IQWiG Reports – Commission No. A13-15 Colestilan – Benefit assessment according 1 to § 35a Social Code Book V Extract 1 Translation of Sections 2.1 to 2.6 of the dossier assessment “Colestilan – Nutzenbewertung gemäß § 35a SGB V” (Version 1.0; Status: 27 June 2013). Please note: This translation is provided as a service by IQWiG to English-language readers. However, solely the German original text is absolutely authoritative and legally binding. Extract of dossier assessment A13-15 Version 1.0 Colestilan – Benefit assessment acc. to § 35a Social Code Book V 27 June 2013 Publishing details Publisher: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care Topic: Colestilan – Benefit assessment according to § 35a Social Code Book V Contracting agency: Federal Joint Committee Commission awarded on: 2 April 2013 Internal Commission No.: A13-15 Address of publisher: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care Im Mediapark 8 (KölnTurm) 50670 Cologne Germany Tel.: +49 (0)221 – 35685-0 Fax: +49 (0)221 – 35685-1 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.iqwig.de Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) - i - Extract of dossier assessment A13-15 Version 1.0 Colestilan – Benefit assessment acc. to § 35a Social Code Book V 27 June 2013 Medical and scientific advice: . Georg Schlieper, Rhine-Westphalian Technical University (RWTH), Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany IQWiG thanks the medical and scientific advisor for his contribution to the dossier assessment. However, the advisor was not involved in the actual preparation of the dossier assessment. Individual sections and conclusions in the dossier assessment therefore do not necessarily reflect his opinion. IQWiG employees involved in the dossier assessment:2 . Ulrike Seay . Katharina Biester . Wolfram Groß . Kirsten H. Herrmann . Thomas Kaiser . Florina Kerekes . Corinna Kiefer . Stefan Lhachimi . Anke Schulz . Siw Waffenschmidt Keywords: colestilan, kidney failure – chronic, benefit assessment 2 Due to legal data protection regulations, employees have the right not to be named. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) - ii - Extract of dossier assessment A13-15 Version 1.0 Colestilan – Benefit assessment acc. to § 35a Social Code Book V 27 June 2013 Table of contents Page List of tables ............................................................................................................................. iv List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................. v 2 Benefit assessment ............................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Executive summary of the benefit assessment .......................................................... 1 2.2 Research question ....................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Information retrieval and study pool ........................................................................ 7 2.3.1 Studies included ..................................................................................................... 7 2.3.2 Study characteristics ............................................................................................. 10 2.4 Results on added benefit ........................................................................................... 14 2.5 Extent and probability of added benefit ................................................................. 22 2.5.1 Assessment of added benefit at outcome level ..................................................... 22 2.5.2 Overall conclusion on added benefit .................................................................... 24 2.5.3 Extent and probability of added benefit - summary ............................................. 25 2.6 List of included studies ............................................................................................. 26 References for English extract .............................................................................................. 26 Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) - iii - Extract of dossier assessment A13-15 Version 1.0 Colestilan – Benefit assessment acc. to § 35a Social Code Book V 27 June 2013 List of tables3 Page Table 2: Therapeutic indication and ACT specified by the G-BA ............................................. 6 Table 3: Characteristics of the studies included by the company – RCT, direct comparison: colestilan vs. calcium acetate (subindication AI) .................................................. 8 Table 4: Study pool – RCT, direct comparison: colestilan vs. sevelamer hydrochloride (subindication AII) ................................................................................................................... 10 Table 5: Characteristics of the studies included – RCT, direct comparison: colestilan vs. sevelamer hydrochloride (subindication AII) .......................................................................... 11 Table 6: Characteristics of the interventions – RCT, direct comparison: colestilan vs. sevelamer hydrochloride (subindication AII) .......................................................................... 12 Table 7: Characteristics of the study population – RCT, direct comparison: colestilan vs. sevelamer hydrochloride (subindication AII) .......................................................................... 13 Table 8: Risk of bias at study level – RCT, direct comparison: colestilan vs. sevelamer hydrochloride (subindication AII) ............................................................................................ 13 Table 9: Matrix of outcomes – RCT, direct comparison: colestilan vs. sevelamer hydrochloride (subindication AII) ............................................................................................ 15 Table 10: Risk of bias at study and outcome level – RCT, direct comparison: colestilan vs. sevelamer hydrochloride (subindication AII, target population) ........................................ 15 Table 11: Results (dichotomous outcomes) – RCT, direct comparison: colestilan vs. sevelamer hydrochloride (subindication AII) .......................................................................... 17 Table 12: Additional reporting (continuous outcomes) – RCT, direct comparison: colestilan vs. sevelamer hydrochloride (subindication AII)..................................................... 21 Table 13: Extent of added benefit at outcome level: colestilan vs. sevelamer hydrochloride (subindication AII) ............................................................................................ 23 Table 14: Positive and negative effects from the assessment of colestilan compared with sevelamer hydrochloride (subindication AII, target population) ............................................. 24 Table 15: Colestilan: extent and probability of added benefit ................................................. 25 3 Table numbers start with “2” as numbering follows that of the full dossier assessment. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) - iv - Extract of dossier assessment A13-15 Version 1.0 Colestilan – Benefit assessment acc. to § 35a Social Code Book V 27 June 2013 List of abbreviations Abbreviation Meaning ACT appropriate comparator therapy AE adverse event CKD chronic kidney disease CKD 5D CKD stage 5 with haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis G-BA Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee) IQWiG Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care) PT preferred term RCT randomized controlled trial SAE serious adverse event SGB Sozialgesetzbuch (Social Code Book) SPC Summary of Product Characteristics Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) - v - Extract of dossier assessment A13-15 Version 1.0 Colestilan – Benefit assessment acc. to § 35a Social Code Book V 27 June 2013 2 Benefit assessment 2.1 Executive summary of the benefit assessment Background In accordance with § 35a Social Code Book (SGB) V, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) commissioned the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) to assess the benefit of the drug colestilan. The assessment was based on a dossier compiled by the pharmaceutical company (hereinafter abbreviated to “the company”). The dossier was sent to IQWiG on 2 April 2013. Research question The aim of this report is to assess the added benefit of colestilan for the treatment of hyperphosphataemia in adult patients with chronic kidney disease receiving haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis (hereinafter referred to as CKD 5D). According to the G-BA's specification, 2 subindications are differentiated and the following appropriate comparator therapies (ACTs) are used for them: . Patients without contraindications to calcium- or aluminium-based phosphate binders: calcium- or aluminium-based phosphate binders alone or in combination (subindication AI) . Patients in whom calcium- and aluminium-based phosphate binders (also in combination) are contraindicated according to the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) (e.g. in hypercalcaemia): sevelamer or lanthanum carbonate (subindication AII) In its dossier, the company concurred with the G-BA's specification with regards to the drugs (calcium acetate for subindication AI, sevelamer hydrochloride for subindication AII). When delimiting the subindications, the company deviated in so far as it