Value assessment of oncology drugs using a weighted criterion-based approach

Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Studies for Health Technology Management: Outcomes and Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.

Development of a Value Assessment Framework for Pediatric Health Technologies Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis: Expanding the Value Lens for Funding Decision Making

OBJECTIVES

A health technology assessment (HTA) does not systematically account for the circumstances and needs of children and youth. To supplement HTA processes, we aimed to develop a child-tailored value assessment framework using a multicriteria decision analysis approach.

METHODS

We constructed a multicriteria-decision-analysis-based model in multiple phases to create the Comprehensive Assessment of Technologies for Child Health (CATCH) framework. Using a modified Delphi process with stakeholders having broad disciplinary and geographic variation (N = 23), we refined previously generated criteria and developed rank-based weights. We established a criterion-pertinent scoring rubric for assessing incremental benefits of new drugs. Three clinicians independently assessed comprehension by pilotscoring 9 drugs. We then validated CATCH for 2 childhood cancer therapies through structured deliberation with an expert panel (N = 10), obtaining individual scores, consensus scores, and verbal feedback. Analyses included descriptive statistics, thematic analysis, exploratory disagreement indices, and sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The modified Delphi process yielded 10 criteria, based on absolute importance/relevance and agreed importance (median disagreement indices = 0.34): Effectiveness, Child-specific Health-related Quality of Life, Disease Severity, Unmet Need, Therapeutic Safety, Equity, Family Impacts, Life-course Development, Rarity, and Fair Share of Life. Pilot scoring resulted in adjusted criteria definitions and more precise score-scaling guidelines. Validation panelists endorsed the framework's key modifiers of value. Modes of their individual prescores aligned closely with deliberative consensus scores.

CONCLUSIONS

We iteratively developed a value assessment framework that captures dimensions of child-specific health and nonhealth gains. CATCH could improve the richness and relevance of HTA decision making for children in Canada and comparable health systems.

A Step Toward the Development of the First National Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework to Support Healthcare Decision Making in Saudi Arabia

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of implementing multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and to select the criteria for preparing a national MCDA framework for health technology assessment of orphan drugs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

METHODS

The study was conducted in 3 phases. In phase I, a targeted literature review was performed to gather relevant information on the implementation of MCDA in healthcare decision making. Phase II was a cross-sectional survey, conducted to obtain insights from different stakeholders and key opinion leaders on specific topics from the KSA perspective. Phase III included a round-table discussion involving experts to validate the results obtained in the phase II survey and further elaborate on specific requirements that may be critical for developing the first national MCDA framework in the KSA.

RESULTS

All the key opinion leaders involved in the study acknowledged the importance of implementing MCDA in the KSA. The Ministry of Health was assigned the responsibility of chairing the MCDA decision process. The experts selected the quantitative, qualitative, and economic criteria to be considered for the MCDA framework. The stakeholders decided to initiate a pilot phase using the deliberative MCDA methodology for the assessment of orphan drugs based on the selected criteria for a period of 1 year and then reevaluate the need to adapt the pragmatic MCDA model.

CONCLUSION

This article describes the novel initiative that examined the feasibility and process required for the development of the first MCDA framework in the KSA to support healthcare decision making.

Value elements and methods of value-based pricing for drugs in Japan: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Value-based pricing (VBP) can be a promising tool for optimizing drug prices. However, there is no consensus on the specific value elements and pricing method that should be used for VBP.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a systematic review and narrative synthesis to investigate the value elements and pricing method for VBP. The main inclusion criterion was that value elements, VBP method, and estimated prices for actual drugs were reported. We performed a search in MEDLINE and ICHUSHI Web. Eight articles met the selection criteria. Four studies adopted the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) approach and the others used different approaches. The CEA approach included the value elements of productivity, value of hope, real option value, disease severity, insurance value in addition to costs and quality-adjusted life years. The other approaches used efficacy, toxicity, novelty, rarity, research and development costs, prognosis, population health burden, unmet needs, and effectiveness. Each study used individual methods to quantify these broader value elements.

EXPERT OPINION

Both conventional and broader value elements are used for VBP. To allow VBP to be widely applied to various diseases, a simple, versatile method is preferable. Further research is needed to establish VBP method which enables to incorporate broader values.

Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments

Background: Advances in cancer medicines have resulted in tangible health impacts, but the magnitude of benefits of approved cancer medicines could vary greatly. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process used to inform resource allocation through a systematic value assessment of health technology. This paper reviews the challenges in conducting HTA for cancer medicines arising from oncology trial designs and uncertainties of safety-efficacy data. Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar) and grey literature (public health agencies and governmental reports) were searched to inform this policy narrative review. Results: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data from clinical trials and other relevant sources of evidence has made HTA for cancer medicines challenging. The approval of cancer medicines through expedited pathways has increased in recent years, in which surrogate endpoints or biomarkers for patient selection have been widely used. Using these surrogate endpoints has created uncertainties in translating surrogate measures into patient-centric clinically (survival and quality of life) and economically (cost-effectiveness and budget impact) meaningful outcomes, with potential effects on diverting scarce health resources to low-value or detrimental interventions. Potential solutions include policy harmonization between regulatory and HTA authorities, commitment to generating robust post-marketing efficacy-safety data, managing uncertainties through risk-sharing agreements, and using value frameworks. Conclusion: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data is a central problem for conducting HTA of cancer medicines, potentially resulting in misinformed resource allocation.

Development, testing, and implementation of a new procedure to assess the clinical added benefit of pharmaceuticals

OBJECTIVES

The reimbursement process for innovative health technologies in Hungary lacks any formalized assessment of clinical added benefit (CAB). The aim of this research is to present the development, retrospective testing, and implementation of a local assessment framework for determining the CAB of cancer treatments at the Department of Health Technology Assessment of the National Institute of Pharmacy and Nutrition in Hungary.

METHODS

The assessment framework was drafted after screening existing methods and a retrospective comparison of local reimbursement dossiers to that of German and French methods. The Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale of the European Society for Medical Oncology was chosen to rate the extent of CAB in oncology, as part of a conclusion complemented by the assessment of endpoint relevance and the quality of evidence. Several rounds of retrospective assessments have been conducted involving all clinical assessors, iterated with semistructured discussions to consolidate divergence between assessors. External stakeholders were consulted to provide feedback on the framework.

RESULTS

Retrospective assessments resulted in average more than 75 percent concordance between assessors on each element of the conclusion. Input from ten stakeholders was also incorporated; stakeholders were generally supportive, and they mostly commented on the concept, the elements of the framework, and its implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

The procedure is suitable for routine use in the decision-making process to describe the CAB of antineoplastic technologies in Hungary. Further extension of the framework is required to cover more disease areas for structured and comparable conclusions on CAB of innovative health technologies.

Prices and Clinical Benefit of National Price-Negotiated Anticancer Medicines in China

BACKGROUND

High prices of anticancer medicines have increased the economic burden for both patients and health insurance systems. Since 2017, China has implemented national price negotiations for medicines, relying on evidence from health technology assessments. We aim to assess the relation between negotiated price and value of anticancer medicines listed in China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL).

METHODS

For all price-negotiated anticancer medicines and corresponding indications listed in the latest NRDL between 2017 and 2020, we collected their clinical outcomes data, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), in supporting trials. Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to estimate the association between the daily cost and clinical benefit of each indication.

RESULTS

In total, 75 indications of 46 branded anticancer medicines were included for analysis. The median daily costs for the anticancer therapies that had gone through negotiation in 2017-2020 were US$87.6, US$71.8, US$58.9, and US$39.7, respectively. For indications supported by randomized trials, no correlation between daily costs and OS and PFS benefit of the price-negotiated cancer therapies was observed (N = 41, r = -0.05, and N = 49, r = 0.04, respectively). For cancer indications newly listed in NRDL in 2020, the association between their daily cost and OS benefit was -0.78 (N = 4, p = 0.221) and 0.01 (N = 8, p = 0.986) before and after the price negotiation.

CONCLUSION

Though the negotiation policy decreased prices of anticancer medicines in China, no statistically significant correlation was observed between their daily costs and clinical benefits. A more transparent and credible pricing approach needs to be established to promote value-based anticancer medicines and healthcare system efficiency.

Multicriteria decision analysis in health care decision in oncology: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used to inform health decisions in health technology assessments (HTA) processes. This is particularly important to complex treatment decisions in oncology.

AREAS COVERED

Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science and CRD's NHS Economic Evaluation Database) were searched for studies comparing health technologies in oncology, involving the concept MCDA. The ISPOR MCDA Good Practices Guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality. Study selection, appraisal, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Fifteen studies were included. The main decision problem was related to health technology assessment of cancer treatments. Clinicians and public health experts were the most frequent stakeholders. The most frequently included criteria comprised therapeutic benefit, and socio-economic impact. Value measurement approach, direct rating techniques, and additive model for aggregation were used in most studies. Uncertainty analysis revealed the impact of posology and costs on the studies' results. All studies showed some level of overlapping decision criteria.

EXPERT OPINION

There is considerable diversity of methods in MCDA for healthcare decision-making in oncology. The evidence presented can serve as a resource when considering which stakeholders, criteria, and techniques to include in future MCDA studies in oncology.

Examining the association between oncology drug clinical benefit and the time to public reimbursement

Background

We examined if oncology drug indications with high clinical benefit, as measured by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO‐VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO‐MCBS), received public reimbursement status faster than those with lower clinical benefit from the time of pan‐Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) recommendation.

Methods

Oncology drug indications submitted to pCODR between July 2011 and October 2018 were examined. Included indications had a regulatory approval date, completed the pCODR review process, received a positive pCODR recommendation, and been funded by at least one province. Trials cited for clinical efficacy were used to determine the clinical benefit (per ASCO‐VF and ESMO‐MCBS) of drug indications.

Results

Eighty‐four indications were identified, yielding 65 ASCO‐VF and 50 ESMO‐MCBS scores. The mean ASCO‐VF and ESMO‐MCBS scores were 44.9 (SD = 21.1) and 3.3 (SD = 1.0), respectively. The mean time to provincial reimbursement from pCODR recommendation was 13.2 months (SD = 9.3 months). Higher ASCO‐VF and ESMO‐MCBS scores had low correlation with shorter time to reimbursement, (ρ = −0.21) and (ρ = 0.24), respectively. In the multivariable analyses, ASCO‐VF (p = 0.40) and ESMO‐MCBS (p = 0.31) scores were not significantly associated with time to reimbursement. Province and year of pCODR recommendation were associated with time to reimbursement in both ASCO and ESMO models.

Conclusions

Oncology drug indications with higher clinical benefit do not appear to be reimbursed faster than those with low clinical benefit. This suggests the need to prioritize oncology drug indications based on clinical benefit to ensure quicker access to oncology drugs with the greatest benefits.

Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies

In the era of rapid development of new, expensive cancer therapies, value frameworks have been developed to quantify clinical benefit (CB). We assessed the evolution of CB since the 2015 introduction of The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The European Society of Medical Oncology value frameworks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing systemic therapies for solid malignancies from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated and CB (Δ) in 2010–2014 (pre-value frameworks (PRE)) were compared to 2015–2020 (POST) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QoL). In the 485 studies analyzed (12% PRE and 88% POST), the most common primary endpoint was PFS (49%), followed by OS (20%), RR (12%), and QoL (6%), with a significant increase in OS and decrease in RR as primary endpoints in the POST era (p = 0.011). Multivariable analyses revealed significant improvement in ΔOS POST (OR 2.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.26, p = 0.02) while controlling for other variables. After the development of value frameworks, median ΔOS improved minimally. The impact of value frameworks has yet to be fully realized in RCTs. Efforts to include endpoints shown to impact value, such as QoL, into clinical trials are warranted.

Evidence-based public policy making for medicines across countries: findings and implications for the future

Aim: Global expenditure on medicines is rising up to 6% per year driven by increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and new premium priced medicines for cancer, orphan diseases and other complex areas. This is difficult to sustain without reforms. Methods: Extensive narrative review of published papers and contextualizing the findings to provide future guidance. Results: New models are being introduced to improve the managed entry of new medicines including managed entry agreements, fair pricing approaches and monitoring prescribing against agreed guidance. Multiple measures have also successfully been introduced to improve the prescribing of established medicines. This includes encouraging greater prescribing of generics and biosimilars versus originators and patented medicines in a class to conserve resources without compromising care. In addition, reducing inappropriate antibiotic utilization. Typically, multiple measures are the most effective. Conclusion: Multiple measures will be needed to attain and retain universal healthcare.

An Arm and a Leg: The Rising Cost of Cancer Drugs and Impact on Access

Increasing cancer drug prices present global challenges to treatment access and cancer outcomes. Substantial variability exists in drug pricing across countries. In countries without universal health care, patients are responsible for treatment costs. Low- or middle-income countries are heavily impacted, with limited patient access to novel cancer treatments. Financial toxicity is seen across cancer types, countries, and health care systems. Those at highest risk include younger patients, new immigrants, visible minority groups, and those without private health coverage. Currently, cancer drug pricing does not correlate with value or clinical benefit. Value-based pricing of oncology drugs may incentivize development of higher-value medicines and eliminate excess spending on drugs that yield little benefit. Generics and biosimilars in oncology can also improve affordability and patient access, offering dramatic reductions in drug spending while maintaining patient benefit. Oncologists can promote value-based care by following evidence-based clinical guidelines that avoid low-value treatments. Researchers can also engage in value-based research that critically explores optimal cancer drug dosing, schedules, and treatment duration and defines patient populations most likely to benefit (e.g., through biomarker selection). Cancer Groundshot proposes that we improve outcomes for today's patients with cancer, including broader global access for high-value treatments, promotion of affordable cancer control strategies, and reduction of cancer morbidity and mortality through low-cost prevention and screening initiatives. Moving forward, major oncology societies recommend promoting uniform global access to essential cancer medicines and avoiding financial harm for patients as key principles in addressing the affordability of cancer drugs.

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems.Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines.Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.