Search

BackgroundOncology therapy is becoming increasingly more expensive and challenging the affordability and sustainability of drug programmes around the world. When new drugs are evaluated, health technology assessment organisations rely on clinical trials to inform funding decisions. However, clinical trials are not able to assess overall survival and generalises evidence in a real-world setting. As a result, policy makers have little information on whether drug funding decisions based on clinical trials ultimately yield the outcomes and value for money that might be expected.ObjectiveThe Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration, consisting of researchers, recommendation-makers, decision makers, payers, patients and caregivers, are developing and testing a framework for Canadian provinces to generate and use real-world evidence (RWE) for cancer drug funding in a consistent and integrated manner.StrategyThe CanREValue collaboration has established five formal working groups (WGs) to focus on specific processes in the generation and use of RWE for cancer drug funding decisions in Canada. The different RWE WGs are: (1) Planning and Drug Selection; (2) Methods; (3) Data; (4) Reassessment and Uptake; (5) Engagement. These WGs are acting collaboratively to develop a framework for RWE evaluation, validate the framework through the multiprovince RWE projects and help to integrate the final RWE framework into the Canadian healthcare system.OutcomesThe framework will enable the reassessment of cancer drugs, refinement of funding recommendations and use of novel funding mechanisms by decision-makers/payers across Canada to ensure the healthcare system is providing clinical benefits and value for money.

Background: The efficacy-effectiveness gap between randomized trial and real-world evidence regarding the clinical benefit of ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma (MM) has been well characterized by previous literature, consistent with initial concerns raised by health technology assessment agencies (HTAs). As these differences can significantly impact cost-effectiveness, it is critical to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab versus non-ipilimumab treatments for MM. Methods: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study of patients who received second-line non-ipilimumab therapies between 2008 and 2012 versus ipilimumab treatment between 2012 and 2015 (after public reimbursement) for MM in Ontario. Using a 5-year time horizon, censor-adjusted and discounted (1.5%) costs (from the public payer's perspective in Canadian dollars) and effectiveness were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in life-years gained (LYGs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with bootstrapping to capture uncertainty. Varying the discount rate and reducing the price of ipilimumab were done as sensitivity analyses. Results: In total, 329 MM were identified (Treated: 189; Controls: 140). Ipilimumab was associated with an incremental effectiveness of 0.59 LYG, incremental cost of $91,233, and ICER of $153,778/LYG. ICERs were not sensitive to discounting rate. Adjusting for quality of life using utility weights resulted in an ICER of $225,885/QALY, confirming the original HTA estimate prior to public reimbursement. Reducing the price of ipilimumab by 100% resulted in an ICER of $111,728/QALY. Conclusion: Despite its clinical benefit, ipilimumab as second-line monotherapy for MM patients is not cost-effective in the real world as projected by HTA under conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The CanREValue Collaboration established the Reassessment & UptakeWorking Group to develop a preliminary process to reassess funded cancer drugs in Canada. A simulated exercise was conducted to evaluate the proposed reassessment process using a real-world case. We invited 32 attendees including representatives from Health Canada and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, along with payers, clinicians, academics, and patient representatives. A case was developed using a real-world study on a publicly funded cancer drug. In facilitated group sessions, participants were asked to deliberate upon the evidence presented in the case to issue reassessment recommendations. Several themes were identified through the deliberation discussions. While the generalizability of real-world evidence (RWE) is perceived as a strength, trust in the RWE depends largely on the source of the real-world data. The attendees suggested several improvements to the proposed reassessment process including evidence requirement for reassessment, recommendation categories, and a priori study protocols. This exercise generated important insights on the evidence required for conducting reassessment and considerations for improvements of the proposed reassessment process. Building upon lessons from this exercise, future work would continue to refine the reassessment process as part of the overall CanREValue framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration was established to develop a framework for generating and using real-world evidence (RWE) to inform the reassessment of cancer drugs following initial health technology assessment (HTA). The Reassessment and Uptake Working Group (RWG) is one of the five established CanREValue Working Groups. The RWG aims to develop considerations for incorporating RWE for HTA reassessment and strategies for using RWE to reassess drug funding decisions. Between February 2018 and December 2019, the RWG attended four teleconferences (with follow-up surveys) and two in-person meetings to discuss recommendations for the development of a reassessment process and potential barriers and facilitators. Modified Delphi methods were used to gather input. A draft report of recommendations (to December 2018) was shared for public consultation (December 2019 to January 2020). Initial considerations for developing a reassessment process were proposed. Specifically, reassessment can be initiated by diverse stakeholders, including decision makers from public drug plans or industry stakeholders. The reassessment process should be modelled after existing deliberation and recommendation frameworks used by HTA agencies. Proposed reassessment outcome categories include maintaining status quo, revisiting funding criteria, renegotiating price, or disinvesting. Overall, these initial considerations will serve as the basis for future advancements by the Collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Second‐line ipilimumab has been publicly funded in Ontario for metastatic melanoma (MM) since September 2012. We examined real‐world toxicity of second‐line ipilimumab compared to standard second‐line treatments prior to funding. MM patients who received systemic treatment from April 2005 to March 2015 were included. Patients receiving second‐line ipilimumab after September 2012 were considered as cases, and those who received second‐line treatment prior to the funding date were included as historical controls. Outcomes assessed include treatment‐related mortality, any‐cause hospital visits, ipilimumab‐related hospital visits and specialist visits (eg, endocrinologists, ophthalmologists, gastroenterologists, rheumatologists and respirologists), which were captured from up to 30 and/or 90 days after end of second‐line treatment. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for baseline differences between groups. Odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regressions and rate ratios (RRs) from rate regressions were used to assess differences between groups. We identified 329 MM patients who received second‐line treatments (ipilimumab: 189; controls: 140). Ipilimumab was associated greater any‐cause (60.1% vs 45.7%; OR = 1.81; P value =.019) and ipilimumab‐related (47.2% vs 31.9%; OR = 1.91; P value =.011) hospital visits. Adjusting for different follow‐up days, ipilimumab was associated with higher rates of all‐cause (RR = 1.56 [95%CI: 1.12‐2.16]), and ipilimumab‐related (RR = 2.18 [95% CI: 1.45‐3.27]) hospital visits. Patients receiving ipilimumab were more likely to visit specialist involved in immunotherapy toxicity management (23.5% vs 13.7%; P value =.04). Compared to historical second‐line treatments, second‐line ipilimumab was associated with more health service utilization (specifically hospital visits and specialist visits), suggestive of potentially increased toxicity in the real world. What's new? Ipilimumab improves overall survival in metastatic melanoma. But how toxic is it in real‐world use? In this population‐based, comparative study, the authors found that patients receiving second‐line ipilimumab required more hospital (all‐cause and drug‐related) and specialist visits compared to historical controls. These findings suggest that ipilimumab is associated with greater toxicity and resource utilization than conventional treatments. Given that patients in actual clinical practice may have additional comorbidities compared to patients selected for clinical trials, it is important to further examine toxicity in a real‐world setting in order to better understand the risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Canadian provinces routinely collect patient-level data for administrative purposes. These real-world data (RWD) can be used to generate real-world evidence (RWE) to inform clinical care and healthcare policy. The CanREValue Collaboration is developing a framework for the use of RWE in cancer drug funding decisions. A Data Working Group (WG) was established to identify data assets across Canada for generating RWE of oncology drugs. The mapping exercise was conducted using an iterative scan with informant surveys and teleconference. Data experts from ten provinces convened for a total of three teleconferences and two in-person meetings from March 2018 to September 2019. Following each meeting, surveys were developed and shared with the data experts which focused on identifying databases and data elements, as well as a feasibility assessment of conducting RWE studies using existing data elements and resources. Survey responses were compiled into an interim data report, which was used for public stakeholder consultation. The feedback from the public consultation was used to update the interim data report. We found that databases required to conduct real-world studies are often held by multiple different data custodians. Ninety-seven databases were identified across Canada. Provinces held on average 9 distinct databases (range: 8-11). An Essential RWD Table was compiled that contains data elements that are necessary, at a minimal, to conduct an RWE study. An Expanded RWD Table that contains a more comprehensive list of potentially relevant data elements was also compiled and the availabilities of these data elements were mapped. While most provinces have data on patient demographics (e.g., age, sex) and cancer-related variables (e.g., morphology, topography), the availability and linkability of data on cancer treatment, clinical characteristics (e.g., morphology and topography), and drug costs vary among provinces. Based on current resources, data availability, and access processes, data experts in most provinces noted that more than 12 months would be required to complete an RWE study. The CanREValue Collaboration's Data WG identified key data holdings, access considerations, as well as gaps in oncology treatment-specific data. This data catalogue can be used to facilitate future oncology-specific RWE analyses across Canada.

The CanREValue Collaboration established the Reassessment & Uptake Working Group to develop a preliminary process to reassess funded cancer drugs in Canada. A simulated exercise was conducted to evaluate the proposed reassessment process using a real-world case. We invited 32 attendees including representatives from Health Canada and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, along with payers, clinicians, academics, and patient representatives. A case was developed using a real-world study on a publicly funded cancer drug. In facilitated group sessions, participants were asked to deliberate upon the evidence presented in the case to issue reassessment recommendations. Several themes were identified through the deliberation discussions. While the generalizability of real-world evidence (RWE) is perceived as a strength, trust in the RWE depends largely on the source of the real-world data. The attendees suggested several improvements to the proposed reassessment process including evidence requirement for reassessment, recommendation categories, and a priori study protocols. This exercise generated important insights on the evidence required for conducting reassessment and considerations for improvements of the proposed reassessment process. Building upon lessons from this exercise, future work would continue to refine the reassessment process as part of the overall CanREValue framework.