210) with dacarbazine 1000mg/m[2] IV every 3 weeks (n=208), in people with untreated advanced melanoma without a BRAF mutation. CheckMate-067 was a multicentre, international (7 UK centres), double-blind RCT that compared nivolumab monotherapy (n=316) or nivolumab combined with ipilimumab (n=314) with ipilimumab monotherapy 3mg/kg IV every 3 weeks (n=315) in people with untreated advanced melanoma with and without the BRAF mutation. The company did not present results for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm because it is outside the scope of this appraisal. CheckMate-037 was a multicentre, international (5 UK centres), open-label RCT that compared nivolumab (n=272) with the investigators’ choice of chemotherapy **-** 

- (n=133), in people with BRAF mutation negative advanced melanoma that **-** 

- progressed on or after ipilimumab, and BRAF mutation positive advanced melanoma that progressed on or after ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor (vemurafenib or dabrafenib). The investigators’ choice of chemotherapy was dacarbazine or carboplatin plus paclitaxel. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 2 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 3 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 3.3 The company stated that baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally well balanced across the trials, with the exception of a higher proportion of patients with a history of brain metastases (19.5% compared with 13.5%) and elevated LDH (51.1% compared with 34.6%) in the nivolumab arm of CheckMate-037. 

- 3.4 Overall survival data were only available from CheckMate-066. In CheckMate-067 and 037 the minimum follow-up period was not reached or an insufficient number of events (deaths) had occurred at the time of analysis. Overall survival from CheckMate-066 was based on an interim analysis at a median follow-up of 8.9 months in the nivolumab group and 6.8 months in the dacarbazine group. In the nivolumab group 50 out of 210 (23.8%) of patients had died at the time of the analysis therefore median overall survival could not be estimated. Patients in the dacarbazine group had a median survival of 10.8 months. The corresponding hazard ratio for death in the nivolumab group compared with the dacarbazine group was 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30 to 0.60). 

- 3.5 All 3 trials reported progression-free survival, defined as the time interval between randomisation and disease progression or death. Nivolumab was associated with statistically significant increases in progression-free survival, compared with dacarbazine and ipilimumab in CheckMate-066 and 067 respectively. However, in CheckMate-037 there was no statistically significant difference in progression-free survival between nivolumab and the comparator (investigators’ choice of chemotherapy); see table 1 for results. The company stated that the results from CheckMate-037 were confounded by immaturity of the data, imbalances in the prognostic factors between trial groups, high withdrawal rates in the comparator arm and false-positive progression assessments in the nivolumab arm resulting from the use of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST criteria). 


National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 4 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## `-` **Table 1 Clinical effectiveness outcomes from the CheckMate trials** 

|**Outcomes**|**Nivolumab**|**Comparator**|**Hazard ratio**<br>**(95% CI)**|**p value**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Overall survival**|||||
|CheckMate-066 (nivolumab [n=210] vs dacarbazine [n=208])|||||
|Events (death) %|23.8|46.2|0.42<br>(0.30 to 0.60)|<0.001|
|Median survival<br>(months)|Not reached|10.84|Not applicable|Not applicable|
|**Progression free survival**|||||
|CheckMate-066 (nivolumab [n=210] vs dacarbazine [n=208])|||||
|Events (death or<br>progression), %|51.4|78.4|0.43<br>(0.34 to 0.56)|<0.001|
|Median PFS (months)|5.06|2.17||<0.05|
|CheckMate-067 (nivolumab [n=316] vs ipilimumab [n=315])|||||
|Events (death or<br>progression) %|55.1|74.3|0.57<br>(0.43 to 0.76)|<0.001|
|Median PFS (months)|6.9|2.9||<0.05|
|CheckMate-037 (nivolumab [n=122] vs investigators’ choice of chemotherapy [n=60])|||||
|Events (death or<br>progression) %|58.2|43.3|0.82<br> (99.99% CI<br>0.32 to 2.05)|Not significant|
|Median PFS (months)|4.67|4.24||Not significant|
|Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; n, number; PFS, progression free survival; vs, compared with|||||



- 3.6 The objective response rate (defined as the proportion of patients with complete or partial response assessed by RECIST criteria) was the primary outcome in CheckMate-037 and a secondary outcome in CheckMate-066 and CheckMate-067. Patients treated with nivolumab had statistically significantly better objective response rate than in the comparator arms in all trials. 

- 3.7 The company included health-related quality of life results only from CheckMate-066. EQ-5D utility index scores and EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scores were higher at baseline and for the entire period of observation for nivolumab compared with dacarbazine. However, there was no improvement in quality of life from baseline in the nivolumab arm, or a consistent difference in quality of life between nivolumab and dacarbazine. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 4 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma 




<!-- page 5 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 3.8 The company presented a series of a priori subgroup analyses from the trials, showing improved effectiveness of nivolumab compared with dacarbazine and ipilimumab across most subgroups. Subgroup analyses by BRAF mutation status in CheckMate-067 and Checkmate-037 showed that nivolumab was more effective than the comparator treatments in both subgroups (people with or without BRAF mutation). However, the magnitude of the effect was higher in the subgroup without BRAF mutation. For example, in the nivolumab group of CheckMate-067, median progression-free survival was 7.98 months in people with BRAF mutation-negative melanoma and 5.62 months in people with BRAF mutation-positive melanoma. The median progression-free survival in the ipilimumab group was 2.83 months in people with BRAF mutationnegative melanoma and 4.04 months in people with BRAF mutationpositive melanoma. Subgroup analyses based on the expression of programmed death receptor ligand 1or PD-L1 (defined as PD-L1 positive if 5% or more cells expressed PD-L1, and PD-L1 negative or indeterminate with less than 5% expression) showed nivolumab to be more effective than the comparators regardless of PD-L1 expression. The results were comparatively better in patients who were PD-L1 positive than in the patients who were PD-L1 negative or indeterminate. 

- 3.9 The company also included evidence from a non-randomised, dose-escalation study (CheckMate-003) of nivolumab in patients with solid tumours, including melanoma (n=107), to support the assumption of the maximum treatment duration with nivolumab of 2 years. In patients with advanced melanoma treated with the licensed dose of nivolumab (n=17), median overall survival was 20.3 months and median duration of response to treatment was approximately 2 years. 

- 3.10 The company presented adverse event data from all 3 trials. Fewer people treated with nivolumab had treatment–related adverse events, particularly of grade 3-4, than those treated with the comparators in all 3 trials. The company also highlighted that in CheckMate-067 nivolumab 


National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 6 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

was associated with a favourable safety profile compared to ipilimumab, particularly for common immune system related adverse events. 

- 3.11 The company compared the clinical effectiveness of nivolumab, indirectly, with the comparators listed in the scope using 2 separate networks; for BRAF mutation-negative advanced melanoma (compared with ipilimumab and dacarbazine) and BRAF mutation-positive advanced melanoma (compared with BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib). The company used patient-level data (for nivolumab, dacarbazine and ipilimumab) or estimated ‘pseudo’ patient-level data (for vemurafenib and dabrafenib) from the trials. It selected the best-fitting survival function for the outcomes needed for economic modelling after adjusting for covariates for each treatment arm. 

## _**Cost effectiveness**_ 

- 3.12 The company submitted a semi-Markov survival model to estimate the cost effectiveness of nivolumab in people with previously untreated advanced (unresectable, metastatic) melanoma. The economic analyses were presented separately for BRAF mutation-negative disease (compared with dacarbazine and ipilimumab) and BRAF mutation-positive disease (compared with dabrafenib, ipilimumab and vemurafenib). The model had 3 health states: pre-progression, progression and death. Utility in the progression-free and progressed states was subdivided into 2 further states: 30 days or more before death; and less than 30 days before death. For modelling resource use, the entire time horizon was divided in to 4 periods: first year after treatment initiation; second year after treatment initiation; third and subsequent years after treatment initiation; and 12 weeks before death. The model adopted a lifetime time horizon of 40 years and a cycle length of 1 week. The model perspective was NHS and personal social services and costs and benefits were discounted at a rate of 3.5% per year. 

- 3.13 The company based the patient characteristics in the model on CheckMate-066 for BRAF mutation-negative disease and from the 

- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 6 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 7 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

vemurafenib arm of BRIM-3 for BRAF mutation-positive disease. The model allowed subsequent treatment with ipilimumab for people having nivolumab and other comparator treatments except ipilimumab. In the base case, 29.7% and 22.0% people with BRAF mutation-negative and BRAF mutation-positive melanoma respectively, had subsequent ipilimumab treatments. 

- 3.14 In the model, the clinical-effectiveness estimates for nivolumab and dacarbazine were based on patient-level data from CheckMate-066. For ipilimumab, patient-level data from the MDX010-20 trial were used. MDX010-20 was a phase III trial that evaluated the efficacy of ipilimumab in people with previously treated advanced melanoma. For BRAF inhibitors, the company identified 2 trials; BRIM-3 and BREAK-3. Both were phase III trials that evaluated vemurafenib and dabrafenib respectively, in people with BRAF mutation-positive advanced melanoma. The company generated pseudo patient-level data from published Kaplan–Meier curves for BRAF inhibitors based on the vemurafenib BRIM-3 (base case) or dabrafenib BREAK-3 (scenario analysis) and assumed that both are equally effective. The company considered the log-normal and generalised gamma distributions to be the best fit for overall survival and progression-free survival respectively, for BRAF inhibitors. The company used the same methods for deriving transition probabilities in BRAF mutation-positive disease as it did in BRAF mutation-negative disease, except that the baseline patient characteristics for the BRAF mutation-positive disease were taken from the BRIM-3 trial. 

- 3.15 Time to progression was modelled using Kaplan–Meier data from CheckMate-066 (for nivolumab and dacarbazine) and from MDX010-20 (for ipilimumab) for the first 100 days, followed by fitted parametric curves using the Gompertz distribution in the base case. For pre-progression survival, the company used Kaplan–Meier data adjusted by covariates for the length of follow-up because none of the fitted curves provided an acceptable visual fit to the observed data. 

- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 7 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 8 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 3.16 The company applied survival data from the trials in the model for the first 3 years for nivolumab and ipilimumab, and for the first 2 years for dacarbazine and BRAF inhibitors. Long-term overall survival was modelled using the registry data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer for BRAF inhibitors and dacarbazine. For modelling long-term survival in patients treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab, the company used pooled data on survival from 12 ipilimumab studies as reported by Schadendorf et al (2015) and applied these from year 3 onwards for nivolumab and ipilimumab. The company also applied mortality data for England as background mortality in the model. 

- 3.17 For ‘time on treatment’ with nivolumab, a log-logistic parametric curve was fitted to the CheckMate-066 trial data to calculate the proportion of patients continuing to have nivolumab in each cycle. The base case assumed maximum duration of treatment with nivolumab of 2 years. The model estimated that at 2 years, 23% of patients with BRAF mutation-negative melanoma and 20% of patients with BRAF mutation-positive melanoma would still be having nivolumab. The treatment effect of nivolumab was assumed to be maintained on discontinuation of therapy in the base case, based on observational data from CheckMate-003 and UK clinical expert opinion. This assumption was tested in scenario analyses. For dabrafenib, vemurafenib and dacarbazine the model assumed that treatment would continue until disease progression, in accordance with the marketing authorisations. The company stated that although ipilimumab is usually given for a maximum of 4 doses, patients could have ipilimumab for up to 16 doses (4 doses for the induction and up to 12 further doses if needed, based on the design of MDX010-20). 

- 3.18 The model included adverse events for endocrine disorder (any grade), diarrhoea (grade 2+) and other adverse events (grade 3+), based on data from CheckMate-066 for nivolumab and dacarbazine, and CheckMate-067, BREAK-3 and BRIM-3 trials for ipilimumab, dabrafenib and vemurafenib respectively. 

- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 8 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma 




<!-- page 9 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 3.19 The company used EQ-5D values from CheckMate-066, using regression analysis to estimate utility values for health states in the model. The values used for each stage (pre-progression and post progression) depended upon time to death (30 days or more and less than 30 days): 

   - pre-progression stage and 30 days or more from death, 0.8018 

   - pre-progression stage and less than 30 days from death, 0.7795 

   - post-progression stage and 30 days or more from death, 0.7277 

   - post-progression stage and less than 30 days from death, 0.7054. 

- 3.20 The modelled utility decrements for adverse events were based on Beusterien et al., 2009. These were applied at the start of the model and then periodically to patients who were still on treatment after every 35 weeks. 

- 3.21 The resource use categories in the model were treatment costs, health-state resource-use costs and cost for treating adverse events. The same sources were used for estimating these costs in a recent NICE appraisal of ipilimumab for previously untreated advanced melanoma. Resource use for health states was estimated based on the MELODY observational study that collected data on resource use in patients with advanced melanoma. Other costs were sourced from MIMS, NHS reference costs 2013/4, and Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU) 2014. 

- 3.22 The company presented base-case results using the list prices for all drugs (see tables 2 and 3). In the company’s base-case analyses, nivolumab provided a total of 4.31 and 4.27 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the BRAF mutation-negative melanoma and BRAF mutationpositive melanoma groups respectively. When compared with ipilimumab the absolute increment in QALY gained with nivolumab was 1.66 and 1.82 for BRAF mutation-negative melanoma and BRAF mutation-positive melanoma respectively. The fully incremental comparisons with all comparators demonstrated that for BRAF mutation-negative melanoma, 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 9 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 10 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

ipilimumab was extendedly dominated (that is, it had an incremental cost effective ratio [ICER] relative to dacarbazine, higher than that of the next most effective strategy, nivolumab). Nivolumab had an ICER of £23,583 per QALY gained compared with dacarbazine (see table 2). Similarly, in BRAF mutation-positive melanoma nivolumab dominated (that is, provided more QALYs at lower cost than) both dabrafenib and vemurafenib. Nivolumab was more costly and more effective than ipilimumab, with an ICER of £7346 per QALY gained (see table 3). Because ipilimumab, vemurafenib and dabrafenib are recommended by NICE only with patient access schemes, these results were not used for decision-making and are included here for illustration only. The ERG re-ran these analyses incorporating the confidential discounted prices agreed in the patient access schemes for all 3 comparators; these results are commercial in confidence and cannot be reported here. 

- 3.23 The company’s deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that results were most sensitive to changes in the parameters defining the fitted parametric curves, time on treatment, utility parameters and administration cost. 

## _**ERG comments**_ 

- 3.24 The ERG considered that the CheckMate trials were well designed and well conducted and provide appropriate evidence for the clinical effectiveness of nivolumab. The ERG noted that the results (notably for overall survival) presented by the company were interim and therefore uncertain. 

- 3.25 The ERG agreed with the company that differences between the trials would not allow a meaningful meta-analysis, particularly because there was not a common comparison group. The ERG expressed concern about 2 of the clinical assumptions underlying the indirect treatment comparison; that previous melanoma treatment experience does not have an independent impact on treatment effect in advanced melanoma, and that there is no difference between treatment effects by BRAF mutation status. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 10 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 11 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

|3.26|The ERG commented that the structure of the model was consistent with|
|---|---|
||the disease pathway and that the methods applied in the economic|
||analyses were appropriate and followed the methodological guidance|
||stipulated in the NICE reference case. The ERG noted that the company|
||presented economic analyses only for previously untreated melanoma|
||although the marketing authorisation includes people who have had|
||previous treatment.|
|3.27|The ERG did not agree with all of the company’s modelling assumptions|
||and noted that there is considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness|
||results because of the assumptions made, particularly for long-term|
||overall survival and time on treatment for nivolumab.|
|3.28|The ERG did not agree with the company’s assumption that patients|
||having nivolumab would have similar long-term survival as those having|
||ipilimumab. It commented that extrapolation of survival data from|
||CheckMate-66 would have been the most appropriate method for|
||estimating long-term survival. In exploratory analyses the ERG|
||extrapolated long-term survival for nivolumab using a Gompertz|
||distribution in its preferred scenario (see tables 2 and 3).|
|3.29|The ERG did not agree with the company’s choice of survival curve used|
||in the model for time to progression for nivolumab. The ERG suggested|
||that other survival curves (instead of Gompertz) may be plausible for|
||nivolumab, and it used a Weibull distribution (best visual fit) in its|
||preferred scenario (see tables 2 and 3).|
|3.30|For BRAF mutation-positive melanoma, the ERG noted that the total cost|
||for the BRAF inhibitors in the model depended on the type of survival|
||curve chosen to model their effect on progression-free survival. The|
||company used a generalised gamma curve; the ERG explored other|
||survival curves for the BRAF inhibitors and considered a log-normal|
||distribution to be the best fit for its preferred scenario (see table 3).|




National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 12 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 3.31 The ERG conducted exploratory analyses that included using alternative survival functions for time to progression for nivolumab, and for progression-free survival for BRAF inhibitors (vemurafenib and dabrafenib). The ERG also explored using extrapolated survival data from CheckMate-066 to model long-term survival for nivolumab. 

- 3.32 The ERG’s preferred scenario included a combination of some of the scenarios mentioned in sections 3.28, 3.29 and 3.30: 

   - a Weibull distribution for time to progression for the nivolumab arm 

   - a lognormal distribution for progression-free survival for BRAF inhibitors (vemurafenib and dabrafenib) 

   - a Gompertz distribution for extrapolated trial data, for long-term overall survival for the nivolumab arm. 

- 3.33 The ERG explored the effect of 2 alternative assumptions for maximum treatment duration with nivolumab on its preferred scenario: 3 years, or no maximum treatment duration. 

- 3.34 The results of the ERG exploratory analyses are summarised in tables 2 and 3. Please note that all analyses presented here used the list price for comparators and were not used in the decision making process. 


National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 12 of 33 Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 13 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## **Table 2 Results of the company’s base-case analysis and the ERG’s exploratory analyses for BRAF mutation-negative melanoma (using the list price for all comparators)** 

|**price for all comparators)**||||
|---|---|---|---|
|**Technology**|**Incremental**<br>**costs* (£)**|**Incremental**<br>**QALYs**|**ICER (£/QALY)**|
|**Company’s base-case analysis**||||
|Dacarbazine||||
|Ipilimumab|£48,429|1.41|Extendedly dominated<br>by dacarbazine and<br>nivolumab|
|Nivolumab|£72,578|3.08|£23,583|
|**ERG exploratory analyses**||||
|Nivolumab (Weibull for TTP)|£72,237|2.73|£18,117|
|Nivolumab (extrapolated<br>long-term OS from trial)|£70,761|2.02|£36,072|
|ERG preferred scenario (see<br>section 3.32)|£69,725|1.32|Dominated by<br>ipilimumab|
|ERG preferred scenario +<br>nivolumab for 3 years|£84,257|1.31|Dominated by<br>ipilimumab|
|ERG preferred scenario +<br>no maximum treatment<br>duration for nivolumab|£155,177|1.28|Dominated by<br>ipilimumab|
|Abbreviations: ERG, Evidence Review Group; ICER, incremental cost`‑`effectiveness ratio; OS,<br>overall survival; QALYs, quality-adjusted life years; TTP, time to progression.<br>Dominated: provides fewer QALYs at greater cost than the comparator. Extendedly dominated: a<br>combination of 2 of its comparators provides equal health at a reduced cost.<br>* These incremental costs do not take account of the confidential discounts agreed in the patient<br>access schemes for dabrafenib, ipilimumab and vemurafenib.||||




National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 14 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

**Table 3 Results of the company’s base-case analysis and the ERG’s exploratory analyses for BRAF mutation-positive melanoma (using the list price for all comparators)** 

|**price for all comparators)**||||
|---|---|---|---|
|**Technology**|**Incremental**<br>**costs* (£)**|**Incremental**<br>**QALYs**|**ICER (£/QALY)**|
|**Company’s base-case analysis**||||
|Ipilimumab||||
|Nivolumab|£13,374|1.82|£7346|
|Dabrafenib|£6228|−2.57|Dominated by<br>nivolumab|
|Vemurafenib|£24,659|−2.56|Dominated by<br>nivolumab|
|**ERG exploratory analyses**||||
|Nivolumab (Weibull for TTP)|£13,060|1.48|£8836|
|Dabrafenib (lognormal for<br>PFS)|£4860|−0.75|Dominated by<br>nivolumab|
|Vemurafenib (lognormal for<br>PFS)|£19,605|−0.74|Dominated by<br>nivolumab|
|Nivolumab (extrapolated<br>long-term OS from trial)|£10,978|0.40|£27,171|
|ERG preferred scenario (see<br>section 3.32)|£4860|−0.76|Dominated by<br>ipilimumab|
|ERG preferred scenario +<br>nivolumab for 3 years|£22,574|−0.18|Dominated by<br>ipilimumab|
|ERG preferred scenario + no<br>maximum treatment duration<br>for nivolumab|£83,858|−0.21|Dominated by<br>ipilimumab|
|Abbreviations: ERG, Evidence Review Group; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; OS,<br>overall survival; PFS, progression free survival; QALYs, quality-adjusted life years; TTP, time to<br>progression.<br>Dominated: provides fewer QALYs at greater cost than the comparator. Extendedly dominated: a<br>combination of 2 of its comparators provides equal health at a reduced cost.<br>* These incremental costs do not take account of the confidential discounts agreed in the patient<br>access schemes for dabrafenib, ipilimumab and vemurafenib.||||



3.35 Full details of all the evidence are in the Committee papers. 

## **4 Committee discussion** 

The Appraisal Committee reviewed the data available on the clinical and cost effectiveness of nivolumab having considered evidence on the nature of advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma and the value placed 


National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 15 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

on the benefits of nivolumab by people with the condition, those who represent them, and clinical experts. It also took into account the effective use of NHS resources. 

## _**Clinical effectiveness**_ 

## 4.1 

The Committee discussed the current management of advanced melanoma in the NHS, and the potential place of nivolumab in the treatment pathway. The Committee understood that for advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma that does not have a BRAF-V600 mutation (BRAF mutation-negative or ‘wild type’ disease) ipilimumab is the most common treatment option. For melanoma with BRAF-V600 mutations (BRAF mutation-positive disease), the Committee heard that there is a choice between the BRAF inhibitor agents (vemurafenib and dabrafenib), or the immunotherapy agent ipilimumab. The choice would usually be based on whether the disease is progressing rapidly (when a BRAF inhibitor would be used) or more slowly, when ipilimumab would be used. The long survival benefit shown in a proportion of patients treated with ipilimumab (based on 5-year overall survival data) has led to an increasing interest in immunotherapy agents. The Committee noted that programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor inhibitors such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab appear to have a faster onset of action and higher response rate than ipilimumab, and may also be more suitable for treating high-volume disease. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab have similar mechanisms of action (consisting of an antibody, which blocks the PD-1 receptor), and both are recommended for use in the same place in the treatment pathway. The clinical experts considered that although some people with rapidly progressing BRAF mutation-positive melanoma will continue to have BRAF inhibitors as first-line treatment, it was expected that nivolumab and pembrolizumab would be suitable for more people than ipilimumab. The Committee noted that pembrolizumab was not included in the scope of this appraisal. However, following the recent positive NICE recommendations for pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab for advanced melanoma after disease progression with ipilimumab or not 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 15 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 16 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

previously treated with ipilimumab) the Committee heard from the clinical experts that nivolumab and pembrolizumab would be considered for the same group of patients. However, pembrolizumab is not yet in routine clinical use and therefore could not be considered as a comparator for the purpose of this appraisal. The Committee was aware that dacarbazine is now used only after the other available treatments, because it has not been shown to improve overall survival. The Committee concluded that the most relevant comparators for this appraisal were ipilimumab, vemurafenib and dabrafenib. 

- 4.2 The Committee discussed the clinical needs of people with advanced melanoma. It heard from the patient expert that melanoma has a major effect on people’s health and quality of life. Having a choice of treatments would be particularly valuable to people with this condition, allowing them and their doctors to choose treatments that take into account their individual needs and preferences and giving them a feeling of more control over their condition. The Committee noted that a course of nivolumab treatment requires more frequent intravenous administration for a longer duration (every 2 weeks for as long as continued clinical benefit is observed, potentially up to 2 years or more) than ipilimumab (every 3 weeks, up to a total of 4 doses) and discussed whether this would affect patients’ treatment choices. They heard from the patient expert that, above all, patients want effective therapies and would wish to have access to those which were most effective, even if the treatment schedule was more challenging to accommodate. The Committee was also aware that treatment with ipilimumab can be associated with severe side effects, and heard that patients would be willing to take an alternative with an improved toxicity profile even if it requires more frequent administration. The Committee concluded that the availability of an effective new treatment option with acceptable tolerability would be valuable for people with advanced melanoma. 

4.3 The Committee discussed the clinical effectiveness of nivolumab. It noted that overall survival data are currently only available from the 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 16 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma 




<!-- page 17 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

CheckMate-066 trial that compared nivolumab with dacarbazine. These data were based on short-term follow-up (median duration 8.9 months in the nivolumab group). Early analysis of the data showed a significant overall survival benefit for nivolumab, resulting in the trial being stopped early and being unblinded. The Committee heard from the company that updated 2-year overall survival data, published in abstract form, showed that the overall survival benefit was maintained at 2 years (57.7% of patients in the nivolumab arm were alive compared with 26.7% of patients in the dacarbazine arm [hazard ratio of 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.33 to 0.57]). The Committee recognised that dacarbazine is now infrequently used except in the context of palliative care, and that the effectiveness of nivolumab compared with ipilimumab is more relevant to clinical practice. The Committee noted that overall survival data from CheckMate-067 (which compared nivolumab with ipilimumab) are not yet available, and it was therefore difficult to draw any firm conclusion on relative overall survival benefit. 

4.4 The Committee considered the Kaplan–Meier curves for progression-free survival from CheckMate-067, noting that they showed better progression-free survival with nivolumab than ipilimumab for the entire duration of observation (approximately 20 months). The Committee discussed whether, in some patients, the benefit of nivolumab was likely to be maintained long term, as had been shown in the ipilimumab trials. It recognised that this depended on the biological plausibility of nivolumab and ipilimumab, both immunotherapy agents, having a similar effect on disease suppression. The Committee recognised that there is currently no evidence to suggest that nivolumab will differ from ipilimumab in this respect. However, it emphasised that there was no trial evidence to directly support this conclusion. The Committee concluded that nivolumab is more effective in the short term than ipilimumab, but the long-term benefit of nivolumab remains highly uncertain until further follow-up data are available. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 17 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 18 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 4.5 The Committee considered whether there were likely to be differences in the clinical effectiveness of nivolumab for people with and without BRAF mutation. The Committee noted that CheckMate-066 only included people with BRAF mutation-negative melanoma, but subgroup analyses from CheckMate-067 and CheckMate-037 suggest that nivolumab is somewhat less effective in BRAF mutation-positive disease compared with BRAF mutation-negative disease. The Committee heard from the company that these differences were not substantial. The Committee also heard from the clinical experts that there is no biologically plausible reason why treatment effect would be dependent on BRAF mutation status, and that in clinical practice the effectiveness of immunotherapy agents is considered to be independent of BRAF status. The Committee concluded that nivolumab is effective for both BRAF mutation-negative and BRAF mutation-positive melanoma. 

- 4.6 The Committee discussed whether there were likely to be differences in the clinical effectiveness of nivolumab depending on the expression of programmed death receptor ligand 1 (PD-L1). The Committee heard from the clinical experts that PD-L1 expression is not routinely assessed in clinical practice. It also heard that although in the clinical trials an arbitrary threshold of 5% was used to define subgroups (PD-L1 positive ≥5%, or indeterminate <5%), there is no universally agreed threshold. The Committee noted that subgroup analyses showed that nivolumab appeared effective regardless of PD-L1 expression. The Committee agreed that because of its mechanism of action, nivolumab was expected to be effective in patients with PD-L1 expression. However, it concluded that the clinical effectiveness of nivolumab had also been demonstrated in the PD-L1 indeterminate group. 

- 4.7 The Committee discussed the adverse events associated with nivolumab. It noted that, in the trials, nivolumab was associated with a lower incidence of high-grade or serious adverse events than ipilimumab or chemotherapy. The Committee concluded that the adverse events related 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 18 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 19 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

to nivolumab were manageable, and also favourable when compared with chemotherapy and ipilimumab. 

4.8 The Committee considered the likely duration of nivolumab treatment in clinical practice. It noted that the summary of product characteristics recommends treatment ‘as long as clinical benefit is observed or until treatment is no longer tolerated by the patient’. Clinical advisers to the company had assumed that nivolumab will be given up to a maximum of 2 years. The Committee heard from the clinical experts that there is no evidence to indicate an optimum duration of treatment with nivolumab. It heard from the company that nivolumab reactivates the immune system and that it was plausible that a course of treatment shorter than 2 years might be equally effective. The Committee also heard that regimens shorter than 2 years are currently being investigated in clinical trials. Nevertheless, the clinical experts acknowledged that it may be difficult to stop nivolumab treatment at 2 years if patients are still experiencing benefit. The Committee appreciated that there is considerable uncertainty about the optimum duration of treatment with nivolumab, which will not be clarified until further trials are published. The Committee also expressed the view that a review of this guidance after 2 years (to coincide with the review of pembrolizumab guidance) should be recommended, at which time overall survival data will be more mature, and the optimum duration of treatment may have been clarified. 

## _**Cost effectiveness**_ 

4.9 The Committee considered the company's model, which compared nivolumab with ipilimumab and dacarbazine in BRAF mutation-negative disease, and with ipilimumab, vemurafenib and dabrafenib in BRAF mutation-positive disease, for people with previously untreated advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma. The Committee noted that the ERG considered the structure of the model to be reasonable and consistent with the disease pathway. The Committee noted that the company used covariate-adjusted parametric curves fitted to patient-level 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 19 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 20 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

data from different trials to capture the clinical effectiveness of nivolumab and the comparators, rather than relative effectiveness from the clinical trials or an indirect treatment comparison. The Committee noted that in the company’s deterministic sensitivity analyses, the results were most sensitive to the choice of the fitted parametric curves. The Committee noted the particular concerns expressed by the ERG about the company’s approach to modelling overall survival. The Committee accepted the structure of the company's model, but gave further consideration to the assumptions used in the modelling of survival. 

- 4.10 The Committee noted that in the company’s base-case analysis, nivolumab was more effective than ipilimumab, with an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of 1.67 and 1.82 for BRAF mutation negative-melanoma and BRAF mutation-positive melanoma, respectively. However, in the ERG’s preferred scenario, nivolumab appeared less effective than ipilimumab. The Committee expressed concerns about the substantial difference between these results and discussed possible reasons for the difference. It understood that the main reason for this discrepancy was the different approaches taken by the company and the ERG for modelling time to progression and long-term survival for patients having nivolumab. 

- 4.11 The Committee then discussed the differences in the approaches taken by the company and the ERG. It noted that the ERG preferred a Weibull curve to the Gompertz curve, which had been used by the company to model time to progression for nivolumab. The Committee appreciated that this would slightly decrease the total QALY gain with nivolumab, but agreed that on its own switching to a Weibull curve would have a minimal effect on the overall cost-effectiveness. More significant was the company’s assumption that patients having nivolumab would have a comparable long-term survival benefit to that seen in the ipilimumab trials. The Committee recalled its conclusion that the evidence on long-term survival with nivolumab is highly uncertain, and noted that the ERG considered that overall survival for nivolumab would be better modelled by 

- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 20 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma 




<!-- page 21 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

extrapolation of the CheckMate-066 data. This approach, when combined with implementing the ERG’s preferred curve for time to progression, substantially reduced the QALYs gained with nivolumab (to approximately half of those gained in the company base case), and resulted in it generating fewer QALYs (that is, being less effective) than ipilimumab. The Committee noted that this was at odds with the substantial short-term progression-free survival benefit for nivolumab compared with ipilimumab shown in CheckMate-067, which it thought would not be unreasonable to expect to translate into a survival benefit. The Committee also heard from the company representative that their model predicted that 50% of patients would be alive at 2 years; this was in line with the updated survival analysis of CheckMate-066 in which 57% of patients were alive at 2-year follow up. The Committee, while accepting the uncertainty, considered that nivolumab was likely, on the basis of current evidence, to produce a greater QALY gain than ipilimumab. It therefore accepted that the company’s analysis represented a reasonable approach to estimate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab. 

- 4.12 The Committee noted that time spent on treatment was a key factor influencing the cost-effectiveness results. The Committee was aware that currently the maximum duration of treatment is unclear. It noted that the ERG had explored the impact of increasing treatment duration from 2 years to 3 years, and also a scenario with no maximum treatment duration. The Committee noted that increasing treatment duration increased the total cost associated with nivolumab, but did not increase the QALY gained; this decreased slightly. It understood that this was because more time spent on nivolumab treatment resulted in more adverse events. The Committee concluded that lack of evidence on the optimal duration of treatment made the cost-effectiveness results uncertain. The Committee agreed that there would be more clarity when the results from studies comparing different durations of treatment become available. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 21 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 22 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- 4.13 The Committee noted that the company stated that nivolumab was innovative and a step change in the management of advanced melanoma because it treats a life-threatening and seriously debilitating condition, meets a high unmet need and provides a significant advantage over other treatments used in the UK. Although the Committee did not consider the mechanism of action of nivolumab to be unique, it agreed that the low toxicity and the favourable adverse effect profile of nivolumab compared with other treatments represent a promising new advance in immunotherapy for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. However, it could not identify any specific health-related benefit that had not already been captured in the QALY calculation. 

- 4.14 The Committee considered supplementary advice from NICE that should be taken into account when appraising treatments that may extend the life of patients with a short life expectancy and that are licensed for indications that affect small numbers of people with incurable illnesses. For this advice to be applied, all the following criteria must be met. 

   - The treatment is indicated for patients with a short life expectancy, normally less than 24 months. 

   - There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the treatment offers an extension to life, normally of at least an additional 3 months, compared with current NHS treatment. 

   - The treatment is licensed or otherwise indicated for small patient populations. 

In addition, when taking these criteria into account, the Committee must be persuaded that the estimates of the extension to life are robust and that the assumptions used in the reference case of the economic modelling are plausible, objective and robust. 

- 4.15 The Committee agreed that the life expectancy of people with advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma is short, generally less than 24 months. The Committee noted the company’s comment that the 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 22 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 23 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

difference in restricted mean survival in CheckMate-066 between nivolumab and dacarbazine was 3.6 months. The Committee noted that the median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab arm of any of the trials, so the magnitude of the survival gain was uncertain, but was reassured that the updated survival data from CheckMate-066 

demonstrated that survival benefit in nivolumab-treated patients was maintained, and that the median survival in the nivolumab group had still not been reached in the updated analysis. The Committee was aware that in addition to advanced melanoma, nivolumab is also licensed for treating advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer after prior chemotherapy; the company estimated the total population for whom nivolumab is indicated to be about 2200 people. The Committee concluded that this represented a small patient population, and that nivolumab meets all the criteria to be considered a life-extending, end-of-life treatment. 

- 4.16 The Committee considered the ICERs from the company’s base cases, recalculated to include the discounted prices in the patient access schemes for 3 comparators (ipilimumab, vemurafenib and dabrafenib), which are commercial in confidence. The Committee took into account uncertainties in the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence, and the supplementary advice for appraising life-extending, end-of-life treatments. It concluded that, on balance, the ICER for nivolumab is likely to be less than £30,000 per QALY gained in both BRAF mutation-positive and BRAF mutation-negative advanced melanoma. It therefore considered nivolumab to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources. 

- 4.17 The Committee was aware of NICE's position statement about the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) 2014, and in particular the PPRS Payment Mechanism. It acknowledged ‘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 about the relevance of the PPRS to 

- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 23 of 33 Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 24 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

this appraisal of nivolumab. It therefore concluded that the PPRS Payment Mechanism was irrelevant for the consideration of the cost effectiveness of nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma. 

## _**Summary of Appraisal Committee’s key conclusions**_ 

|**TAXXX**|**Appraisal title: Nivolumab for treating**<br>**advanced (unresectable or metastatic)**<br>**melanoma**|**Section**|
|---|---|---|
|**Key conclusion**|||
|Nivolumab as monotherapy is recommended, within its marketing<br>authorisation, as an option for treating advanced (unresectable or<br>metastatic) melanoma in adults.<br>The Committee concluded that:<br>nivolumab is more effective in the short term than ipilimumab, but<br>the long-term benefit of nivolumab remains highly uncertain<br>there is considerable uncertainty about the optimum duration of<br>treatment with nivolumab<br>nivolumab meets all the criteria to be considered a life-extending,<br>end-of-life treatment<br>the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for nivolumab is<br>likely to be less than £30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)<br>gained in both BRAF mutation-positive and BRAF mutation-<br>negative advanced melanoma, making it a cost-effective use of<br>NHS resources<br>review of this guidance after 2 years should be recommended,<br>when matured overall survival data and the results of studies<br>investigating optimum treatment duration will be available.||1.1<br>4.4<br>4.8<br>4.15<br>4.16<br>4.8|
|**Current practice**|||



National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 


Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 25 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

|Clinical need of<br>patients, including<br>the availability of<br>alternative<br>treatments|The Committee heard that ipilimumab is the<br>most common treatment option for<br>BRAF mutation-negative advanced<br>melanoma, and for BRAF mutation-positive<br>disease there is a choice between the BRAF<br>inhibitor agents (vemurafenib and dabrafenib)<br>and ipilimumab.<br>The Committee concluded that the availability<br>of an effective new treatment option with<br>acceptable tolerability would be valuable for<br>people with advanced melanoma.|4.1<br>4.2|
|---|---|---|
|**The technology**|||
|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 noted that programmed cell<br>death-1 (PD-1) receptor inhibitors such as<br>nivolumab and pembrolizumab appear to have<br>a faster onset of action and higher response<br>rate than ipilimumab, and may also be more<br>suitable for treating high-volume disease.<br>The Committee agreed that the low toxicity<br>and the favourable adverse effects profile of<br>nivolumab compared with other treatments<br>represent a promising new advance in<br>immunotherapy for the treatment of metastatic<br>melanoma. However, it could not identify any<br>specific health-related benefit that had not<br>already been captured in the QALY<br>calculation.|4.1<br>4.13|




National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 26 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

|What is the position<br>of the treatment in<br>the pathway of care<br>for the condition?|The Committee heard from the clinical experts<br>that nivolumab and pembrolizumab would be<br>considered for the same group of patients.<br>Because pembrolizumab is not yet in routine<br>clinical use, it concluded that ipilimumab,<br>vemurafenib and dabrafenib were appropriate<br>comparators for this appraisal.|4.1|
|---|---|---|
|Adverse reactions|The Committee concluded that the adverse<br>events related to nivolumab were<br>manageable, and also favourable when<br>compared with chemotherapy and ipilimumab.|4.7|
|**Evidence for clinical effectiveness**|||
|Availability, nature<br>and quality of<br>evidence|The Committee noted that overall survival<br>data are only available from the<br>CheckMate-066 trial that compared nivolumab<br>with dacarbazine. It also considered the<br>updated 2 year overall survival data from<br>CheckMate-066. The Committee recognised<br>that dacarbazine is now infrequently used<br>except in the context of palliative care, and<br>that the effectiveness of nivolumab compared<br>with ipilimumab is more relevant to clinical<br>practice. The Committee noted that overall<br>survival data from CheckMate-067 (which<br>compared nivolumab with ipilimumab) are not<br>yet available and considered the Kaplan–<br>Meier curves for progression free survival<br>from CheckMate-067.|4.3, 4.4|




National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 26 of 33 Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma 




<!-- page 27 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

|Relevance to<br>general clinical<br>practice in the NHS|The Committee noted that a course of<br>nivolumab treatment requires more frequent<br>intravenous administration for a longer<br>duration than ipilimumab.|4.2|
|---|---|---|
|Uncertainties<br>generated by the<br>evidence|The Committee noted that overall survival<br>data from CheckMate-067 (which compared<br>nivolumab with ipilimumab) are not yet<br>available, and it was therefore difficult to draw<br>any firm conclusion on relative overall survival<br>benefit.<br>The Committee concluded that the long-term<br>benefit of nivolumab remains highly uncertain<br>until further follow-up data are available.<br>The Committee appreciated that there is<br>considerable uncertainty about the optimum<br>duration of treatment with nivolumab.|4.3<br>4.4<br>4.8|
|Are there any<br>clinically relevant<br>subgroups for which<br>there is evidence of<br>differential<br>effectiveness?|The Committee noted that subgroup analyses<br>from CheckMate-067 and CheckMate-037<br>suggest that nivolumab is somewhat less<br>effective in BRAF mutation-positive disease<br>compared with BRAF mutation-negative<br>disease. However, it heard that these<br>differences were not substantial.<br>The Committee noted that subgroup analyses<br>also showed that nivolumab appeared<br>effective regardless of PD-L1 expression, but<br>that comparatively better outcomes were seen<br>in people with positive PD-L1 expression.|4.5<br>4.6|




National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 27 of 33 Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 28 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

|Estimate of the size<br>of the clinical<br>effectiveness<br>including strength of<br>supporting evidence|The Committee heard that updated 2-year<br>overall survival data showed that the overall<br>survival benefit was maintained at 2 years<br>(57.7% of patients in the nivolumab arm were<br>alive compared with 26.7% of patients in the<br>dacarbazine arm [hazard ratio of 0.43, 95%<br>confidence interval: 0.33 to 0.57]).|4.3|
|---|---|---|
|**Evidence for cost effectiveness**|||
|Availability and<br>nature of evidence|The Committee considered the company's<br>model, which compared nivolumab with<br>ipilimumab and dacarbazine in<br>BRAF mutation-negative disease, and with<br>ipilimumab, vemurafenib and dabrafenib in<br>BRAF mutation-positive disease, for people<br>with previously untreated advanced<br>(unresectable or metastatic) melanoma.|4.9|
|Uncertainties around<br>and plausibility of<br>assumptions and<br>inputs in the<br>economic model|The Committee considered the company’s<br>assumption, that patients having nivolumab<br>would have a comparable long-term survival<br>benefit to that seen in the ipilimumab trials, to<br>be highly uncertain. However, the Committee<br>agreed that it would not be unreasonable to<br>expect that the short-term progression-free<br>survival benefit for nivolumab compared with<br>ipilimumab would translate into a survival<br>benefit.<br>The Committee concluded that lack of<br>evidence on the optimal duration of treatment<br>made the cost-effectiveness results uncertain.|4.11<br>4.12|




National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 28 of 33 Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma 




<!-- page 29 -->

**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 company used EQ-5D values from<br>CheckMate-066, using regression analysis to<br>estimate utility values for health states in the<br>model.<br>The modelled utility decrements for adverse<br>events were based on Beusterien et al., 2009.<br>The Committee could not identify any specific<br>health-related benefit that had not already<br>been captured in the QALY calculation.|3.19<br>3.20<br>4.13|
|---|---|---|
|Are there specific<br>groups of people for<br>whom the<br>technology is<br>particularly cost<br>effective?|No subgroups were considered.|-|
|What are the key<br>drivers of cost<br>effectiveness?|The Committee noted that in the company’s<br>deterministic sensitivity analyses, the results<br>were most sensitive to the choice of the fitted<br>parametric curves.<br>The Committee noted that time spent on<br>treatment was a key factor influencing the<br>cost-effectiveness results.|4.9<br>4.12|



National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 29 of 33 Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 30 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

|Most likely cost-<br>effectiveness<br>estimate (given as<br>an ICER)|The Committee concluded that the ICER for<br>nivolumab is likely to be less than £30,000 per<br>quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in<br>both BRAF mutation-positive and<br>BRAF mutation-negative advanced<br>melanoma.<br>The exact ICERs are confidential and cannot<br>be reported here.|4.16|
|---|---|---|
|**Additional factors taken into account**|||
|Patient access<br>schemes (PPRS)|The Committee considered the ICERs from<br>the company’s base cases, recalculated to<br>include the discounted prices in the patient<br>access schemes for 3 comparators<br>(ipilimumab, vemurafenib and dabrafenib),<br>which are commercial in confidence.|4.16|
|End-of-life<br>considerations|The Committee agreed that the life<br>expectancy of people with advanced<br>(unresectable or metastatic) melanoma is<br>short. It also agreed that nivolumab is<br>indicated for a small patient population and<br>survival gain with nivolumab compared with<br>current NHS treatment is likely to be more<br>than 3 months. The Committee therefore<br>concluded that nivolumab meets all the criteria<br>to be considered a life-extending, end-of-life<br>treatment.|4.15|




National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 30 of 33 Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 31 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

||Equalities<br>considerations and<br>social value<br>judgements|No equality issues were identified.|-|
|---|---|---|---|



## **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 recommendations in this appraisal within 3 months of its date of publication. Because nivolumab was made available in the NHS through the early access to medicines scheme, NHS England has indicated that this guidance will be implemented 30 days after final 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 advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma and the doctor responsible for their care thinks that nivolumab is the right treatment, it should be available for use, in line with NICE’s recommendations. 


National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 32 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

## **6 Related NICE guidance** 

Details are correct at the time the final appraisal determination goes out for appeal and will be removed when the final guidance is published. Further information is available on the NICE website. 

## **Published** 

- Pembrolizumab for advanced melanoma not previously treated with ipilimumab. NICE technology appraisal guidance 366 (2015). 

- Pembrolizumab for treating unresectable, metastatic melanoma after progression with ipilimumab. NICE technology appraisal guidance 357 (2015). 

- Melanoma: assessment and management. NICE guideline 14 (2015). 

- - 

- Dabrafenib for treating unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation positive melanoma. NICE technology appraisal guidance 321 (2014). 

- Ipilimumab for previously untreated advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma. NICE technology appraisal guidance 319 (2014). 

- - 

- Electrochemotherapy for metastases in the skin from tumours of non skin origin and melanoma. NICE interventional procedure guidance 446 (2013). 

- - 

- Vemurafenib for treating locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation positive malignant melanoma. NICE technology appraisal guidance 269 (2012). 

- Ipilimumab for previously treated advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma. NICE technology appraisal guidance 268 (2012). 

- Skin cancer prevention: information, resources and environmental changes. NICE public health guidance 32 (2011). 

- Improving outcomes for people with skin tumours including melanoma. NICE guidance on cancer services (2010). 

## **Under development** 

- Cobimetinib with vemurafenib for treating advanced, unresectable or metastatic - 

- BRAF V600 mutation positive melanoma. NICE technology appraisal guidance, publication expected June 2016. 

- Talimogene laherparepvec for treating metastatic melanoma. NICE technology appraisal guidance, publication expected July 2016. 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Page 32 of 33 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 



<!-- page 33 -->

**CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL PUBLISHED** 

- Dabrafenib and trametinib for treating advanced unresectable or metastatic - 

- BRAFV600 mutation positive melanoma. NICE technology appraisal guidance, publication expected August 2016. 

- Skin cancer. NICE quality standard, publication expected August 2016. 

## **7 Review of guidance** 

- 7.1 The guidance on this technology will be considered for review 2 years after publication along with guidance on other immunotherapies for advanced melanoma (such as technology appraisal guidance 268, 319, 357 and 366). The Guidance Executive will decide whether the technology should be reviewed based on information gathered by NICE, and in consultation with consultees and commentators. 

Jane Adams 

Chair, Appraisal Committee January 2016 


National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 

Final appraisal determination – Nivolumab for treating advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma Issue date: January 2016 

