Impact of Adjuvant Atezolizumab on Recurrences Avoided and Treatment Cost Savings for Patients with Stage II-IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Canada.

This epidemiological model forecasted reductions in recurrences and recurrence treatment cost savings with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care among Canadians with stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at national and provincial levels. The population had resected, programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-high (≥50%), EGFR-, ALK-, stage II-IIIA NSCLC eligible for adjuvant treatment. Patients with recurrence or death and the costs of treating recurrences were estimated for those receiving adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care each year (2024-2034). Proportions of patients expected to be event free up to 10 years after treatment initiation were extrapolated with parametric survival analyses. In the base case analysis, 240 fewer recurrences were estimated to occur over 10 years (2024-2034) with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care across Canada, with 136 (57%) and 104 (43%) fewer locoregional and metastatic recurrences, respectively. Projected costs of treated recurrences were CAD 33.2 million less over 10 years with adjuvant atezolizumab at a national level (adjuvant atezolizumab, CAD 135.8 million; best supportive care, CAD 169.0 million). This model predicts a considerable long-term reduction in recurrences and substantial treatment cost savings with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care for patients with PD-L1-high early-stage NSCLC in Canada.

Real-World Evidence to Reinforce Clinical Trial Evidence in Health Technology Assessment: A Critical Review of Real-World Evidence Requirements from Seven Countries and Recommendations to Improve Acceptance.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence (RWE) can reinforce clinical trial evidence in health technology assessment (HTA). OBJECTIVES: Review HTA bodies' (HTAbs) requirements for RWE, real uses, and acceptance across seven countries (Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) and outline recommendations that may improve acceptance of RWE in efficacy/effectiveness assessments and appraisals processes. METHODS: RWE requirements were summarized based on HTAbs' guidelines. Acceptance by HTAbs was evaluated based on industry experience and case studies. RESULTS: As of June 2022, RWE methodological guidelines were in place in three of the seven countries. HTAbs typically requested analyses based on local data sources, but the preferred study design and data sources differed. HTAbs had individual submission, assessment, and appraisal processes; some allowed early meetings for the protocol and/or results validation, though few involved external experts or medical societies to provide input to assessment and appraisal. The extent of submission, assessment, and appraisal requirements did not necessarily reflect the degree of acceptance. CONCLUSION: All the countries reviewed face common challenges regarding the use of RWE. Our proposals address the need to facilitate collaboration and communication with industry and regulatory agencies and the need for specific guidelines describing RWE design and criteria of acceptance throughout the assessment and appraisal processes.