Cargando…

The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011–2017

BACKGROUND: Most Canadian provinces and territories rely on the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) to provide recommendations regarding public reimbursement of cancer drugs. The pCODR review process considers four dimensions of value—clinical benefit, economic evaluation, patient-based values...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Skedgel, Chris, Wranik, Dominika, Hu, Min
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5840198/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29353385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0610-0
_version_ 1783304527590457344
author Skedgel, Chris
Wranik, Dominika
Hu, Min
author_facet Skedgel, Chris
Wranik, Dominika
Hu, Min
author_sort Skedgel, Chris
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Most Canadian provinces and territories rely on the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) to provide recommendations regarding public reimbursement of cancer drugs. The pCODR review process considers four dimensions of value—clinical benefit, economic evaluation, patient-based values and adoption feasibility—but they do not define weights for individual decision criteria or an acceptable threshold for any of the criteria. Given this implicit review process, it is of interest to understand which factors appear to carry the most weight in pCODR recommendations using a revealed preferences approach. METHODS: Using publicly available decision summaries (n = 91) describing submissions and resulting recommendations 2011–2017, we extracted ten attributes that characterized each submission. Using logistic regression, we identified statistically significant attributes and estimated their relative impact in final recommendations. RESULTS: Clinical aspects appear to carry the greatest weight in the decision to reject or not reject, along with aspects of patient value (treatments with no alternatives were less likely to be rejected). Cost effectiveness does not appear to play a role in the initial decision to reject or not reject but is critical in full versus conditional approvals. There is evidence of a maximum acceptable threshold of around $Can140,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. CONCLUSION: A set of factors driving pCODR recommendations is identifiable, supporting the consistency of the review process. However, the implicit nature of the review process and the difficulty of extracting and interpreting some of the attribute levels used in the analysis suggests that the process may still lack full transparency. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-018-0610-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5840198
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58401982018-03-12 The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011–2017 Skedgel, Chris Wranik, Dominika Hu, Min Pharmacoeconomics Original Research Article BACKGROUND: Most Canadian provinces and territories rely on the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) to provide recommendations regarding public reimbursement of cancer drugs. The pCODR review process considers four dimensions of value—clinical benefit, economic evaluation, patient-based values and adoption feasibility—but they do not define weights for individual decision criteria or an acceptable threshold for any of the criteria. Given this implicit review process, it is of interest to understand which factors appear to carry the most weight in pCODR recommendations using a revealed preferences approach. METHODS: Using publicly available decision summaries (n = 91) describing submissions and resulting recommendations 2011–2017, we extracted ten attributes that characterized each submission. Using logistic regression, we identified statistically significant attributes and estimated their relative impact in final recommendations. RESULTS: Clinical aspects appear to carry the greatest weight in the decision to reject or not reject, along with aspects of patient value (treatments with no alternatives were less likely to be rejected). Cost effectiveness does not appear to play a role in the initial decision to reject or not reject but is critical in full versus conditional approvals. There is evidence of a maximum acceptable threshold of around $Can140,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. CONCLUSION: A set of factors driving pCODR recommendations is identifiable, supporting the consistency of the review process. However, the implicit nature of the review process and the difficulty of extracting and interpreting some of the attribute levels used in the analysis suggests that the process may still lack full transparency. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-018-0610-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2018-01-20 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5840198/ /pubmed/29353385 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0610-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Skedgel, Chris
Wranik, Dominika
Hu, Min
The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011–2017
title The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011–2017
title_full The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011–2017
title_fullStr The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011–2017
title_full_unstemmed The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011–2017
title_short The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011–2017
title_sort relative importance of clinical, economic, patient values and feasibility criteria in cancer drug reimbursement in canada: a revealed preferences analysis of recommendations of the pan-canadian oncology drug review 2011–2017
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5840198/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29353385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0610-0
work_keys_str_mv AT skedgelchris therelativeimportanceofclinicaleconomicpatientvaluesandfeasibilitycriteriaincancerdrugreimbursementincanadaarevealedpreferencesanalysisofrecommendationsofthepancanadianoncologydrugreview20112017
AT wranikdominika therelativeimportanceofclinicaleconomicpatientvaluesandfeasibilitycriteriaincancerdrugreimbursementincanadaarevealedpreferencesanalysisofrecommendationsofthepancanadianoncologydrugreview20112017
AT humin therelativeimportanceofclinicaleconomicpatientvaluesandfeasibilitycriteriaincancerdrugreimbursementincanadaarevealedpreferencesanalysisofrecommendationsofthepancanadianoncologydrugreview20112017
AT skedgelchris relativeimportanceofclinicaleconomicpatientvaluesandfeasibilitycriteriaincancerdrugreimbursementincanadaarevealedpreferencesanalysisofrecommendationsofthepancanadianoncologydrugreview20112017
AT wranikdominika relativeimportanceofclinicaleconomicpatientvaluesandfeasibilitycriteriaincancerdrugreimbursementincanadaarevealedpreferencesanalysisofrecommendationsofthepancanadianoncologydrugreview20112017
AT humin relativeimportanceofclinicaleconomicpatientvaluesandfeasibilitycriteriaincancerdrugreimbursementincanadaarevealedpreferencesanalysisofrecommendationsofthepancanadianoncologydrugreview20112017