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.

CAR T-cell Therapy for Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma in Canada: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is a novel cell therapy for treating non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The development of CAR T-cell therapy has transformed oncology treatment by offering a potential cure. However, due to the high cost of these therapies, and the large number of eligible patients, decision makers are faced with difficult funding decisions. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel for adults with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in Canada using updated survival data from the recent JULIET trial. METHODS: We developed an individual-simulated discrete event simulation model to assess the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of tisagenlecleucel compared with salvage chemotherapy. Survival estimates were obtained from a published clinical trial and retrospective analysis. If patients remained progression free for 5 y, they were assumed to be in long-term remission. Costing and utility data were obtained from reports and published sources. A Canadian health care payer perspective was used, and outcomes were modeled over a lifetime horizon. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually, with costs reported in 2021 Canadian dollars. A probabilistic analysis was used, and model parameters were varied in 1-way sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses. RESULTS: After we incorporated the latest clinical evidence, tisagenlecleucel led to an additional cost of $503,417 and additional effectiveness of 2.48 QALYs, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $202,991 compared with salvage chemotherapy. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, tisagenlecleucel had a 0% likelihood of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: At the current drug price, tisagenlecleucel was not found to be a cost-effective option. These results heavily depend on assumptions regarding long-term survival and the price of CAR T. Real-world evidence is needed to reduce uncertainty. HIGHLIGHTS: For patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who failed 2 or more lines of systemic therapy, CAR T was not found to be a cost-effective treatment option at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.These results heavily depend on the expected long-term survival. The uncertainty in the model may be improved using real-world evidence reported in the future.

Impact on costs and outcomes of multi-gene panel testing for advanced solid malignancies: a cost-consequence analysis using linked administrative data.

Background: To date, economic analyses of tissue-based next generation sequencing genomic profiling (NGS) for advanced solid tumors have typically required models with assumptions, with little real-world evidence on overall survival (OS), clinical trial enrollment or end-of-life quality of care. Methods: Cost consequence analysis of NGS testing (555 or 161-gene panels) for advanced solid tumors through the OCTANE clinical trial (NCT02906943). This is a longitudinal, propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada using linked administrative data. Patients enrolled in OCTANE at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from August 2016 until March 2019 were matched with contemporary patients without large gene panel testing from across Ontario not enrolled in OCTANE. Patients were matched according to 19 patient, disease and treatment variables. Full 2-year follow-up data was available. Sensitivity analyses considered alternative matched cohorts. Main Outcomes were mean per capita costs (2019 Canadian dollars) from a public payer's perspective, OS, clinical trial enrollment and end-of-life quality metrics. Findings: There were 782 OCTANE patients with 782 matched controls. Variables were balanced after matching (standardized difference <0.10). There were higher mean health-care costs with OCTANE ($79,702 vs. $59,550), mainly due to outpatient and specialist visits. Publicly funded drug costs were less with OCTANE ($20,015 vs. $24,465). OCTANE enrollment was not associated with improved OS (restricted mean survival time [standard error]: 1.50 (±0.03) vs. 1.44 (±0.03) years, log-rank p = 0.153), varying by tumor type. In five tumor types with ≥35 OCTANE patients, OS was similar in three (breast, colon, uterus, all p > 0.40), and greater in two (ovary, biliary, both p < 0.05). OCTANE was associated with greater clinical trial enrollment (25.4% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.001) and better end-of-life quality due to less death in hospital (10.2% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.003). Results were robust in sensitivity analysis. Interpretation: We found an increase in healthcare costs associated with multi-gene panel testing for advanced cancer treatment. The impact on OS was not significant, but varied across tumor types. OCTANE was associated with greater trial enrollment, lower publicly funded drug costs and fewer in-hospital deaths suggesting important considerations in determining the value of NGS panel testing for advanced cancers. Funding: T.P H holds a research grant provided by the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research through funding provided by the Government of Ontario (#IA-035 and P.HSR.158) and through funding of the Canadian Network for Learning Healthcare Systems and Cost-Effective 'Omics Innovation (CLEO) via Genome Canada (G05CHS).

Changes in Health Care Costs, Survival, and Time Toxicity in the Era of Immunotherapy and Targeted Systemic Therapy for Melanoma.

Importance: Melanoma treatment has evolved during the past decade with the adoption of adjuvant and palliative immunotherapy and targeted therapies, with an unclear impact on health care costs and outcomes in routine practice. Objective: To examine changes in health care costs, overall survival (OS), and time toxicity associated with primary treatment of melanoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed a longitudinal, propensity score (PS)-matched, retrospective cohort of residents of Ontario, Canada, aged 20 years or older with stages II to IV cutaneous melanoma identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry from January 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019. A historical comparison cohort was identified from a population-based sample of invasive melanoma cases diagnosed from the Ontario Cancer Registry from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2012. Data analysis was performed from October 17, 2022, to March 13, 2023. Exposures: Era of melanoma diagnosis (2007-2012 vs 2018-2019). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were mean per-capita health care and systemic therapy costs (Canadian dollars) during the first year after melanoma diagnosis, time toxicity (days with physical health care contact) within 1 year of initial treatment, and OS. Standardized differences were used to compare costs and time toxicity. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to compare OS among PS-matched cohorts. Results: A PS-matched cohort of 731 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [14.8] years; 437 [59.8%] male) with melanoma from 2018 to 2019 and 731 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [14.4] years; 440 [60.2%] male) from 2007 to 2012 were evaluated. The 2018 to 2019 patients had greater mean (SD) health care (including systemic therapy) costs compared with the 2007 to 2012 patients ($47 886 [$55 176] vs $33 347 [$31 576]), specifically for stage III ($67 108 [$57 226] vs $46 511 [$30 622]) and stage IV disease ($117 450 [$79 272] vs $47 739 [$37 652]). Mean (SD) systemic therapy costs were greater among 2018 to 2019 patients: stage II ($40 823 [$40 621] vs $10 309 [$12 176]), III ($55 699 [$41 181] vs $9764 [$12 771]), and IV disease ($79 358 [$50 442] vs $9318 [$14 986]). Overall survival was greater for the 2018 to 2019 cohort compared with the 2007 to 2012 cohort (3-year OS: 74.2% [95% CI, 70.8%-77.2%] vs 65.8% [95% CI, 62.2%-69.1%], hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.61-0.85]; P < .001). Time toxicity was similar between eras. Patients with stage IV disease spent more than 1 day per week (>52 days) with physical contact with the health care system by 2018 to 2019 (mean [SD], 58.7 [43.8] vs 44.2 [26.5] days; standardized difference, 0.40; P = .20). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found greater health care costs in the treatment of stages II to IV melanoma and substantial time toxicity for patients with stage IV disease, with improvements in OS associated with the adoption of immunotherapy and targeted therapies. These health system-wide data highlight the trade-off with adoption of new therapies, for which there is a greater economic burden to the health care system and time burden to patients but an associated improvement in survival.

Integration of real-world evidence from different data sources in health technology assessment.

Real-world evidence (RWE) is being increasingly used by a wide range of stakeholders involved in the therapeutic product lifecycle but remains underutilized in the health technology assessment (HTA) process. RWE aims to fill the current evidence gaps, reduce the uncertainty around the benefits of medical technologies, and better understand the long-term impact of health technologies in real-world conditions. Despite the minimal use of RWE in some elements of HTA, there has been a larger push to further utilize RWE in the HTA processes. HTA bodies, as other stakeholders, work towards developing more robust means to leverage RWE from various data sources in the HTA processes. However, these agencies need to overcome important challenges before the broader incorporation of RWE into their routine practice. This paper aims to explore the extensive integration of RWE utilizing diverse sources of RWD. We discuss the utilization of RWE in HTA processes, considering aspects such as when, where, and how RWE can be effectively applied. Additionally, we seek the potential challenges and barriers associated with the utilization of different data sources.

Power and sample size calculation for incremental net benefit in cost effectiveness analyses with applications to trials conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group.

BACKGROUND: Historically, a priori power and sample size calculations have not been routinely performed cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA), partly because the absence of published cost and effectiveness correlation and variance data, which are essential for power and sample size calculations. Importantly, the empirical correlation between cost and effectiveness has not been examined with respect to the estimation of value-for-money in clinical literature. Therefore, it is not well established if cost-effectiveness studies embedded within randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) are under- or over-powered to detect changes in value-for-money. However, recently guidelines (such as those from ISPOR) and funding agencies have suggested sample size and power calculations should be considered in CEAs embedded in clinical trials. METHODS: We examined all RCTs conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group with an embedded cost-effectiveness analysis. Variance and correlation of effectiveness and costs were derived from original-trial data. The incremental net benefit method was used to calculate the power of the cost-effectiveness analysis, with exploration of alternative correlation and willingness-to-pay values. RESULTS: We identified four trials for inclusion. We observed that a hypothetical scenario of correlation coefficient of zero between cost and effectiveness led to a conservative estimate of sample size. The cost-effectiveness analysis was under-powered to detect changes in value-for-money in two trials, at willingness-to-pay of $100,000. Based on our observations, we present six considerations for future economic evaluations, and an online program to help analysts include a priori sample size and power calculations in future clinical trials. CONCLUSION: The correlation between cost and effectiveness had a potentially meaningful impact on the power and variance of value-for-money estimates in the examined cost-effectiveness analyses. Therefore, the six considerations and online program, may facilitate a priori power calculations in embedded cost-effectiveness analyses in future clinical trials.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma: A real-world population-based cohort study of resource utilization.

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.

Multinational Analysis of Estimated Health Care Costs Related to Extended-Interval Fixed Dosing of Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Importance: New dosing options for immune checkpoint inhibitors have recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including fixed dosing with extended intervals. Although the dose intensity appears the same, there is expected to be some waste with extended-interval dosing, as some drug remains in the bloodstream once a decision to stop treatment is made. The economic impact of extended-interval fixed dosing is unknown compared with standard-interval fixed dosing. Objective: To analyze the potential health care costs of using extended-interval fixed dosing instead of standard-interval fixed dosing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a pharmacoeconomic model to simulate 2 cohorts of patients with platinum-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer receiving pembrolizumab as second-line therapy at different dosing intervals using 2020 pricing data. Data were analyzed from 2020 to 2022. Exposures: The simulated patients received FDA-approved regimens of either 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The progression-free survival curve from the KEYNOTE-045 trial was used to estimate treatment duration. Drug, imaging, and administration costs were included in analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess how different imaging frequencies would affect the model results. The potential overall costs of using the 2 different dosing strategies were assessed. The base case was set in the US, while sensitivity analyses were set in several other countries. Results: In the base case analysis, dosing every 6 weeks instead of every 3 weeks resulted in an estimated 8.9% increase in pembrolizumab costs for the health care payer. Accounting for a decrease in infusion costs would result in an estimated net additional cost of $7483 per patient in the US (7.9% cost increase). In the US, this would amount to an increase of approximately $28 million annually for health care payers. Similar percentages in cost estimate increases were found for health care payers around the world, such as in Israel, where the net additional cost would be $5491 per patient. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation assessed and quantified the potential increased costs related to extended-interval fixed dosing of pembrolizumab. The model method could be applied to other diseases and other drugs for which there has been a movement toward extended-interval dosing. Results may differ in other diseases owing to differing disease courses and patient profiles.

Transferability of real-world data across borders for regulatory and health technology assessment decision-making.

Recently, there has been increased consideration of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) in regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making. Due to challenges in identifying high-quality and relevant RWD sources, researchers and regulatory/HTA bodies may turn to RWD generated in locales outside of the locale of interest (referred to as "transferring RWD"). We therefore performed a review of stakeholder guidance as well as selected case studies to identify themes for researchers to consider when transferring RWD from one jurisdiction to another. Our review highlighted that there is limited consensus on defining decision-grade, transferred RWD; certain stakeholders have issued relevant guidance, but the recommendations are high-level and additional effort is needed to generate comprehensive guidance. Additionally, the case studies revealed that RWD transferability has not been a consistent concern for regulatory/HTA bodies and that more focus has been put on the evaluation of internal validity. To help develop transferability best practices (alongside internal validity best practices), we suggest that researchers address the following considerations in their justification for transferring RWD: treatment pathways, nature of the healthcare system, incidence/prevalence of indication, and patient demographics. We also recommend that RWD transferability should garner more attention as the use of imported RWD could open doors to high-quality data sources and potentially reduce methodological issues that often arise in the use of local RWD; we thus hope this review provides a foundation for further dialogue around the suitability and utility of transferred RWD in the regulatory/HTA decision-making space.

Engaging Patients and Caregivers in an Early Health Economic Evaluation: Discerning Treatment Value Based on Lived Experience.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, economic evaluations have engaged clinicians and policymakers; however, patients and their caregivers have insight that can ensure that the economic evaluation process appropriately reflects disease consequences and adequately addresses their priorities related to treatment. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify patient priorities to inform an early economic evaluation of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. METHODS: We conducted two online group discussions of four participants each, involving patients with experience of hematological cancer and a caregiver. We used an adapted version of the nominal group technique, a consensus-building discussion approach, to generate focused qualitative data. RESULTS: Patients and a caregiver acknowledged both the costs directly related to clinical care, such as the out-of-pocket cost of drugs, and the indirect treatment costs, such as the cost of transport, accommodation, and food. The emotional and physical toll of treatment and the influence of treatment on employment and education were additional costs emphasized by participants. Treatment benefits prioritized by participants included the efficacy of treatment, manageable side effects, improved quality of life, accessibility of treatment, and short treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging patients and caregivers in an early economic evaluation could help identify additional costs and benefits of therapies that are not typically recognized in economic evaluations but have the potential to increase the commercial viability of novel therapies. This research also demonstrates how patients and caregivers can be engaged at different levels in the development of early economic evaluation models.

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.

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel vs FOLFIRINOX in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) and fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Although it is well known that RCT-based efficacy often does not translate to real-world effectiveness, there is limited literature investigating comparative cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC. We aimed to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This study compared patients treated with first-line Gem-Nab or FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario from April 2015 to March 2019. Patients were linked to administrative databases. Using propensity scores and a stabilizing weights method, an inverse probability of treatment weighted cohort was developed. Mean survival and total costs were calculated over a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted at 1.5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit were computed to estimate cost-effectiveness from the public health-care payer's perspective. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the propensity score matching method. RESULTS: A total of 1988 patients were identified (Gem-Nab: n = 928; FOLFIRINOX: n = 1060). Mean survival was lower for patients in the Gem-Nab than the FOLFIRINOX group (0.98 vs 1.26 life-years; incremental effectiveness = -0.28 life-years [95% confidence interval = -0.47 to -0.13]). Patients in the Gem-Nab group incurred greater mean 5-year total costs (Gem-Nab: $103 884; FOLFIRINOX: $101 518). Key cost contributors include ambulatory cancer care, acute inpatient hospitalization, and systemic therapy drug acquisition. Gem-Nab was dominated by FOLFIRINOX, as it was less effective and more costly. Results from the sensitivity analysis were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Gem-Nab is likely more costly and less effective than FOLFIRINOX and therefore not considered cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Parametric Survival Extrapolation of Early Survival Data in Economic Analyses: A Comparison of Projected Versus Observed Updated Survival.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the value of cancer drugs by cost-effectiveness analysis, lifetime parametric survival extrapolations are often fitted to early data. Recent literature suggests that the benefit of cancer agents in primary publications is often different compared with updated data. This study aimed to examine the projected survival based on parametric extrapolations compared with observed survival based on updated data. METHODS: US Food and Drug Administration oncology approvals from January 2006 to December 2015 were reviewed to identify randomized controlled trials, with updated overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) data within 5 years. Individual patient data were reconstructed using established methods on initial and updated publications. Projected survival was calculated as the best-fit parametric restricted mean survival time (RMST) based on extrapolated initial Kaplan-Meier curves whereas observed survival was calculated as observed RMST based on updated Kaplan-Meier curves. Mean deviations, mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error, and linear regressions were conducted to examine the relationship between projected and observed survival. RESULTS: In total, 32 randomized controlled trials were included. The MAE between the projected RMST and observed RMST was 3.18 months (OS) and 2.84 months (PFS) and absolute percentage error of 100% (OS) and 23% (PFS), suggesting substantial imprecision of the projected RMST in predicting the updated RMST. The linear regression indicated MAE increased as time extrapolated and as the percentage of censored patients increased. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated substantial difference in projected survival between initial and updated publications. Health technology assessment committees need to be aware of the potential uncertainty of incremental effectiveness and resultant value-for-money assessment when making reimbursement decisions based on initial publications with immature survival data.

Cancer treatment-related financial toxicity experienced by patients in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: In the past decade, literature has called attention to financial toxicities experienced by cancer patients. Though studies have addressed research questions in high-income countries, there remains a paucity of in-depth reviews regarding low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our scoping review provides an overview of treatment-related financial toxicities experienced by cancer patients in LMICs. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. English peer-reviewed articles that (a) explored patients' experience with financial toxicity due to cancer treatment (b) were specific to LMICs as defined by the World Bank and (c) focused on qualitative data were included. Details regarding participants and main findings were extracted and synthesized. RESULTS: The search yielded 6290 citations, and 42 studies across 3 low-income, 9 lower-middle-income and 8 upper-middle-income countries. Main themes identified included cancer patients encountered various material hardships, managed costs with different coping behaviours and experienced negative psychological responses to their financial burden. Higher levels of financial toxicities were associated with patient characteristics such as lower socio-economic status and lack of insurance, as well as patient outcomes such as lower quality of life. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients in LMIC experience deleterious financial toxicities as a result of treatment. This comprehensive characterization of financial toxicities will better allow health systems to adopt evidence-based mitigation strategies to reduce the financial burden on patients.

Economic Evaluation of a Geriatric Oncology Clinic.

Geriatric assessment (GA) is supported by recent trials and guidelines yet rarely implemented due to a lack of resources. We performed an economic evaluation of a geriatric oncology clinic. Pre-GA proposed treatments and post-GA actual treatments were obtained from a detailed chart review of patients seen at a single academic centre. GA-based costs for investigations and referrals were calculated. Unit costs were obtained for surgical, radiation, systemic therapy, laboratory, imaging, physician, nursing, and allied health care (all in 2019 Canadian dollars). A six-month time horizon and government payer perspective were used. Consecutive patients aged 65 years or older (n = 152, mean age 82 y) and referred in the pre-treatment setting between July 2016 and June 2018 were included. Treatment plans were modified for 51% of patients. Costs associated with planned treatment were CAD 3,655,015. Costs associated with GA and related interventions were CAD 95,798. Final treatment costs were CAD 2,436,379. Net savings associated with the clinic were CAD 1,122,837, or CAD 7387 per patient seen. Findings were robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. Combined with mounting trial data demonstrating the clinical benefits of GA, our data can inform a strong business case for geriatric oncology clinics in health care environments similar to ours, but additional studies in diverse health care settings are warranted.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Pertuzumab With Trastuzumab in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: The initial assessment of pertuzumab use for treatment of metastatic breast cancer by health technology assessment agencies suggested that pertuzumab was not cost-effective. In Ontario, Canada, pertuzumab became funded in November 2013 based on the substantial clinical benefit. To date, there is a paucity of analysis of pertuzumab using real-world data for cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy vs trastuzumab and chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A population-based retrospective economic evaluation was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Patients who received first-line treatments for metastatic breast cancer from January 1, 2008, to March 31, 2018, were identified. Patients were followed up from the start of treatment up to 5 years, with maximum follow-up to March 31, 2019. Patients were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to the New Drug Funding Program database to identify receipt of first-line treatment (N = 1158). INTERVENTIONS: Treatment with pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy after public funding (November 25, 2013) compared with treatment with trastuzumab and chemotherapy before funding. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness, from a public payer perspective, was estimated from administrative data with a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted (1.5%). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for life-years gained and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) with bootstrapped 95% CIs were calculated. Sensitivity analysis with price reduction of pertuzumab alone or in combination with trastuzumab was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 579 pairs of matched patients receiving pertuzumab and controls were included. The mean (SD) age of the matched study cohort was 58 (12.97) years; 1151 were women (99.4%). Pertuzumab resulted in 0.61 life-years gained and 0.44 QALYs gained at an incremental cost of $192 139 (all costs measured in Canadian dollar values, CAD) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $316 203 per life-year gained and $436 679 per QALY. The main factors associated with cost included the cost of pertuzumab (60%), outpatient cancer treatment delivery (24%), and trastuzumab (15%). With 100% price reduction of pertuzumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $174 027 per QALY. When the price of pertuzumab and trastuzumab were both reduced by more than 71%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased below $100 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this population-based study suggest that pertuzumab may increase survival for patients with metastatic breast cancer but would not be considered cost-effective, even after 100% price reduction, under conventional thresholds.

Examining the association between oncology drug clinical benefit and the time to public reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: We examined if oncology drug indications with high clinical benefit, as measured by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), received public reimbursement status faster than those with lower clinical benefit from the time of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) recommendation. METHODS: Oncology drug indications submitted to pCODR between July 2011 and October 2018 were examined. Included indications had a regulatory approval date, completed the pCODR review process, received a positive pCODR recommendation, and been funded by at least one province. Trials cited for clinical efficacy were used to determine the clinical benefit (per ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS) of drug indications. RESULTS: Eighty-four indications were identified, yielding 65 ASCO-VF and 50 ESMO-MCBS scores. The mean ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS scores were 44.9 (SD = 21.1) and 3.3 (SD = 1.0), respectively. The mean time to provincial reimbursement from pCODR recommendation was 13.2 months (SD = 9.3 months). Higher ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS scores had low correlation with shorter time to reimbursement, (ρ = -0.21) and (ρ = 0.24), respectively. In the multivariable analyses, ASCO-VF (p = 0.40) and ESMO-MCBS (p = 0.31) scores were not significantly associated with time to reimbursement. Province and year of pCODR recommendation were associated with time to reimbursement in both ASCO and ESMO models. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology drug indications with higher clinical benefit do not appear to be reimbursed faster than those with low clinical benefit. This suggests the need to prioritize oncology drug indications based on clinical benefit to ensure quicker access to oncology drugs with the greatest benefits.

Effect of Early Palliative Care on End-of-Life Health Care Costs: A Population-Based, Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of early versus not-early palliative care among cancer decedents on end-of-life health care costs. METHODS: Using linked administrative databases, we created a retrospective cohort of cancer decedents between 2004 and 2014 in Ontario, Canada. We identified those who received early palliative care (palliative care service used in the hospital or community 12 to 6 months before death [exposure]). We used propensity score matching to identify a control group of not-early palliative care, hard matched on age, sex, cancer type, and stage at diagnosis. We examined differences in average health system costs (including hospital, emergency department, physician, and home care costs) between groups in the last month of life. RESULTS: We identified 144,306 cancer decedents, of which 37% received early palliative care. After matching, we created 36,238 pairs of decedents who received early and not-early (control) palliative care; there were balanced distributions of age, sex, cancer type (24% lung cancer), and stage (25% stage III and IV). Overall, 56.3% of early group versus 66.7% of control group used inpatient care in the last month (P < .001). Considering inpatient hospital costs in the last month of life, the early group used an average (±standard deviation) of $7,105 (±$10,710) versus the control group of $9,370 (±$13,685; P < .001). Overall average costs (±standard deviation) in the last month of life for patients in the early versus control group was $12,753 (±$10,868) versus $14,147 (±$14,288; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Receiving early palliative care reduced average health system costs in the last month of life, especially via avoided hospitalizations.