The appraisal committee reviewed the data available on the clinical and cost effectiveness of ezetimibe, having considered evidence on the nature of primary heterozygous‑familial and non‑familial hypercholesterolaemia and the value placed on the benefits of ezetimibe by people with the conditions, those who represent them, and clinical experts. It also took into account the effective use of NHS resources.
This appraisal is a review of the original NICE technology appraisal guidance on ezetimibe. The committee noted that ezetimibe monotherapy was recommended as an option for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia in adults who:
are unable to start statin therapy because it is contraindicated
cannot tolerate statin therapy.
It noted that ezetimibe, co‑administered with initial statin therapy, was recommended as an option for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia in adults when:
they have started statin therapy and low‑density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is not appropriately controlled either after dose titration of initial statin therapy or because dose titration is limited by intolerance to statin therapy and
changing to an alternative statin is being considered.
The committee was aware that NICE's guideline on lipid modification cross‑referred to NICE's technology appraisal guidance on ezetimibe.
The committee considered current NHS practice for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia. The committee observed that the patient population in the company's submission was different to the population covered by the marketing authorisation and the final NICE scope for ezetimibe (see section 2.2). This was because the company's submission considered a primary prevention population (people with a 10‑year risk of developing cardiovascular disease of 10% to 30%) and a secondary prevention population (people with established cardiovascular disease) with primary heterozygous‑familial or non‑familial hypercholesterolaemia. It noted that this was because the updated NICE guideline on lipid modification made recommendations according to primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular risk. The committee heard from the clinical experts and noted the comments received at consultation that suggested the way cardiovascular risk is assessed and managed may have changed since the original NICE technology appraisal guidance on ezetimibe was published. It further heard that despite the recommendations in NICE's guideline on lipid modification, which are largely based on assessing 10‑year cardiovascular risk using the cardiovascular disease risk calculator QRISK2, meeting target cholesterol levels to prevent cardiovascular disease remained an important part of clinical practice in England. The committee concluded that, in clinical practice in the NHS in England, treating hypercholesterolaemia to prevent cardiovascular disease starts either because of a person's 10‑year risk of developing cardiovascular disease or to meet a specific target cholesterol level. The committee further concluded that this remained consistent with the approach taken in NICE's original technology appraisal guidance on ezetimibe.
The committee considered the current treatment pathway for people with primary hypercholesterolaemia. The committee heard from the clinical experts that statins are the main treatment for familial and non‑familial hypercholesterolaemia (as described in NICE's guidelines on familial hypercholesterolaemia and on lipid modification). It further heard from the clinical experts that fibrates, nicotinic acid and bile acid sequestrants (anion exchange resins) are not routinely used to treat non‑familial hypercholesterolaemia. The committee then heard that, although recommended in NICE's guideline on familial hypercholesterolaemia, these treatments are not commonly used to treat familial hypercholesterolaemia because they are poorly tolerated. It heard from the clinical experts that ezetimibe monotherapy is used to treat primary hypercholesterolaemia when a statin is considered inappropriate or is not tolerated; ezetimibe with a statin is used in people when cholesterol levels are not low enough, despite increasing the dose of the statin, or if a person is unable to have higher doses of the statin because it is likely to cause side effects. The committee concluded that statins are the main option for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia (when a statin is considered appropriate), and that no treatments apart from ezetimibe monotherapy are established NHS practice in England for treating familial and non‑familial hypercholesterolaemia in adults who are unable to take a statin.
The committee discussed the clinical effectiveness of ezetimibe, focusing on the relevance of the new evidence from IMPROVE‑IT in reducing cardiovascular events in people with primary hypercholesterolaemia. The committee heard from the clinical experts and noted consultation comments that stated the IMPROVE‑IT population represented only part of the eligible population who could have statins or ezetimibe. This was because the patients in IMPROVE‑IT had acute coronary syndrome (that is, they were having treatment for secondary prevention, and not primary prevention, of cardiovascular disease). It noted the comments made by consultees that although IMPROVE‑IT's lower baseline LDL cholesterol level resulted in a smaller absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol with ezetimibe compared with the wider secondary prevention population, it considered this to be consistent with the trend predicted by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (CTTC) meta‑analysis (see section 3.2). The committee considered that ezetimibe plus a statin was more clinically effective than a statin alone in IMPROVE‑IT, as shown by lower LDL cholesterol and reduced cardiovascular events, but agreed that the trial population was not wholly representative of the population receiving ezetimibe in current NHS practice in England. The committee recalled that the original NICE technology appraisal guidance on ezetimibe concluded that ezetimibe co‑administered with a statin was clinically effective in adults in whom primary hypercholesterolaemia was not appropriately controlled with statin therapy compared with statins. It also recalled that ezetimibe monotherapy was clinically effective compared with placebo in people for whom statins were contraindicated or who cannot tolerate them. The committee therefore decided that the clinical effectiveness of ezetimibe using the updated evidence base was consistent with that in NICE's original technology appraisal guidance on ezetimibe, and that the conclusions it had previously made were still appropriate.
The committee considered the cost effectiveness of ezetimibe following the comments received at consultation. The committee noted that some consultees preferred the original cost effectiveness analyses and recommendations for ezetimibe, which did not differentiate between primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease when treating hypercholesterolaemia or use results from IMPROVE‑IT. The committee decided that the company's current incremental cost‑effectiveness ratios (ICERs) according to primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and the evidence review group's (ERG's) estimates using IMPROVE‑IT were not suitable for decision making. The committee considered the estimated ICERs from the original appraisal of ezetimibe to be more plausible than the current estimates from the company and ERG because the population in the original appraisal was better aligned with the final NICE scope, current practice and ezetimibe's marketing authorisation. The committee concluded that current practice, treatment (see sections 4.3 and 4.4) and the clinical effectiveness of ezetimibe using the updated evidence base (see section 4.5) are consistent with NICE's original technology appraisal guidance. Therefore, the cost effectiveness of ezetimibe was likely to be more plausible in NICE's original technology appraisal guidance compared with the current estimates from the company and the ERG. It decided not to use the company and ERG's current cost‑effectiveness estimates for ezetimibe for its decision making. It further concluded that the recommendations in NICE's original technology appraisal guidance on ezetimibe were still appropriate (see section 4.2). The committee agreed to amend the recommendations so that they no longer referred to superseded NICE guidance.
The committee was aware of NICE's position statement on the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) 2014, and in particular the PPRS payment mechanism. It accepted the conclusion 'that the 2014 PPRS payment mechanism should not, as a matter of course, be regarded as a relevant consideration in its assessment of the cost effectiveness of branded medicines'. The committee heard nothing to suggest that there is any basis for taking a different view about the relevance of the PPRS to this appraisal. It therefore concluded that the PPRS payment mechanism was not relevant in considering the cost effectiveness of ezetimibe in this appraisal.