Aim: To externally validate the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model version 2 (UKPDS-OM2) by comparing the predicted and observed outcomes in two European population-based cohorts of people with type 2 diabetes. Materials and methods: We used data from the Casale Monferrato Survey (CMS; n = 1931) and a subgroup of the Hoorn Diabetes Care System (DCS) cohort (n = 5188). The following outcomes were analysed: all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), ischaemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, and congestive heart failure (CHF). Model performance was assessed by comparing predictions with observed cumulative incidences in each cohort during follow-up.Results: All-cause mortality was overestimated by the UKPDS-OM2 in both the cohorts, with a bias of 0.05 in the CMS and 0.12 in the DCS at 10 years of follow-up.For MI, predictions were consistently higher than observed incidence over the entire follow-up in both cohorts (10 years bias 0.07 for CMS and 0.10 for DCS). The model performed well for stroke and IHD outcomes in both cohorts. CHF incidence was predicted well for the DCS (5 years bias −0.001), but underestimated for the CMS cohort.

No abstract

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Roche) of pralsetinib (Gavreto ® ), as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pralsetinib for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with a RET inhibitor. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with University Medical Center Groningen, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarizes the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS reported data from the ARROW trial. ARROW is a single-arm, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, multi-cohort study in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and other advanced solid tumors. The CS included both untreated and pre-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients, among other disease types. The comparators in the untreated population were pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The comparators for the pre-treated population were docetaxel monotherapy, docetaxel + nintedanib, and platinum-based chemotherapy ± pemetrexed. As no comparators were included in ARROW, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate relative effectiveness. The ERG's concerns included the immaturity of data, small sample size, and lack of comparative safety evidence. The ERG considers the clinical evidence presented to be insufficiently robust to inform the economic model. Even when all the ERG preferred assumptions were implemented in the model, uncertainty remained on a number of issues, such as the appropriateness of the hazard ratios and the methods and data used to derive them, long-term efficacy of pralsetinib, and direct evidence for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). NICE did not recommend pralsetinib within its marketing authorization for treating RET fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults who have not had a RET inhibitor before. The uncertainty of the clinical evidence and the estimates of cost effectiveness were too high to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Therefore, pralsetinib was not recommended for routine use.