← The record

Lumacaftor With IvacaftorOrkambi

Recommended Rare diseaseAuthority RequiredFirst-line line 💬 consumer voice

Treatment of cystic fibrosis in patients aged 1 to less than 2 years who are homozygous for the F508del mutation in the CFTR gene.

5
Submissions
4 resub
2016–23
On the record
ICER range
Cost basis

Decisions on record

2 decisions
  • Meeting Jul 2023 Recommended Cystic fibrosis (CF)
  • Meeting Jul 2019 Recommended Cystic fibrosis (CF)

Access path

5 submissions · public record
  1. TGA registered · Orkambi

    TGA label narrower than the PBS population

  2. Mar 2016
    Not recommended

    vs best supportive care

  3. Nov 2016
    Not recommended

    Matters of concern from March 2016 rejection not adequately addressed in resubmission including: uncertain clinical…

  4. ↻ resubmitted
    Jul 2018
    Recommended · restricted
  5. Jul 2018
    Not recommended
  6. ↻ resubmitted
    Jul 2023
    Recommended · restricted

    Evidence: RCT → Single-arm

  7. PBS listing · Authority Required
RecommendedDeferredNot recommended

From the public summary

Verbatim · PSD text · may span indications
PBAC outcome
The PBAC recommended that the restriction for lumacaftor with ivacaftor granules be extended to include patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), homozygous for the F580del mutation in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene, to include patients aged 1 to less than 2 years.PSD · Jul 2023
Overall, the PBAC considered that the claim of superior efficacy over best supportive care (BSC) in patients aged from 1 to less than 2 years was biologically plausible and likely to be beneficial. The PBAC considered lumacaftor with ivacaftor was likely to be cost-effective at a unit price no higher than that of the current PBS listing (for patients ≥ 2 years of age).PSD · Jul 2023
Economic analysis
The submission presented a modelled cost-utility analysis (CUA) comparing lumacaftor/ivacaftor plus BSC with BSC for the F/F population aged 1 to less than 2 years.PSD · Jul 2023
The model was based on the Cox-proportional hazard survival model described in Liou et al (2001). This approach has been reviewed by the PBAC in other CFTR modulator submissions (Table 8, lumacaftor/ivacaftor PSD, July 2019; paragraph 6.27 ELX/TEZ/IVA PSD, November 2022).PSD · Jul 2023
Clinical claim
LUM/IVA plus BSC is comparable in terms of safety to BSC alone. Source: Table 1.1.1, p25 of the submission.PSD · Jul 2023
The submission described lumacaftor/ivacaftor plus BSC as superior in terms of efficacy and comparable in terms of safety compared to BSC alone.PSD · Jul 2023
Consumer comments
The PBAC noted and welcomed the input from individuals (68), and organisations (1) via the Consumer Comments facility on the PBS website. The comments, primarily from carers of children with CF, described a range of benefits of treatment with lumacaftor with ivacaftor including reduced long-term lung damage due to a reduced likelihood of contracting bacterial infections, reduced antibiotic use and hospitalisations and improved gastrointestinal symptoms.PSD · Jul 2023
The PBAC noted the advice received from the National Paediatric Medicines Forum (NPMF) which strongly supported the extension of the lumacaftor with ivacaftor listing to children aged 1 to 2 years, stating that it would help slow the progression of CF and 6PSD · Jul 2023

Cost-effectiveness

ICER value not stated in the provided PSD text; text appears to be truncated at the economic evaluation section.

The PBAC considered that the claim of equivalent comparative safety was reasonable in the short term but noted the long term safety of lumacaftor/ivacaftor is unknown. PBAC · 2016
ICER uncertain ×3ICER / price too high ×2Economic model disputed ×2Immature survival data ×2Surrogate endpoint

Decision context

PopulationChildren aged 1 to less than 2 years with cystic fibrosis who are homozygous for the F508del mutation in the CFTR gene

Submission history

5 entries
DecidedOutcomeComparatorICEREvidence
Jul 2023 Recommended · restricted best supportive care Single-arm · Safety
Jul 2018 Recommended · restricted Best Supportive Care RCT · Surrogate
Jul 2018 Not recommended best supportive care RCT · PFS
Nov 2016 Not recommended best supportive care RCT · PFS
Mar 2016 Not recommended best supportive care RCT · PFS

Clinical evidence

Trials cited in the PSDs · ClinicalTrials.gov
TrialPhaseNPrimary outcomeStatus
Study 809-122 (NCT03601637) Ph 3 61 Part A: Observed Plasma Concentrations From 3-4 Hours (C3-4hr) of LUM and IVA completed
TRAFFIC Ph 3 559 Absolute Change From Baseline in Percent Predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second (F… completed
TRANSPORT Ph 3 563 Absolute Change From Baseline in Percent Predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second (F… completed

Consumer voice

Jul 2023

68 individuals and 1 organisation, primarily carers of children with CF, provided comments highlighting benefits of lumacaftor with ivacaftor including reduced lung damage, reduced antibiotic use and hospitalisations, improved gastrointestinal symptoms, and improved access and equity. The National Paediatric Medicines Forum strongly supported extension of the listing, stating it would help slow CF

described a range of benefits of treatment with lumacaftor with ivacaftor including reduced long-term lung damage due to a reduced likelihood of contracting bacterial infections, reduced antibiotic use and hospitalisations and improved gastrointestinal symptoms Consumer comments · PSD
reduced lung damagereduced infection riskreduced antibiotic usereduced hospitalisationsimproved gastrointestinal symptomsaccess barriers

Similar precedents

By decision profile

Regulatory · TGA

Label narrower than PBS population — PBAC restricts to ages 1 to <2 years; TGA label permits ages ≥1 year (including older children and adults).