Imiquimod, cream 50 mg per g (5%), 250 mg single use sachets, 12, Aldara®, July 2008
Public summary document for Imiquimod, cream 50 mg per g (5%), 250 mg single use sachets, 12, Aldara®, July 2008
Page last updated: 14 November 2008
Public Summary Documents
Product:Imiquimod, cream 50 mg per g (5%), 250 mg
single use sachets, 12, Aldara®,
Sponsor: iNova Pharmaceuticals (Aust) Pty
Ltd
Date of PBAC Consideration: July 2008
1. Purpose of Application:
The submission sought an extension to listing to include solar
keratosis on the face or scalp as field therapy in patients with
multiple lesions.
2. Background
Imiquimod cream was considered by the PBAC at its November 2005 for
the treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma (sBCC). The
Committee rejected imiquimod for listing because the restriction
was considered inappropriate, the trials were not representative of
those for whom PBS listing was sought, and the cost-effectiveness
was both uncertain and inadequately demonstrated.
In July 2006, the PBAC considered a re-submission for imiquimod for
the treatment of sBCC. The PBAC recommended an authority required
listing for imiquimod on the basis of acceptable cost-effectiveness
compared to placebo for patients who cannot have surgical excision,
cryotherapy or curettage. As previously, the PBAC acknowledged that
imiquimod has a clinical place in the treatment of sBCC, but
considered it should not be available as first line treatment, as
surgery is more effective than imiquimod.
Imiquimod was listed for sBCC on 1 December 2006.
3. Registration Status
Imiquimod is listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods with three approved indications including:
- treatment of solar (actinic) keratosis on the face and scalp;
Imiquimod was registered 4 November 2005 for treatment of solar (actinic) keratosis in the face and the scalp. It is also registered for the following indications:
- primary treatment of confirmed sBCC where surgery is considered inappropriate;
- treatment of external genital and perianal warts/condyloma acuminata in adults.
4. Listing Requested and PBAC’s View
Authority Required
Solar keratosis on the face or scalp in a patient with normal
immune function who has multiple clinically evident solar keratosis
lesions and requires topical drug treatment as field therapy.
NOTE:
The patient or carer must be able to understand and administer the
imiquimod dosing regimen.
No applications for increased maximum quantities and/or repeats
will be authorised.
For PBAC’ view, see Recommendation and
Reasons.
5. Clinical Place for the Proposed Therapy
Solar keratoses (SK) are thickened, scaly patches of skin caused by
too much sun exposure. Solar keratosis is also known as actinic
keratosis (AK). Imiquimod is a topical cream that is applied to the
area of skin on the face and scalp to be cleared of solar
keratosis. As a field therapy, imiquimod is intended to clear both
clinically evident (visible) and sub-clinical (below the skin) SK
lesions.
6. Comparator
The submission nominated both topical 5-fluorouracil (Efudix®),
as the most widely prescribed topical treatment for solar
keratosis, and cryotherapy as the appropriate comparators. The PBAC
considered this was appropriate.
For PBAC’s view, see Recommendations and
Reasons.
7. Clinical Trials
The submission presented one randomised trial (H2H trial), the key
pivotal trial, comparing imiquimod (5% cream three times per week,
four weeks treatment, four weeks rest; if lesions remained another
four weeks treatment) with 5-FU (5% ointment twice daily for four
weeks) and cryotherapy (one session, if lesions not cleared within
2 weeks another session) in patients with SK on the face or scalp
(Stockfleth 2007).
The submission also presented one supportive prospective randomised
(unpublished) trial (Foley 2006) comparing the effectiveness of
imiquimod with cryotherapy. Furthermore, the submission presented
three randomised trials comparing imiquimod (5% cream three times
per week, four weeks treatment, four weeks rest; if lesions
remained another four weeks treatment) with placebo.
The pivotal randomised H2H study was published at the time of the
submission, and is listed as follows:
| Trial ID | Protocol title/ Publication title | Publication citation |
| Stockfleth 2007 further referred to as H2H Trial | A randomized study of topical 5 % Imiquimod (Aldara ® ) versus topical 5-Fluorouracil versus topical cryotherapy in immunosufficient patients with actinic keratoses – single center study. Protocol No: IQ vs 5-FU vs Cryo H2H | Krawtchenko N, Roewer-Huber J, Ulrich M et al. A randomised study of topical 5% imiquimod vs topical 5-fluorouracil vs cryosurgery in immunocompetent patients with actinic keratoses: a comparison of clinical and histological outcomes including 1-year follow-up, British Journal of Dermatology 2007; 157 (Suppl 2): 34-40. |
8. Results of Trials
There was no difference in acute clearance rates (i.e the
percentage of patients in each treatment group with 100% of SK
lesions cleared) between imiquimod and 5-FU and cryotherapy
treatments in the H2H trial. However, the sustained clearance rate
of the total treatment fields (i.e percentage of patients with
cleared SK lesions remaining clear and with no new lesions) in all
patients at twelve months after the end of treatment were 73%, 33%
and 4% of patients after imiquimod, 5-FU and cryotherapy treatment,
respectively. The higher field clearance rate of imiquimod in the
Intention to Treat (ITT) analyses was statistically significantly
different from that of 5-FU (p=0.01) and cryotherapy (p<0.0005).
The majority of the patients who were completely cleared by
imiquimod (in the short term) remained cleared 12 months later,
whereas in the 5-FU and cryotherapy groups the proportion of
completely cleared patients decreased with time.
There was a statistically significant difference in acute complete
(100%) clearance rates, favouring imiquimod in the
placebo-controlled trials, both individually and in the
meta-analysis. The PBAC noted that the 100% clearance rates of
imiquimod in these studies are similar to that reported by Foley
but lower than that reported in H2H trial.
The submission claimed that in the H2H trial, all treatments were
generally well tolerated and that no safety findings beyond the
established knowledge of any of the study treatments were found.
The number of adverse events and serious adverse events was low in
all study groups. In the Foley trial local administration site
reactions were common and experienced in both treatment arms and in
the placebo-controlled trials, the most frequently reported AEs
were application site reactions (itching): significantly more often
for imiquimod than placebo patients.
For PBAC’s view, see Recommendation and
Reasons.
9. Clinical Claim
The submission described imiquimod as superior in terms of
comparative effectiveness and equivalent in terms of comparative
safety over 5-FU.
The submission described imiquimod as superior in terms of
comparative effectiveness and equivalent in terms of comparative
safety over cryotherapy.
The PBAC expressed concerns about the safety of imiquimod when used
as field therapy.
For PBAC’s view, see Recommendation and
Reasons.
10. Economic Analysis
The submission presented a stepped economic evaluation. The model
was a single cohort, discrete time, SK-free survival model with a
three-year time horizon and a quarter-year time step. The outcome
was the number of SK-free years lived in the three year period.
Because the acute clearance rate is the same for imiquimod and the
comparators (5-FU and cryotherapy) based on the H2H study results,
the health outcome was determined by the proportion of people in
each treatment group with recurrent lesions plus
new lesions at 12 months.
Based on the H2H study, the economic evaluation results for
imiquimod as a SK field clearance therapy one year and three years
post treatment, expressed as the incremental cost per
recurrence-free year, were:
| Therapy | ICER ($/recurrence- free year) |
| STEP 1: ONE YEAR | |
| IMQ vs. 5-FU | $783 |
| IMQ vs. Cryotherapy | $467 |
| IMQ vs. Placebo | $717 |
| STEP 2: THREE YEARS | |
| IMQ vs. 5-FU | $195 |
| IMQ vs. Cryotherapy | $157 |
| IMQ vs. Placebo | $331 |
IMQ, imiquimod; 5-FU, 5-fluorouracil
The results of one-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the
model was most sensitive to the clinical outcomes used, quarterly
recurrence rates and inclusion of a biopsy. The results of two-way
sensitivity analyses indicated that the model (vs. 5-FU) was most
sensitive to using individual acute clearance rates from the H2H
trial combined with the lower 95% CI of the sustained clearance
failure rate with an ICER of $1,846 per recurrence-free year.
11. Estimated PBS Usage and Financial Implications:
The submission estimated that the likely financial cost per year to
the PBS to be up to $9.7 million in Year 5 (recalculated during the
evaluation to be up to $17.5 million in Year 5). However, the PBAC
considered that the submission underestimated the eligible patient
population while overestimating the use (i.e. number of
prescriptions) of imiquimod within this sub-population. The net
effect was an underestimate in the total use and PBS cost of
imiquimod within the eligible population. However the uncertainty
due to the potential for use outside the restriction and the
treatment preference of both clinicians and patients would also
impact significantly on these estimates.
12. Recommendation and Reasons:
The PBAC agreed that the primary analysis of interest is the
comparison with 5-fluoruracil gel (5-FU, Efudix®) as
the two treatments are alternative options for field therapy,
whereas cryotherapy can only be used to treat extant lesions and
even then it cannot be used in all circumstances where field
therapy might be appropriate. The PBAC further agreed with the
restriction wording proposed by the RWG, but requested the sponsor
provide further input on the need to restrict treatment to patients
with normal immune function.
The PBAC had major concerns around the adequacy of the provided
data for making a listing recommendation. With respect to the
comparison of the effectiveness of imiquimod and 5-FU, the pivotal
H2H trial involved only a very small number of patients, was
unblinded, and appeared to have had as its primary outcome an
assessment of oncogenes pre- and post-treatment, although it was
acknowledged that different sources provide conflicting information
on what should constitute the primary outcome.
However, the safety of imiquimod when used as a field therapy was
of concern to PBAC.
The TGA-approved product information (PI) for imiquimod states that
imiquimod cream should not be used in an area greater than 25
cm2 due to the potential to cause local skin reactions.
No safety data were presented on the use of imiquimod over areas
greater than 50 cm2, but the maximum skin area that can
be covered by the contents of one sachet (intended for a single use
application) is 389 cm2. This area is in contrast to the
recommendation for 5FU where up to 500 cm2 can be
treated at one application. In trial H2H the imiquimod treatment
area was 50 cm2. No safety data were presented for
sequential use on different 25 cm2 patches of skin in
the same patient. On the other hand, the evidence from Phase 2
trials suggested a higher risk of systemic side effects when larger
skin areas are treated, and safety issues reported with the use of
imiquimod in Europe were considered likely to be amplified in the
Australian setting.
The economic model presented utilises the same structure as the
model previously presented for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and the
PBAC considered this inappropriate in the context of SK, a disease
which has a much longer course. Additionally, although the
incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is reported as the cost per SK
recurrence free year, the value of treating SK has not been
conclusively established by the submission.
The PBAC further noted that the ESC had raised a number of other
clinical and economic concerns with the data presented and agreed
that they would need to be addressed in any future
submission.
Therefore, the PBAC rejected the request to extend the PBS listing
of imiquimod to include field therapy of multiple clinically
evident SK because of uncertain evidence of effectiveness and
safety over the comparator and the resulting uncertain
cost-effectiveness.
Recommendation
Rejected
13. Context for Decision
The PBAC helps decide whether and, if so, how medicines should be
subsidised in Australia. It considers submissions in this context.
A PBAC decision not to recommend listing or not to recommend
changing a listing does not represent a final PBAC view about the
merits of the medicine. A company can resubmit to the PBAC or seek
independent review of the PBAC decision.
14.Sponsor’s Comment
The sponsor chose not to comment.
