How are you taking part in this consultation?

You will not be able to change how you comment later.

You must be signed in to answer questions

  • Question on Consultation

    Has all of the relevant evidence been taken into account?
  • Question on Consultation

    Are the summaries of clinical and cost effectiveness reasonable interpretations of the evidence?
  • Question on Consultation

    Are the recommendations sound and a suitable basis for guidance to the NHS?
  • Question on Consultation

    Are there any aspects of the recommendations that need particular consideration to ensure we avoid unlawful discrimination against any group of people on the grounds of race, gender, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation, age, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity?
The content on this page is not current guidance and is only for the purposes of the consultation process.

1 Recommendations

1.1 Elosulfase alfa is not recommended, within its marketing authorisation, for treating mucopolysaccharidosis type 4A (MPS 4A) in people of any age.

1.2 This recommendation is not intended to affect treatment with elosulfase alfa that was started in the NHS before this guidance was published.

Why the committee made these recommendations

This guidance reviews the evidence for elosulfase alfa for treating MPS 4A, including new evidence collected as part of the managed access agreement (NICE highly specialised technology guidance HST2).

MPS 4A is rare and progressive, and has a significant effect on the quality of life of people with the condition, and their families and carers. It causes abnormalities in the joints and bones, respiratory symptoms, pain, fatigue and increasing dependence on a wheelchair. Current treatment options are limited.

Clinical trial evidence and data collected as part of the managed access agreement suggest that MPS 4A becomes stable in the long term with elosulfase alfa.

However, the company used the same limited economic model structure for the review that it had used for the original guidance. Also, its assumptions in model are not robust or plausible, particularly around:

  • using a model that relies on wheelchair use because it does not represent well enough how the condition progresses

  • making assumptions about treatment benefit rather than using the observed data

  • body weight because this is likely to change over time.

The long-term benefits of elosulfase alfa are not appropriately captured in the model. The extra health and quality-of-life benefits of elosulfase alfa are considered to be substantial. But the cost-effectiveness estimates are much higher than what NICE considers acceptable for highly specialised technologies. So, elosulfase alfa is not considered an appropriate use of NHS resources within the context of a highly specialised service, and cannot be recommended.