Reimbursement recommendations for cancer drugs supported by phase II evidence in Canada.


Journal

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.)
ISSN: 1718-7729
Titre abrégé: Curr Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9502503

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2020
Historique:
entrez: 11 11 2020
pubmed: 12 11 2020
medline: 21 9 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Phase ii data are increasingly being used as primary evidence for public reimbursement for oncologic drugs. We compared the frequency of reimbursement recommendations for phase ii and phase iii submissions and assessed for variables associated with a positive or conditional recommendation. We identified submissions made to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review's Expert Review Committee (perc), of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, July 2011 to July 2019, that were supported only by phase ii data. We identified variables within the perc's deliberative framework, including clinical and economic factors, associated with the final reimbursement recommendation. We conducted a multivariable analysis with logistic regression for these variables: feasibility of phase iii study, hematologic indication, and unmet need. We identified 139 submissions with a perc final recommendation. In 27 instances (19%), the submission had only phase ii evidence, and a positive recommendation was issued for 63% of them (the positive recommendation rate was 82% for submissions with phase iii evidence). Clinical benefit ( Although more than half the oncologic submissions with phase ii data were recommended for public reimbursement, compared with submissions having phase iii data, they were less likely to be recommended. A positive or conditional recommendation was more likely if clinical benefit and alignment with patient values was demonstrated. The perc was less likely to recommend reimbursement for submissions with phase ii evidence if a phase iii trial was deemed possible.

Sections du résumé

Background
Phase ii data are increasingly being used as primary evidence for public reimbursement for oncologic drugs. We compared the frequency of reimbursement recommendations for phase ii and phase iii submissions and assessed for variables associated with a positive or conditional recommendation.
Methods
We identified submissions made to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review's Expert Review Committee (perc), of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, July 2011 to July 2019, that were supported only by phase ii data. We identified variables within the perc's deliberative framework, including clinical and economic factors, associated with the final reimbursement recommendation. We conducted a multivariable analysis with logistic regression for these variables: feasibility of phase iii study, hematologic indication, and unmet need.
Results
We identified 139 submissions with a perc final recommendation. In 27 instances (19%), the submission had only phase ii evidence, and a positive recommendation was issued for 63% of them (the positive recommendation rate was 82% for submissions with phase iii evidence). Clinical benefit (
Conclusions
Although more than half the oncologic submissions with phase ii data were recommended for public reimbursement, compared with submissions having phase iii data, they were less likely to be recommended. A positive or conditional recommendation was more likely if clinical benefit and alignment with patient values was demonstrated. The perc was less likely to recommend reimbursement for submissions with phase ii evidence if a phase iii trial was deemed possible.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33173389
doi: 10.3747/co.27.6489
pii: conc-27-e495
pmc: PMC7606040
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antineoplastic Agents 0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e495-e500

Informations de copyright

2020 Multimed Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: KKWC, MET, and MCC (until June 2019) have received funding from cadth as members of the perc. The remaining authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Références

Curr Oncol. 2012 Jun;19(3):e165-76
pubmed: 22670106
BMJ. 2017 Oct 4;359:j4530
pubmed: 28978555
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Apr;36(4):467-475
pubmed: 29353385
J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Aug 07;25(2):e12-e22
pubmed: 30725539

Auteurs

Y Y R Li (YYR)

Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto.

H Mai (H)

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa.

M E Trudeau (ME)

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa.
Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto.

N Mittmann (N)

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa.
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Institute for Health Policy Management and Evaluation, and Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON.

K Chiasson (K)

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa.

K K W Chan (KKW)

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa.
Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto.

M C Cheung (MC)

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa.
Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH