Vesicular Monoamine Transporter 2 Inhibitors for Tardive Dyskinesia: Effectiveness and Value
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Vesicular Monoamine Transporter 2 Inhibitors for Tardive Dyskinesia: Effectiveness and Value Final Evidence Report December 22, 2017 Prepared for ©Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 2017 ICER Staff/Consultants University of Illinois at Chicago College of Pharmacy Modeling Group* Steven J. Atlas, MD, MPH Surrey M Walton, PhD Director, Primary Care Research and Quality Associate Professor of Pharmacy Improvement Network Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes, Massachusetts General Hospital and Policy University of Illinois at Chicago College of Foluso Agboola, MBBS, MPH Pharmacy Research Scientist Daniel R. Touchette, PharmD, MA, FCCP Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Associate Professor of Pharmacy and Takeda Professor of Medication Adherence Ifeoma Otuonye, MPH Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes, Research Associate and Policy Institute for Clinical and Economic Review University of Illinois at Chicago College of Pharmacy Varun Kumar, MBBS, MPH, MSc Health Economist Katherine Harrigan, PharmD Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Research Fellow Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes, Celia Segel, MPP and Policy Program Manager University of Illinois at Chicago College of Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Pharmacy Rick Chapman, PhD, MS Director of Health Economics Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Daniel A. Ollendorf, PhD Chief Scientific Officer *The role of the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) Institute for Clinical and Economic Review College of Pharmacy Modeling Group is limited to the development of the cost-effectiveness model, and the Steven D. Pearson, MD, MSc resulting ICER reports do not necessarily represent President the views of the UIC. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review DATE OF PUBLICATION: December 22, 2017 We would also like to thank Aqsa Mugal, Noah Mwandha, Molly Morgan, and Erin Lawler for their contributions to this report. ©Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 2017 Page i Final Evidence Report: VMAT2 Inhibitors for Tardive Dyskinesia: Effectiveness and Value About ICER The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent non-profit research organization that evaluates medical evidence and convenes public deliberative bodies to help stakeholders interpret and apply evidence to improve patient outcomes and control costs. The funding for this report comes from government grants and non-profit foundations, with the largest single funder being the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. No funding for this work comes from health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, or life science companies. ICER receives approximately 15% of its overall revenue from these health industry organizations to run a separate Policy Forum program, with funding approximately equally split between insurers/PBMs and life science companies. For a complete list of funders and for more information on ICER's support, please visit http://www.icerreview.org/about/support/. Through all its work, ICER seeks to help create a future in which collaborative efforts to move evidence into action provide the foundation for a more effective, efficient, and just health care system. More information about ICER is available at http://www.icer-review.org About New England CEPAC The New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC) – a core program of ICER – provides a public venue in which the evidence on the effectiveness and value of health care services can be discussed with the input of all stakeholders. New England CEPAC seeks to help patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers interpret and use evidence to improve the quality and value of health care. The New England CEPAC is an independent committee of medical evidence experts from across New England, with a mix of practicing clinicians, methodologists, and leaders in patient engagement and advocacy. All Council members meet strict conflict of interest guidelines and are convened to discuss the evidence summarized in ICER reports and vote on the comparative clinical effectiveness and value of medical interventions. More information about New England CEPAC is available at http://icer-review.org/programs/new-england-cepac/. ©Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 2017 Page ii Final Evidence Report: VMAT2 Inhibitors for Tardive Dyskinesia: Effectiveness and Value In the development of this report, ICER’s researchers consulted with several clinical experts, patients, manufacturers, and other stakeholders. The following clinical experts provided input that helped guide the ICER team as we shaped our scope and report. None of these individuals is responsible for the final contents of this report or should be assumed to support any part of this report, which is solely the work of the ICER team and its affiliated researchers. For a complete list of stakeholders from whom we requested input, please visit: https://icer-review.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/NECEPAC_TD_Stakeholder_List_05082017.pdf Expert Reviewers Robert Rosenheck, MD VA New England Mental Illness, Research, Education and Clinical Center VA Connecticut Health Care System Professor of Psychiatry, Epidemiology and Public Health, and the Child Study Center Yale Medical School Disclosure: No relevant conflicts of interest to disclose, defined as more than $10,000 in healthcare company stock or more than $5,000 in honoraria or consultancies during the previous year from health care manufacturers or insurers Cindy Specht Executive Vice President Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA) Disclosure: No relevant conflicts of interest to disclose, defined as more than $10,000 in healthcare company stock or more than $5,000 in honoraria or consultancies during the previous year from health care manufacturers or insurers. Daniel Tarsy, MD Professor in Neurology Harvard Medical School Parkinson Disease & Movement Disorders Center Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Disclosure: No relevant conflicts of interest to disclose, defined as more than $10,000 in healthcare company stock or more than $5,000 in honoraria or consultancies during the previous year from health care manufacturers or insurers ©Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 2017 Page iii Final Evidence Report: VMAT2 Inhibitors for Tardive Dyskinesia: Effectiveness and Value Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ ES1 1. Background ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 2. The Topic in Context .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 How Common is Tardive Dyskinesia? .......................................................................................... 5 2.2 How is Tardive Dyskinesia Diagnosed? ........................................................................................ 6 2.3 Treatment Options for Tardive Dyskinesia .................................................................................. 6 2.4 Vesicular Monoamine Transporter 2 (VMAT2) Inhibitors ........................................................... 7 2.5 Insights Gained from Discussions with Patients and Patient Groups ........................................ 10 2.6 Definitions of Outcome Measures Used in Clinical Trials .......................................................... 13 3. Summary of Clinical Guidelines and Coverage Policies ................................................................... 15 4. Comparative Clinical Effectiveness .................................................................................................. 18 4.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 18 4.2 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 19 4.3 Results ........................................................................................................................................ 21 5. Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness.......................................................................................................... 43 5.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 43 5.2 Cost-Effectiveness Model: Methods .......................................................................................... 43 5.3 Cost-Effectiveness Model: Results ............................................................................................. 52 5.4 Potential Budget Impact ............................................................................................................ 60 5.5 Value-Based Benchmark Prices .................................................................................................. 64 5.6 Summary and Comment ............................................................................................................ 65 6. Additional Considerations ................................................................................................................ 67 7. Summary of the Votes and Considerations