TA897 · reconsideration_of_cdf_guidance

Daratumumab with bortezomib and dexamethasone for previously treated multiple myeloma

Recommended with restrictionsTechnology Appraisal Committee BApril 2023

Only for adults who have had just one previous line of treatment and either: (1) the previous treatment included lenalidomide, or (2) lenalidomide is unsuitable as a second-line treatment. Conditional on company providing it according to the commercial arrangement (simple discount patient access scheme).

Source documents

Interventions

daratumumab (Daratumumab in combination)
monoclonal antibody · CD38-directed monoclonal antibody · subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion
daratumumab with bortezomib and dexamethasone (Darzalex)
· CD38-targeted therapy combined with proteasome inhibitor and corticosteroid · subcutaneous and intravenous

Condition

multiple myelomahaematology · relapsed_refractory

Comparators

NameType Established Committee preferred
bortezomib with dexamethasoneactive drugYesYes
carfilzomib with dexamethasoneactive drugYesYes
lenalidomide with dexamethasoneactive drugYes
carfilzomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasoneactive drugYes
bortezomib plus dexamethasoneactive drugYesYes
carfilzomib plus dexamethasoneactive drugYesYes
lenalidomide combination treatmentsactive drug

Clinical trials

TrialDesignPhasePivotal
CASTORRCT3Yes
ENDEAVORRCT

Economic model

partitioned survival (company)
Time horizon: 30 years
Cycle length: not stated

ICER

Below £20,000 (daratumumab with bortezomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib with dexamethasone) · moderate uncertainty
Confidential (PAS-dependent) (Daratumumab with bortezomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib plus dexamethasone; Daratumumab with bortezomib and dexamethasone versus carfilzomib plus dexamethasone) · high uncertainty

Methodological decisions (17)

comparator selection

Whether lenalidomide combination treatments should be included as comparators for second-line treatment. Company submission focused on bortezomib and carfilzomib combinations; lenalidomide combinations not in scope but understood to be used in NHS practice for some patients.

Company: Focus on bortezomib plus dexamethasone and carfilzomib plus dexamethasone as comparators, aligned with NICE scope

Committee: Could not make recommendation for lenalidomide population because no evidence presented, though acknowledged some people would have lenalidomide combinations at second line in NHS

ICER impact: uncertain_direction

comparator selection

Lenalidomide combination treatments were not included as comparators in the scope of this appraisal; no evidence was submitted for lenalidomide

ICER impact: uncertain_direction

cost assumption

Subsequent treatment costs modelled using basket approach based on outdated CASTOR trial data rather than current NHS practice

Company: Applied one-off basket costs based on CASTOR trial; only included 1 subsequent line of treatment

ERG: Noted limitations of company approach

Committee: Subsequent treatment cost assumptions do not reflect current practice; lenalidomide plus dexamethasone likely overestimated; only one subsequent line insufficient

ICER impact: increases

cost assumption

Modelling the costs of subsequent treatments

ICER impact: uncertain_direction

crossover adjustment

Adjusting for subsequent treatment use in the NHS using IPCW analysis from CASTOR

Company: Used IPCW analysis to estimate adjusted HRs

ERG: Not explicitly stated but noted limitations of adjustment

Committee: IPCW analysis did not accurately adjust for subsequent treatment use in NHS; both adjusted and unadjusted HRs should be considered as bounds of clinical effectiveness

ICER impact: uncertain_direction

indirect comparison method

Network meta-analysis for comparison with carfilzomib plus dexamethasone using CASTOR and ENDEAVOR second-line subgroups

Company: Performed network meta-analysis using second-line subgroup data

ERG: Agreed with approach

Committee: Network meta-analysis was appropriate for decision making

ICER impact: uncertain_direction

model structure

Partitioned survival model with 3 health states versus alternative approaches

Company: Used partitioned survival model with progression-free, progressed disease, and death states

ERG: Agreed with company structure

Committee: Model structure is acceptable

ICER impact: negligible

other

Interpretation of SACT real-world data compared to CASTOR trial. SACT showed lower overall survival than CASTOR despite younger population characteristics being adjusted for. Committee noted SACT conducted mostly during COVID-19 pandemic with potential excess mortality impact.

Company: Performed matching-adjusted indirect comparison to adjust for baseline characteristics differences between CASTOR and SACT datasets; prognostic factors explored did not explain differences

Committee: SACT likely reflects true NHS experience but has limitations: mostly during COVID-19 pandemic, shorter follow-up, missing key prognostic data. Would prefer to see survival outcomes for people who entered SACT before March 2020.

ICER impact: decreases

population generalisability

Applicability of CASTOR trial results to NHS population given trial was global (16 countries, no English centres), conducted several years ago, and current multiple myeloma pathway significantly different. Previous treatment with bortezomib or daratumumab (both available at first line) and impact on second-line effectiveness.

Committee: Previous treatment with bortezomib or daratumumab at first line not expected to affect second-line effectiveness if used for finite time rather than until progression; gaps between remissions typically several years. CASTOR clinically appropriate for establishing relative effect.

ICER impact: uncertain_direction

population generalisability

Whether SACT real-world data better represents NHS population than CASTOR trial; impact of COVID-19 on survival outcomes

Company: Presented SACT scenarios using Weibull curve fitted to SACT data with relative treatment effects from CASTOR

ERG: Noted SACT data has limitations but supports relative treatment effects from trial

Committee: SACT data better represents NHS clinical practice than CASTOR; larger sample size than trial; preferred for absolute baseline event rates; COVID-19 impact uncertain

ICER impact: uncertain_direction

population generalisability

The effect of COVID-19 on the outcomes in the SACT dataset

ICER impact: uncertain_direction

survival extrapolation

Choice of parametric function for extrapolating survival curves beyond follow-up period

Company: Initially used various parametric curves; changed to Gompertz curve after technical engagement

ERG: Recommended using Gompertz curve

Committee: Gompertz curve was appropriate for extrapolating survival, allowing curves to diverge over time but may overestimate benefit of daratumumab

ICER impact: uncertain_direction

treatment effect duration

Whether relative treatment effects observed in CASTOR would hold when daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone used outside clinical trial setting

Company: Applied HRs from randomised trial to real-world data

ERG: Aligned with company approach

Committee: Likely that relative effect would hold in clinical practice but uncertainties remain

ICER impact: uncertain_direction

treatment effect duration

Adjusting the relative treatment effect from CASTOR to account for use of subsequent treatments not available in the NHS

Company: Not specified

ERG: Not specified

Committee: The adjusted and unadjusted HRs reflected the higher and lower bounds of clinical effectiveness

ICER impact: uncertain_direction

treatment sequencing

Adjustment for subsequent treatments not available in NHS. CASTOR trial showed 30% of people had daratumumab as subsequent treatment, but company adjusted analysis estimated 27% of second-line bortezomib plus dexamethasone group would have fourth-line daratumumab monotherapy. Committee believed most people progressing to fourth line without prior CD38 therapy would have daratumumab monotherapy.

Company: 27% of bortezomib plus dexamethasone group would receive fourth-line daratumumab monotherapy

Committee: Most people progressing to fourth line who had not had CD38 targeted therapy before would have fourth-line daratumumab monotherapy

ICER impact: increases

treatment sequencing

Whether subsequent daratumumab costs and clinical estimates are aligned in modelling

Company: Included fourth-line daratumumab costs and clinical estimates but misalignment between proportions

ERG: Noted the misalignment

Committee: Higher proportion of bortezomib plus dexamethasone patients had daratumumab costs modelled than were included in clinical estimates; biases cost-effectiveness estimates in favour of daratumumab

ICER impact: increases

utility source

Source of health-state utility values and whether low-level adverse events captured

Company: Used EQ-5D data from ENDEAVOR trial; applied disutilities based on grade 3 and 4 adverse events only

ERG: Not explicitly stated

Committee: Utility values from ENDEAVOR acceptable; grade 1 and 2 adverse events not included but more frequent in bortezomib plus dexamethasone arm; likely small underestimate of impact on quality of life

ICER impact: decreases

Evidence gaps

no direct comparisonNo direct trial evidence comparing daratumumab with bortezomib and dexamethasone versus carfilzomib with dexamethasone; indirect comparison via network meta-analysis used instead
no direct comparisonNo evidence provided for comparison with lenalidomide combination treatments at second line
short follow upSACT dataset has shorter follow-up time than CASTOR trial
otherCASTOR trial took place across 16 countries with no study centres in England; conducted several years ago and current multiple myeloma pathway in England significantly different from when trial started
otherSACT dataset mostly took place during COVID-19 pandemic with missing data on key prognostic variables such as ECOG performance status and international staging system
no direct comparisonNo trial directly comparing daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone with carfilzomib plus dexamethasone; network meta-analysis used instead
no uk dataCASTOR trial took place across 16 countries with no study centres in England; clinical pathway significantly different from trial period
short follow upSACT dataset had shorter follow-up time than CASTOR trial; data mostly collected during COVID-19 pandemic
immature overall survivalLimited data on key prognostic variables in SACT dataset such as ECOG performance status and international staging system

Commercial arrangement

simple discount pas · confidential · critical for recommendation

Special considerations

Innovation acknowledged

Cross-references

TA573precedent — Original appraisal of daratumumab with bortezomib and dexamethasone approved for use in Cancer Drugs Fund; this is a reconsideration with new data from managed access agreement
comparator guidance — Lenalidomide combination treatments not included as comparators; no evidence submitted so recommendations for lenalidomide at second line could not be made
precedent — Original appraisal of daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone; model structure based on this appraisal
utility reuse — NICE technical support document 13 recommends using registry data for baseline event rates and randomised evidence for relative differences