Access to Oncology Medicines in Canada: Consensus Forum for Recommendations for Improvement.

Patient access to new oncology drugs in Canada is only possible after navigating multiple sequential systemic checkpoints for national regulatory approval, health technology assessment (HTA) and collective government price negotiation. These steps delay access and prevent health care providers from being able to prescribe optimal therapy. Eighteen Canadian oncology clinicians from the medicine, nursing and pharmacy professions met to develop consensus recommendations for defining reasonable government performance standards around process and timeliness to improve Canadian cancer patients' access to best care. A modified Delphi methodology was used to identify consensus on 30 questions involving five themes: accountability, disparities, endpoints, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness. It was agreed that greater transparency is required across regulatory and HTA processes. Health professionals in oncology are frustrated for their patients because they are unable to deliver the modern guideline-supported therapies they want to provide due to delays in approval or funding. Canadian health care providers request improvements in timely access to life-saving therapeutics in line with other comparator countries. Clinicians expect urgent improvements in Canadian health systems to give our patients their best chance of survival.

Cost-effectiveness of eltrombopag vs intravenous immunoglobulin for the perioperative management of immune thrombocytopenia.

Eltrombopag has been shown to be noninferior to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for improving perioperative platelet counts in patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in a randomized trial; thus, cost is an important factor for treatment and policy decisions. We used patient-level data from the trial to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing perioperative eltrombopag 50 mg daily starting dose, with IVIG 1 or 2 g/kg (according to local practice) from a Canadian public health care payer's perspective over the observation period, from preoperative day 21 to postoperative day 28. Resource utilization data were obtained from the trial data (eltrombopag, n = 38; IVIG, n = 36), and unit costs were collected from the Ontario Schedule of Benefits, Ontario Drug Formulary, and secondary sources. All costs were adjusted to 2020 Canadian dollars. We calculated the incremental cost per patient for all patients randomized. Uncertainty was addressed using nonparametric bootstrapping. The use of perioperative eltrombopag for patients with ITP resulted in a cost-saving of $413 Canadian per patient. Compared with IVIG, the probability of eltrombopag being cost effective was 70% even with no willingness to pay. In a sensitivity analysis based on IVIG dose, we found that with the higher dose of IVIG (2 g/kg), eltrombopag saved $2,714 per patient, whereas with the lower dose of IVIG (1 g/kg), eltrombopag had a higher mean cost of $562 per patient. In summary, based on data from the randomized trial that demonstrated noninferiority, the use of eltrombopag for the management of ITP in the perioperative setting was less costly than IVIG.

Implementation of an NGS-based sequencing and gene fusion panel for clinical screening of patients with suspected hematologic malignancies.

OBJECTIVES: The diagnosis of hematologic malignancies integrates multiple diagnostic and clinical disciplines. Historically, targeted (single-analyte) genetic testing has been used as reflex to initial prescreening by other diagnostic modalities including flow cytometry, anatomic pathology, and clinical cytogenetics. Given the wide range of mutations associated with hematologic malignancies a DNA/RNA-based NGS panel can provide a more effective and economical approach to comprehensive testing of patients as an initial, tier-1 screen. METHODS: Using a cohort of 380 patients, we performed clinical validation of a gene panel designed to assess 40 genes (DNA), and 29 fusion driver genes with over 600 gene fusion partners (RNA), including sample exchange data across three clinical laboratories, and correlation with cytogenetic testing results. RESULTS: The clinical validation of this technology demonstrated that its accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity are comparable to the majority of targeted single-gene approaches, while assessment of the initial patient cohort data demonstrated a high diagnostic yield of 50.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a tier-1 NGS-based protocol for gene panel screening provides a comprehensive alternative to targeted molecular testing in patients with suspected hematologic malignancies, with increased diagnostic yield, scalability, reproducibility, and cost effectiveness, making it ideally suited for implementation in clinical laboratories.