Tha English reading public, during tha greater part of the nineteenth century, encountered a new novel in a different format from the compact one-volume book of today.
The International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group-32 (IELSG32) randomized patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) for induction treatment with methotrexate-cytarabine, methotrexate-cytarabine-rituximab, or methotrexate-cytarabine-thiotepa-rituximab (MATRix) and reported significantly improved complete remission with the MATRix regimen. This study assessed cost-effectiveness among these three induction strategies for PCNSL. A Markov model was developed based on the IELSG32 trial over a 20 year time horizon from the Canadian health care system perspective. Costs for induction, consolidation, inpatient treatment administration, follow-up, adverse events, relapsed disease, and palliative care were included. Methotrexate-cytarabine-rituximab was subject to extended dominance by the other two strategies. The MATRix regimen compared to methotrexate-cytarabine produced 3.05 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains at added costs of $75,513, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $24,758/QALY gained. The MATRix regimen was the optimal strategy in the majority of simulations (98% probability at willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY gained) and results appeared robust across sensitivity analyses.
In Canada, requests for public reimbursement of cancer drugs are predominately initiated by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Clinician-led submissions provide a mechanism to initiate the drug funding process when industry does not submit a request for funding consideration. Although such requests are resource-intensive to produce, Cancer Care Ontario (cco) has the capacity to facilitate clinician-led submissions. In 2014, cco began developing a cancer drug prioritization framework that allocates resources to systematically address a growing number of clinician-identified funding gaps with clinician-led submissions.Cancer site-specific drug advisory committees established by cco consist of health care practitioners whose roles include identifying and prioritizing funding gaps. The committees submit their identified gaps to a cross-cancer-site prioritization exercise in which the requests are ranked based on a set of guiding principles derived from health technology assessment. The requests are then sequentially allocated the resources needed to meet submission requirements. Whether the funding gap is of provincial or pan-Canadian relevance determines where the submission is filed for assessment.Since its inception, the cco framework has identified 17 funding gaps in 9 cancer sites. In 4 prioritizations, the framework supported 6 submissions. As of June 2018, the framework had contributed to the eventual funding of more than 9 new drug-indication pairs, with more awaiting funding consideration.The cco prioritization framework has enabled clinicians to effectively and systematically identify, prioritize, and fill funding gaps not addressed by industry. Ultimately, the framework helps to ensure that patients can access evidence-informed and cost-effective therapies. The framework will continue to evolve as it encounters new challenges, including funding requests for rare indications.
Substance use-related emergency department (ED) visits have increased substantially in North America. Screening for substance use in EDs is recommended; best approaches are unclear. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on diagnostic accuracy of ED screening tools to detect harmful substance use.
Objectives The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) evaluates new cancer drugs for public funding recommendations. While pCODR's deliberative framework evaluates overall clinical benefit and includes considerations for exceptional circumstances, rarity of indication is not explicitly addressed. Given the high unmet need that typically accompanies these indications, we explored the impact of rarity on oncology HTA recommendations and funding decisions. Methods We examined pCODR submissions with final recommendations from 2012 to 2017. Incidence rates were calculated using pCODR recommendation reports and statistics from the Canadian Cancer Society. Indications were classified as rare if the incidence rate was lower than 1/100,000 diagnoses, a definition referenced by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Each pCODR final report was examined for the funding recommendation/justification, level of supporting evidence (presence of a randomized control trial [RCT]), and time to funding (if applicable). Results Of the ninety-six pCODR reviews examined, 16.6 percent were classified as rare indications per above criteria. While the frequency of positive funding recommendations were similar between rare and nonrare indication (78.6 vs. 75 percent), rare indications were less likely to be presented with evidence from RCT (50 vs. 90 percent). The average time to funding did not differ significantly across provinces. Conclusion Rare indications appear to be associated with weaker clinical evidence. There appears to be no association between rarity, positive funding recommendations, and time to funding. Further work will evaluate factors associated with positive recommendations and the real-world utilization of funded treatments for rare indications.
73 Background: In 2014-15, the randomized control trials SOFT and TEXT showed that premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, early stage BC treated with ovarian suppression (G or oophorectomy) in combination with E had improved outcomes compared to those treated with tamoxifen (T) alone. The largest benefit was observed in women younger than 35 ( < 35y). In Ontario, these regimens are not fully publicly funded for premenopausal women. We examined the utilization of adjuvant G + E for premenopausal BC patients in Ontario, as underutilization might reflect difficulty accessing these drugs. Methods: We determined the current utilization of adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients with BC through Ontario’s systemic therapy database. In particular, we examined the utilization of T, E and E + G in BC patients < 35y as these patients are expected to have the highest rates of uptake based on the outcomes of SOFT and TEXT. Results: In the first year following the publication of SOFT and TEXT, 20% of BC patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy received E + ovarian suppression (G or oophorectomy). This value was 14% in the following year, reflecting low uptake of the optimal treatment strategy. Conclusions: In Ontario, uptake of G + E is low in BC patients < 35y. One possible barrier to access is the lack of public funding for these drugs in this population. The low uptake may also reflect the toxicity associated with this treatment and the need for further knowledge translation. A 2017 provincial prioritization process ranked this unmet funding need as a high priority. Thus, a funding submission will be prepared to promote access to this evidence informed therapy. The submission will include a full evidence review and pharmacoeconomic analysis.[Table: see text]
103 Title: Impact Of Novel Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Drugs On Public Spending Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a common hematologic malignancy that mainly affects the elderly. Over the past five years, the treatment pathway for CLL has dramatically changed with the emergence of multiple novel agents. In Ontario, Canada, the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) program and the New Drug Funding Program (NDFP) primarily provide public coverage for CLL drugs. Given advances in treatment, we evaluated utilization trends for publicly-funded CLL drugs over a five year period (fiscal years 2012/13 to 2016/17). Methods: Drugs with primary CLL indications funded under the two public funding programs (i.e., ODB and NDFP) by 16/17 were included (n = 6). Claims and costs data were obtained from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and Cancer Care Ontario‘s datasets. Results: Over five years, expenditures on CLL drugs have increased approximately ten-fold (1000 percent), reaching nearly CAD 43 million (i.e., USD 32.8 million) in 16/17. In the front-line setting, spending on rituximab remained consistent over the five years. Spending on single agent bendamustine decreased with the introduction of obinutuzumab which became the main cost driver by 16/17. In the previously-treated CLL population, ibrutinib has dominated expenditures since it was funded in July 2015. By 16/17, ibrutinib accounted for approximately ninety eight percent of spending in the previously-treated population. Conclusions: In the past five years, public spending on CLL drugs increased rapidly and substantially with the introduction of four novel agents, and may continue to evolve as Canadian provinces consider funding additional indications or newer agents. These findings warrant exploring whether the incremental spending is providing survival benefit or improvement in patients’ quality of life in a real-world setting. Declaration of funding: None
While no direct comparative data exist for crizotinib in ROS1+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), studies have suggested clinical benefit with this targeted agent. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib compared to standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of ROS1+ advanced NSCLC.A Markov model was developed with a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of the Canadian publicly-funded health care system. Health states included progression-free survival (PFS), up to two further lines of therapy post-progression, palliation and death. Given a lack of comparative data and small study samples, crizotinib or chemotherapy studies with advanced ROS1+ NSCLC patients were identified and time-to-event data from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves were collected to pool PFS data. Costs of drugs, treatment administration, monitoring, adverse events and palliative care were included in 2018 Canadian dollars, with 1.5% discounting. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated probabilistically using 5000 simulations.In the base-case probabilistic analysis, crizotinib produced additional 0.885 life-years and 0.772 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $238,077, producing an ICER of $273,286/QALY gained. No simulations were found to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. A scenario analysis assuming efficacy equivalent to the ALK+ NSCLC population showed a slightly more favorable cost-effectiveness profile for crizotinib.Available data appear to support superior activity of crizotinib compared to chemotherapy in ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. At the list price, crizotinib was not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds across a wide range of sensitivity analyses.
