Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bevacizumab Biosimilars Versus Originator Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Comparative Study Using Real-World Data.

OBJECTIVES: MVASI (Amgen) and Zirabev (Pfizer) are 2 of the earliest bevacizumab biosimilars approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to confirm and quantify the real-world cost savings and cost-effectiveness of MVASI and Zirabev relative to originator bevacizumab for patients with mCRC. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, where originator and biosimilar bevacizumab are universally publicly funded. All mCRC patients who received originator bevacizumab between January 2008 and August 2019 or biosimilar bevacizumab between August 2019 and March 2021 were propensity score matched (1:4) to adjust for baseline differences. Total 1-year patient-level costs (CAD) and effects (life years [LY] and quality-adjusted LYs) were calculated from the public health payer's perspective. Primary outcomes included incremental net monetary benefit and incremental net health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity analyses included a subgroup analysis by biosimilar type (MVASI/Zirabev) and a 2-year analysis. RESULTS: The matched cohort included 747 biosimilar cases and 2945 comparators. Bevacizumab biosimilars were associated with an incremental cost of -$6379 (95%CI: -9417, -3537) (ie, cost saving) and incremental effect of 0.0 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.02) LY and -0.01 (95% CI: -0.03, 0) quality-adjusted LYs gained. Incremental net monetary benefit and INHB estimates were $6331 (95% CI: 6245, 6417) and 0.127 LY (95% CI: 0.125, 0.128), respectively, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/life year gained, with all estimates indicating the cost-effectiveness of biosimilar bevacizumab. Cost-effectiveness remained consistent across biosimilar brand subgroups and 2-year sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab biosimilars demonstrated real-world cost savings while providing similar survival benefit as originator bevacizumab, confirming the initial expectations of their implementation and supporting health system sustainability.

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.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Trastuzumab Biosimilars to Herceptin for Adjuvant Treatment of HER2+ Breast Cancer.

Background: Ontario publicly funds reference trastuzumab (Herceptin) and four biosimilar trastuzumab products for adjuvant treatment of HER2+ breast cancer. We assessed the real-world safety and effectiveness of biosimilar trastuzumab compared to Herceptin for adjuvant treatment of patients with HER2+ breast cancer. Methods: This was a population-based, retrospective study comparing the safety and effectiveness of biosimilar trastuzumab and Herceptin for neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment of HER2+ breast cancer from 2016 to 2021. Treatment patients started biosimilar trastuzumab from November 2019 to June 2021; historical comparator patients started Herceptin from June 2016 to October 2019. Safety outcomes death within 30 days of last dose of trastuzumab, direct hospitalization, emergency department visit leading to hospitalization, early treatment discontinuation, and in-patient admission for congestive heart failure were measured using logistic/negative binomial regression. Overall survival (OS) was measured using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression. Propensity score matching was applied. Results: From June 2016 to 2021, 5071 patients with breast cancer were treated with neoadjuvant/adjuvant trastuzumab. The rate of direct hospitalization (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74-0.98, p-value: 0.032) was significantly lower in biosimilar compared to Herceptin patients. OS (log-rank test p = 0.98) and risk of mortality (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.72-2.30, p-value = 0.39) did not significantly differ between treatment groups. Conclusions: Biosimilar trastuzumab demonstrated similar safety and effectiveness to Herceptin. The findings can help improve confidence in and use of biosimilars and demonstrate the value of real-world evidence generation for supporting biosimilar implementations and reassessments.

Development of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Rating Tool to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Questions for the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration developed an MCDA rating tool to assess and prioritize potential post-market real-world evidence (RWE) questions/uncertainties emerging from public drug funding decisions in Canada. In collaboration with a group of multidisciplinary stakeholders from across Canada, the rating tool was developed following a three-step process: (1) selection of criteria to assess the importance and feasibility of an RWE question; (2) development of rating scales, application of weights and calculating aggregate scores; and (3) validation testing. An initial MCDA rating tool was developed, composed of seven criteria, divided into two groups. Group A criteria assess the importance of an RWE question by examining the (1) drug's perceived clinical benefit, (2) magnitude of uncertainty identified, and (3) relevance of the uncertainty to decision-makers. Group B criteria assess the feasibility of conducting an RWE analysis including the (1) feasibility of identifying a comparator, (2) ability to identify cases, (3) availability of comprehensive data, and (4) availability of necessary expertise and methodology. Future directions include partnering with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health's Provincial Advisory Group for further tool refinement and to gain insight into incorporating the tool into drug funding deliberations.

Engaging Patients in the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Initiative: Processes and Lessons Learned.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration established the Engagement Working Group (WG) to ensure that all key stakeholders had an opportunity to provide input into the development and implementation of the CanREValue Real-World Evidence (RWE) Framework. Two consultations were held in 2021 to solicit patient perspectives on key policy and data access issues identified in the interim policy and data WG reports. Over 30 individuals, representing patients, caregivers, advocacy leaders, and individuals engaged in patient research were invited to participate. The consultations provided important feedback and valuable lessons in patient engagement. Patient leaders actively shaped the process and content of the consultation. Breakout groups facilitated by patient advocacy leaders gave the opportunity for open and thoughtful contributions from all participants. Important recommendations were made: the RWE framework should not impede access to new drugs; it should be used to support conditional approvals; patient relevant endpoints should be captured in provincial datasets; access to data to conduct RWE should be improved; and privacy issues must be considered. The manuscript documents the CanREValue experience of engaging patients in a consultative process and the useful contributions that can be achieved when the processes to engage are guided by patients themselves.

Mapping Canadian Data Assets to Generate Real-World Evidence: Lessons Learned from Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration's RWE Data Working Group.

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.

Parenchyma-to-hydronephrosis Area Ratio Is a Promising Outcome Measure to Quantify Upper Tract Changes in Infants With High-grade Prenatal Hydronephrosis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the value of renal parenchyma-to-hydronephrosis area ratio (PHAR) in detecting trends of hydronephrosis (HN) improvement or worsening and response to surgical intervention. METHODS: Initial and follow-up sagittal renal ultrasound images of patients entered into a prenatal HN database from 2008 to 2016, with baseline Society for Fetal Urology (SFU) grades III and IV HN and without vesicoureteral reflux, were evaluated using National Institutes of Health-sponsored image-processing software. Renal parenchymal area, hydronephrosis area (HA), PHAR, anteroposterior diameter (APd), and SFU grade were captured at baseline and most recent visit. Data were analyzed based on the need for surgical intervention to address obstruction. RESULTS: Out of 193 infants (159 boys; 135 left side), 58 (30%) underwent surgery. Patients managed surgically compared with those managed nonsurgically had worse baseline HN severity markers: SFU grade (3.6 ± 0.5 vs 3.1 ± 0.4; P <.001), urinary tract dilation classification (2.7 ± 0.5 vs 2.2 ± 0.4; P <.001), APd (20.3 ± 10.1 vs 12.8 ± 8.0; P <.001), HA (10.0 ± 6.6 vs 4.7 ± 2.8; P <.001), and PHAR (1.3 ± 1.0 vs 3.0 ± 2.9; P <.001); but both patient groups had similar renal parenchymal area (9.4 ± 3.5 vs 9.7 ± 2.8; P = .5). At last follow-up, the following discrepancies persisted: SFU grade (2.3 ± 1.0 vs 1.7 ± 1.0; P <.001), urinary tract dilation classification (1.5 ± 0.7 vs 1.0 ± 0.7; P <.001), APd (11.7 ± 8.0 vs 7.7 ± 5.7; P <.001), and HA (6.4 ± 5.1 vs 3.6 ± 2.7; P <.001); however, PHAR was equalized for both groups (7.2 ± 14.0 vs 7.1 ± 6.1; P = .9). CONCLUSION: By concurrently considering changes in renal parenchyma and degree of HN, we found that PHAR appears to be a promising parameter that reflects similarities between patients managed surgically and those managed nonsurgically, despite initial discrepancies. Our data suggest that this variable may provide reassurance and a more objective assessment of improvement after surgery compared with other traditional ultrasound outcome measures.