Evolution of health technology assessment: best practices of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review

Health Technology Assessment Process for Oncology Drugs: Impact of CADTH Changes on Public Payer Reimbursement Recommendations

Public reimbursement systems face the challenge of balancing provision of needed treatments and the reality of limited resources. Canada has a complex system for drug approval and public reimbursement, with jurisdiction divided between the federal government and the provinces/territories. A pivotal role is that of health technology assessment (HTA), which relies primarily on health economic principles to analyze the value of drugs on a population health basis and make recommendations about public reimbursement. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) provides recommendations to all provinces but Quebec. This article provides an overview of Canada’s approval and public reimbursement pathway, including the role of HTA and the economic principles on which it relies. Starting in late 2020, CADTH reduced the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold, the metric relied upon in making recommendations to public payers. An analysis of all 56 oncology drug final recommendations issued from January 2020 to January 2022 was conducted and confirms this reduction in the cost per QALY threshold. As a result of this threshold reduction, recommendations to the provinces include, in a number of cases, substantially greater price reductions. The potential implications for successful price negotiation with the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA), the public negotiating body for the provinces, are discussed.

The Past, Present, and Future of Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine at the Committee for Economic Analyses of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group

Precision medicine in oncology poses unique challenges to the generation of clinical and economic evidence used for cost-effectiveness analyses that can inform health technology assessment. The conduct of randomized controlled trials for biomarker-specific therapies targeted towards small populations has limitations in regard to feasibility, timeliness, and cost. These limitations result in associated challenges for groups involved in the generation of economic evidence to inform treatment-related decision making, including the Committee of Economic Analysis (CEA) at the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). We provide a high-level description and vision about the new paradigm of clinical trial design, generation of economic evidence, and novel approaches to economic evaluations necessary in the space of precision medicine in oncology in Canada. The CEA's previous approach to precision medicine, including master protocol designs and single-arm studies, is reviewed. Methods and approaches currently under consideration by the CEA and national collaborators, such as the role of real-world and clinical trial evidence in enabling life-cycle assessment of therapies, are explored. Finally, future initiatives being planned in the space of precision medicine at CCTG, such as the incorporation of correlative studies to identify and test high-performing biomarkers in trials, are discussed.

Comparing Manufacturer Submitted and Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Reanalysed Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for Novel Oncology Drugs

BACKGROUND

To determine the magnitude of difference between manufacturer-submitted and pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental cost (ΔC), and incremental effectiveness (ΔE); to examine whether there is a significant difference in the proportion of ICERs deemed cost-effective; to evaluate trends in the ICERs over time; and to identify methodological issues in manufacturer-submitted economic models.

METHODS

Economic guidance reports for all drug indications submitted from July 2011-November 2018 were extracted from the pCODR database. Cumulative distribution plots were constructed to compare the manufacturer-submitted economic values with both the pCODR lower- and upper-reanalyzed estimates. The proportion of drug reviews considered cost-effective at varying willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds by the manufacturer and pCODR were calculated. Manufacturer changes in ICERs over time from 2012 to 2018 were determined. Recurring methodological issues with manufacturer submissions were tallied.

RESULTS

There were 73 unique indications that were included. Manufacturer-submitted ICERs were consistently lower than pCODR estimates for most indications. Manufacturer-submitted ICERs were generally more cost-effective over a range of WTP thresholds. From 2012 to 2018, manufacturer and economic guidance panel (EGP) lower limit reanalyzed ICERs did not change significantly over time. However, EGP upper limit re-analyses did show decreasing cost-effectiveness (increasing ICERs). The two most common issues identified in the manufacturer-submitted models were related to survival time horizon and utility estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Manufacturers tend to overestimate the cost-effectiveness of their therapies when submitting economic models to pCODR. Although certain methodological issues are still common in manufacturer-submitted models, revision rates are high for most issues raised by pCODR.

Immuno-Oncology Medicines: Policy Implications and Economic Considerations

Significant progress has taken place in the field of cancer immunotherapy in recent years. Cancer immunotherapy, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, have shown rather dramatic results and are believed to have completely transformed the field of oncology. However, these transformational therapies are more expensive than previous cancer therapies. As more cancer immunotherapy agents are being developed, with some already being marketed, it is important to consider how economic constraints will shape health policy and value assessment related to these agents. A number of strategies have been suggested to alleviate the price burden and the ensuing concerns about the sustainability of publicly funded healthcare systems. Among these strategies, value-based pricing (VBP) for innovative drugs dominates the headlines in the field of oncology. The specifics of how VBP may be implemented in the United States is still unclear. Nonetheless, policy reform and economic considerations will have to be incorporated into the planning of VBP. The objective of this paper is multifold: (i) to identify the factors affecting the impact of cancer immunotherapy on healthcare cost; (ii) to critically appraise current approaches used to assess the value of novel cancer therapies; (iii) to assess the methodological challenges associated with the economic evaluation of cancer immunotherapy. As the health care system in the U.S transitions toward a value-based model, the need for a formal value assessment framework is warranted in cancer immunotherapy.

Methodological Issues in Economic Evaluations Submitted to the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR)

BACKGROUND

Public drug plans are faced with increasingly difficult funding decisions. In Canada, the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) makes funding recommendations to the provincial and territorial drug plans responsible for cancer drugs. Assessments of the economic models submitted by pharmaceutical manufacturers are publicly reported.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this research was to identify recurring methodological issues in economic models submitted to pCODR for funding reviews. The secondary objective was to explore whether there exists any observed relationships between reported methodological issues and funding recommendations made by pCODR's expert review committee.

METHODS

Publicly available Economic Guidance Reports from July 2011 (inception) until June 2014 for drug reviews with a final funding recommendation (N = 34) were independently examined by two authors. Major methodological issues from each review were abstracted and grouped into nine main categories. Each issue was also categorized based on perception of the reviewer's actions to manage it.

RESULTS

The most commonly reported issues involved costing (59% of reviews), time horizon (56%), and model structure (36%). Several types of issues were identified that usually could not be resolved, such as quality of clinical data or uncertainty with indirect comparisons. Issues with costing or choice of utility estimates could usually be addressed or explored by reviewers. No statistically significant relationship was found between any methodological issue and funding recommendations from the expert review committee.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide insights that can be used by parties who submit or review economic evidence for continuous improvement and consistency in economic modeling, reporting, and decision making.