Robert Hodgson

Background: Late-onset Pompe disease is a rare inherited genetic condition that causes progressive muscle dysfunction and damage. As the disease advances, the progressive weakening of respiratory muscles significantly increases the risk of respiratory failure, which is a major contributor to premature mortality. Enzyme replacement therapy is the primary treatment for Pompe disease. Objective: To investigate the clinical impact of enzyme replacement therapies for the treatment and management of late-onset Pompe disease and establish the relative effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy compared to best supportive care (in the absence of enzyme replacement therapy). Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of published evidence on the clinical effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy and best supportive care was undertaken. Comprehensive bibliographic database searches were conducted up to May 2024 to identify randomised controlled trials or any other prospective enzyme replacement therapy studies in patients with Pompe disease. Network meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials were undertaken to estimate indirect treatment effects for forced vital capacity % predicted and the 6-minute walk test. Other studies were summarised using narrative synthesis. Results: The review included 60 studies: 38 on enzyme replacement therapy and 22 on best supportive care. Enzyme replacement therapy studies comprised 3 randomised controlled trials, 3 randomised controlled trial extensions, 7 registry studies and 25 single-group prospective studies. Two randomised controlled trials had a high risk of bias. Best supportive care studies included 14 longitudinal and 8 cross-sectional studies. In the network meta-analyses, after approximately 1 year, enzyme replacement therapy-naive patients showed significant 6-minute walk test improvements versus placebo: ~25 m with alglucosidase alfa and ~54 m with avalglucosidase alfa. No significant differences were found for forced vital capacity % predicted or comparisons with cipaglucosidase alfa, although very few enzyme replacement therapy-naive patients taking cipaglucosidase alfa were available for inclusion in the analyses. Intra-enzyme replacement therapy comparisons showed a significant 6-minute walk test advantage for avalglucosidase alfa. However, a sensitivity analysis adjusting for skewed data revealed no significant differences. Long-term enzyme replacement therapy effectiveness was assessed in single-group studies, showing initial gains maintained for 1–3 years, followed by gradual 10- to 15-year declines in 6-minute walk test and forced vital capacity % predicted. However, small sample sizes and missing data introduce uncertainty. Long-term evidence on best supportive care is limited, with most of the evidence focused on characterising basic demographic information and support needs. A small number of studies reported declines in forced vital capacity % predicted. Formal comparisons with long-term enzyme replacement therapy studies were not possible, but declines appear to be similarly gradual. Conclusions: The network meta-analyses shows enzyme replacement therapy modestly improves 6-minute walk test and forced vital capacity % predicted after 1 year versus placebo in enzyme replacement therapy-naive patients. However, there is limited evidence to suggest meaningful differences in outcomes between alglucosidase alfa, avalglucosidase alfa and cipaglucosidase alfa with miglustat. Observational data suggest declines beyond 2–3 years, lasting up to 15 years. Long-term comparative effectiveness remains uncertain, as does enzyme replacement therapy’s impact on disease progression and supportive care needs. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme as award number NIHR161219.

Background: Skin cancers are some of the most common types of cancer. Dermatology services receive about 1.2 million referrals a year, but only a small minority are confirmed skin cancer. Artificial intelligence may be helpful in the diagnosis of skin cancer by identifying lesions that are or are not cancerous. Objectives: To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two artificial intelligence technologies: DERM (Deep Ensemble for Recognition of Malignancy, Skin Analytics) and Moleanalyzer Pro (FotoFinder), as decision aids following a primary care referral. Methods: A rapid systematic review of evidence on the two technologies was conducted. A narrative synthesis was performed, with a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy data. Published and unpublished cost-effectiveness evidence on the named technologies, as well as other diagnostic technologies were reviewed. A conceptual model was developed that could form the basis of a full economic evaluation. Results: Four studies of DERM and two of Moleanalyzer Pro were subject to full synthesis. DERM had a sensitivity of 96.1% to detect any malignant lesion (95% confidence interval 95.4 to 96.8); at a specificity of 65.4% (95% confidence interval 64.7 to 66.1). For detecting benign lesions, the sensitivity was 71.5% (95% confidence interval 70.7 to 72.3) for a specificity of 86.2% (95% confidence interval 85.4 to 87.0). Moleanalyzer Pro had lower sensitivity, but higher specificity for detecting melanoma than face-to-face dermatologists. DERM might lead to around half of all patients being discharged without assessment by a dermatologist, but a small number of malignant lesions would be missed. Patient and clinical opinions showed substantial resistance to using artificial intelligence without any assessment of lesions by a dermatologist. No published assessments of the cost-effectiveness of the technologies were identified; three assessments related to skin cancer more broadly in a National Health Service setting were identified. These studies employed similar model structures, but the mechanism by which diagnostic accuracy influenced costs and health outcomes differed. An unpublished cost–utility model was provided by Skin Analytics. Several issues with the modelling approach were identified, particularly the mechanisms by which value is driven and how diagnostic accuracy evidence was used. The conceptual model presents an alternative approach, which aligns more closely with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case and which more appropriately characterises the long-term consequences of basal cell carcinoma. Limitations: The rapid review approach meant that some relevant material may have been missed, and capacity for synthesis was limited. The proposed conceptual model does not capture non-cash benefits associated with demand on dermatologist time. An assessment of the likely budget impact and resource use could not be provided. Conclusions: DERM shows promising diagnostic accuracy for triage and diagnosis of suspicious cancer lesions in selected patients referred from primary care. Its impact on the diagnostic pathway and patient care is, however, uncertain. Moleanalyzer Pro shows promising accuracy for diagnosing melanoma, but its evidence base is limited. Future work: While artificial intelligence has the potential to be cost-effective for the identification of benign lesions, further research addressing the limitations in the diagnostic accuracy evidence is necessary. Without comparative evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence technologies, their value will remain uncertain. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42023475705. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR136014) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 30, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) compared with best supportive care (BSC) for late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD) in a UK NHS setting. Methods A discrete event simulation model was developed using data from a Bayesian network meta-analysis, trials and extension studies, and long-term observational cohorts. Costings were derived from NICE assessments of LOPD treatments. Disease progression was modelled using forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted and six-minute walk distance (6MWD). Results ERT was associated with an incremental cost of £3.26 million and 1.64 additional QALYs compared to BSC, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £2 million per QALY gained, and generating a net health effect (NHE) exceeding -100 QALYs per treated patient. Scenario analyses confirmed that ERT remained cost-ineffective under all plausible assumptions. Discounts of ~ 92.3% and ~ 89% on the list price of ERT would be required to achieve cost-effectiveness at thresholds of £30,000 and £100,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Conclusions While ERT provides modest long-term health benefits relative to BSC, it is structurally highly cost-ineffective, generating substantial negative NHE for the NHS population, even under the most optimistic assumptions. These results are primarily driven by very high acquisition costs of ERT. The historic commissioning of ERT without reference to the UK’s value-based pricing framework has significantly impacted NHS spending and distorted NICE decision-making. Without reform to the appraisal process, the NHS faces affordability challenges that may hinder access to innovative therapies and result in recommendations that displace more health than they generate.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal processes assume that the standard of care (SoC) is itself cost effective. However, many treatments in use in the UK National Health Service (NHS), particularly in rare diseases, were historically commissioned without formal value assessment and are priced without reference to cost-effectiveness thresholds. Cost-ineffective comparators distort how value is ascribed to new technologies, undermining the coherence of NICE’s decision-making framework, and imposing substantial opportunity costs on the NHS. Using late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD) as an exemplar, we demonstrate the implications of a cost-ineffective comparator in assessments of innovative therapies. A clinically superior enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) may command a lower value-based price than current ERTs, whilst a hypothetical curative gene therapy is valued at over £4 million against current ERT, but just £629,392 when re-anchored against best supportive care. Here, value is driven by displacement of costs rather than health gain, raising affordability concerns that may limit access to genuine innovation. The 2025 NHS 10-Year Plan grants new NICE statutory powers to withdraw access to cost-ineffective therapies, presenting an opportunity to reform technology appraisal. We propose several policy responses, including comprehensive reassessment of active guidance with decisions made with respect to a standard cost-effectiveness frontier, reviews triggered by new comparators, and use of flexible decision rules within existing frameworks. These changes could allow the evolving value of medicines to be reflected in NHS practice, redefining NICE as a body that takes a dynamic, whole-lifecycle view of value. Deliberative public and stakeholder engagement is essential for success, given the potential consequences for manufacturers and patients.

Background: Late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD) is a rare inherited genetic condition caused by deficiency of acid α-glucosidase (GAA) and accumulation of lysosomal glycogen. LOPD causes progressive muscle dysfunction and damage, leading to significant morbidity and early mortality. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) is the primary treatment for Pompe disease. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of published evidence on the clinical effectiveness of ERT and best supportive care (BSC) was undertaken to establish the relative effectiveness of ERT compared to BSC (in the absence of ERT). Bibliographic databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or any other prospective ERT studies in patients with Pompe disease. Network meta-analyses (NMA) of RCTs were undertaken to estimate indirect treatment effects for forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted and the 6-minute walk test (6MWD). A narrative synthesis was employed to summarise other studies. Results: A total of 38 studies were included in the review. They comprised three RCTs, three RCT extension studies, seven registry studies and 25 single-group prospective studies. The results of two RCTs were judged to have a high risk of bias. In the NMA, after approximately one year, ERT-naïve patients showed significant 6MWD improvements vs. placebo: ~25 m with alglucosidase alfa and ~ 54 m with avalglucosidase alfa. No significant differences were found for FVC % predicted or comparisons with cipaglucosidase alfa, although very few ERT-naïve patients taking cipaglucosidase alfa were available for the analyses. Intra-ERT comparisons showed a significant 6MWD advantage for avalglucosidase alfa. However, a sensitivity analysis adjusting for skewed data revealed no significant differences. Long-term ERT effectiveness was assessed in single-group studies, showing initial gains maintained for 1–3 years, followed by gradual 10–15-year declines in 6MWD and FVC % predicted. However, small sample sizes and missing data introduce uncertainty. Conclusions: Our NMA results showed that ERTs lead to modest improvements in 6MWD after 1 year compared to placebo in ERT-naive populations. However, there is limited evidence supporting meaningful differences in outcomes between ERTs. There is a lack of longer-term follow-up data supporting the effectiveness of ERTs compared to each other and to best supportive care.

Background: Diabetic retinopathy is a major cause of sight loss in people with diabetes, with a high risk of macular oedema, vitreous haemorrhage or other complications. Panretinal photocoagulation is the primary treatment for proliferative retinopathy. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs are used to treat various eye conditions and may be beneficial for people with proliferative or non-proliferative retinopathy. Methods: The Anti-VEGF In Diabetes project sought to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of using anti-vascular endothelial growth factor to prevent retinopathy progression when compared to panretinal photocoagulation or no treatment. A systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (alone or in combination with panretinal photocoagulation) to treat retinopathy was conducted. The database searches were updated in May 2023. Individual participant data from larger trials were sought. A systematic review of non-randomised studies was performed. Existing cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed, and a new economic model was developed, informed by the individual participant data meta-analysis. The model also estimated the value of undertaking further research to resolve decision uncertainty. Results: The review found that anti-vascular endothelial growth factors produced a slight, and not clinically meaningful, benefit over panretinal photocoagulation in best corrected visual acuity, after 1 year of follow-up in people with proliferative retinopathy (mean difference of 4.5 ETDRS letters; 95% credible interval −0.7 to 8.2). There was no evidence of a difference in effectiveness among the different anti-vascular endothelial growth factors. The benefit of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor appears to decline over time. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy may be more effective in people with poorer initial visual acuity. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor had no impact on vision in people with non-proliferative retinopathy. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor reduces rates of macular oedema and vitreous haemorrhage and may slow down the progression of retinopathy. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factors were predicted to be more costly but similarly effective to panretinal photocoagulation, with a net health benefit of −0.214 quality-adjusted life-years at a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Only under very select conditions might anti-vascular endothelial growth factors have the potential for cost-effectiveness to treat proliferative retinopathy. There is potentially significant value in reducing uncertainty through further primary research. Conclusions: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor has no clinically meaningful benefit over panretinal photocoagulation for preserving visual acuity, but it may delay or prevent progression to macular oedema and vitreous haemorrhage. The long-term effectiveness and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment are unclear, particularly as additional panretinal photocoagulation and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment will be required over time. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factors are therefore unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for early proliferative retinopathy compared to panretinal photocoagulation. They are generally associated with higher costs and similar health outcomes across various scenarios. The long-term cost-effectiveness of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor is uncertain due to the lack of long-term clinical evidence. Future work: Further, robust studies with more than 2 years follow-up are required to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor use, and the effect of additional anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and panretinal photocoagulation therapy over time. Clinical trials or observational studies focusing on the use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor in people with poorer vision at time of treatment may also be useful. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR132948.

Background: Proliferative diabetic retinopathy is a major cause of sight loss in people with diabetes, with a high risk of vitreous haemorrhage, tractional retinal detachment and other complications. Panretinal photocoagulation is the primary established treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs are used to treat various eye conditions and may be beneficial for people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for the treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy when compared to panretinal photocoagulation. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (alone or in combination) to panretinal photocoagulation in people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. The database searches were updated in May 2023. Trials where the primary focus was treatment of macular oedema or vitreous haemorrhage were excluded. Key outcomes were best corrected visual acuity, diabetic macular oedema and vitreous haemorrhage. Individual participant data were obtained and analysed for three large, high-quality trials in combination with published data from other trials. Network meta-analyses of best corrected visual acuity and meta-analyses of other outcomes combined individual participant data with published data from other trials; regression analyses against patient covariates used just the individual participant data. Results: Twelve trials were included: one of aflibercept, five of bevacizumab and six of ranibizumab. Individual participant data were available from 1 aflibercept and 2 ranibizumab trials, representing 624 patients (33% of the total). When considered together, anti-vascular endothelial growth factors produced a modest, but not clinically meaningful, benefit over panretinal photocoagulation in best corrected visual acuity, after 1 year of follow-up (mean difference in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution −0.116, 95% credible interval −0.183 to −0.038). There was no clear evidence of a difference in effectiveness between the anti-vascular endothelial growth factors. The benefit of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor appears to decline over time. Analysis of the individual participant data trials suggested that anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy may be more effective in people with poorer visual acuity, in those who have vitreous haemorrhage and, possibly, in people with poorer vision generally. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor was superior to panretinal photocoagulation at preventing macular oedema after 1 year (relative risk 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.83) and possibly at preventing vitreous haemorrhage (relative risk 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 1.10). Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor reduced the incidence of retinal detachment when compared to panretinal photocoagulation (relative risk 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.77). Data on other adverse events were generally too limited to identify any differences between anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and panretinal photocoagulation. Conclusions: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor has no clinically meaningful benefit over panretinal photocoagulation for preserving visual acuity. However, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy appears to delay or prevent progression to macular oedema and vitreous haemorrhage. The possibility that anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy may be more effective in patients with poorer health and poorer vision merits further clinical investigation. The long-term effectiveness and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment are unclear, particularly as additional panretinal photocoagulation and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment will be required over time. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR132948.

This article consists of a citation of a published article describing research funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme under project number NIHR132948, and is provided as as part of the complete record of research outputs for this project. The original publication is available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.03.007 Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor drugs (anti-VEGFs) compared with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in the United Kingdom. Methods: A discrete event simulation model was developed, informed by individual participant data meta-analysis. The model captures treatment effects on best corrected visual acuity in both eyes, and the occurrence of diabetic macular edema and vitreous hemorrhage. The model also estimates the value of undertaking further research to resolve decision uncertainty. Results: Anti-VEGFs are unlikely to generate clinically meaningful benefits over PRP. The model predicted anti-VEGFs be more costly and similarly effective as PRP, generating 0.029 fewer quality-adjusted life-years at an additional cost of £3688, with a net health benefit of −0.214 at a £20 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Scenario analysis results suggest that only under very select conditions may anti-VEGFs offer potential for cost-effective treatment of PDR. The consequences of loss to follow-up were an important driver of model outcomes. Conclusions: Anti-VEGFs are unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for early PDR compared with PRP. Anti-VEGFs are generally associated with higher costs and similar health outcomes across various scenarios. Although anti-VEGFs were associated with lower diabetic macular edema rates, the number of cases avoided is insufficient to offset the additional treatment costs. Key uncertainties relate to the long-term comparative effectiveness of anti-VEGFs, particularly considering the real-world rates and consequences of treatment nonadherence. Further research on long-term visual acuity and rates of vision-threatening complications may be beneficial in resolving uncertainties. Funding: This publication was funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme as a part of award number NIHR132948. This article reports on one component of the research award Anti-VEGF drugs compared with laser photocoagulation for the treatment of diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review and economic analysis. For more information about this research please view the award page [https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR132948] DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.03.007