Real-World Safety of Niraparib for Maintenance Treatment of Ovarian Cancer in Canada.

Niraparib was recently funded in Canada for the maintenance treatment of ovarian cancer following platinum-based chemotherapy. However, the drug's safety profile in the real world remains uncertain. We conducted a cohort study to describe the patient population using niraparib and the proportion that experienced adverse events between June 2019 and December 2022 in four Canadian provinces (Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia [BC], and Quebec). We used administrative data and electronic medical records from Ontario Health, Alberta Health Services, and BC Cancer, and registry data from Exactis Innovation. We summarized baseline characteristics using descriptive statistics and reported safety outcomes using cumulative incidence. We identified 514 patients receiving niraparib. Mean age was 67 years and most were initiated on a daily dose of 100 or 200 mg/day. Grade 3/4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 11-16% of the cohort. In Ontario, the three-month cumulative incidence of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was 11.6% (95% CI, 8.3-15.4%), neutropenia was 7.1% (95% CI, 4.6-10.4%), and anemia was 11.3% (95% CI, 8.0-15.2%). Cumulative incidences in the remaining provinces were similar. Initial daily dose and proportions of hematological adverse events were low in the real world and may be related to cautious prescribing and close monitoring by clinicians.

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.

Cost and value of cancer medicines in a single-payer public health system in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The financial impact of cancer medicines on health systems is not well known. We describe temporal trends in expenditure on cancer medicines within the single-payer health system of Ontario, Canada, and the extent of clinical benefit these treatments offer. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified cancer medicines and expenditures from formularies and costing databases (the New Drug Funding Program, Ontario Drug Benefit Program, and The High-Cost Therapy Funding Program) during 10 consecutive years (April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2022) in Ontario, Canada. For intravenous medicines, we applied the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) to identify expenditures associated with substantial clinical benefit. We also identified treatments associated with improved overall survival or quality of life. FINDINGS: 69 intravenous and 98 oral or injectable medicines were funded during 2012-22. Annual expenditure on cancer medicines increased by approximately 15% per year during 2012-22; the increase was more rapid in the most recent 4 years. Total expenditure on cancer medicines in the 2021-22 financial year was CA$1·7 billion. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were the single biggest expense by class ($284 million), representing 17% of the entire cancer medicine annual budget. Drugs with the highest individual costs were lenalidomide ($178 million) and pembrolizumab ($163 million), each accounting for around 10% of the entire budget. 29 (76%) of 38 indications eligible for ESMO-MCBS scoring met the threshold for substantial clinical benefit. Eight (21%) indications had no randomised trial evidence of improved overall survival, and only four (11%) were associated with improved QOL. $346 million (67% of the expenditure on intravenous cancer medicines) was spent on drugs that improved median overall survival by more than 6 months, $82 million (16%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of 3-6 months, and $32 million (6%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of less than 3 months. $53 million (10%) was spent on medicines with no established improvement in overall survival. INTERPRETATION: Costs of cancer medicines to the Canadian health system are increasing rapidly. Most funded indications met thresholds for substantial clinical benefit and two-thirds of the expenditure were for medicines that improve survival by more than 6 months. Whether this cost trajectory can be maintained in a sustainable, equitable, high-quality health system is unclear. Efforts are needed to ensure the price of medicines with substantial benefit is affordable and funding of treatments with very modest benefit might need to be re-assessed, particularly when alternative supportive and palliative therapies are available. FUNDING: None.

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.

Comparison of Use of Neoadjuvant Systemic Treatment for Breast Cancer and Short-term Outcomes Before vs During the COVID-19 Era in Ontario, Canada.

Importance: In response to an increase in COVID-19 infection rates in Ontario, several systemic treatment (ST) regimens delivered in the adjuvant setting for breast cancer were temporarily permitted for neoadjuvant-intent to defer nonurgent breast cancer surgical procedures. Objective: To examine the use and compare short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant-intent vs adjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada. Patients with cancer starting selected ST regimens in the COVID-19 era (March 11, 2020, to September 30, 2020) were compared to those in the pre-COVID-19 era (March 11, 2019, to March 10, 2020). Patients were diagnosed with breast cancer within 6 months of starting systemic therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimates were calculated for the use of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant ST, the likelihood of receiving a surgical procedure, the rate of emergency department visits, hospital admissions, COVID-19 infections, and all-cause mortality between treatment groups over time. Results: Among a total of 10 920 patients included, 7990 (73.2%) started treatment in the pre-COVID-19 era and 7344 (67.3%) received adjuvant ST; the mean (SD) age was 61.6 (13.1) years. Neoadjuvant-intent ST was more common in the COVID-19 era (1404 of 2930 patients [47.9%]) than the pre-COVID-19 era (2172 of 7990 patients [27.2%]), with an odds ratio of 2.46 (95% CI, 2.26-2.69; P < .001). This trend was consistent across a range of ST regimens, but differed according to patient age and geography. The likelihood of receiving surgery following neoadjuvant-intent chemotherapy was similar in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era (log-rank P = .06). However, patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant-intent hormonal therapy were significantly more likely to receive surgery in the COVID-19 era (log-rank P < .001). After adjustment, there were no significant changes in the rate of emergency department visits over time between patients receiving neoadjuvant ST, adjuvant ST, or ST only during the ST treatment period or postoperative period. Hospital admissions decreased in the COVID-19 era for patients who received neoadjuvant ST compared with adjuvant ST or ST alone (P for interaction = .01 for both) in either setting. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients were more likely to start neoadjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era, which varied across the province and by indication. There was limited evidence to suggest any substantial impact on short-term outcomes.

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.

The Association of Drug-Funding Reimbursement With Survival Outcomes and Use of New Systemic Therapies Among Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

Importance: Gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) both improve survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer when compared with single-agent gemcitabine in clinical trials. Objective: To describe changes in the survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer associated with sequential drug-funding approvals and to determine if there exist distinct patient populations for whom GEMNAB and FOLFIRINOX are associated with survival benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective cohort study examined all incident cases of advanced pancreatic cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada (2008-2018) that were identified from the Cancer Care Ontario (Ontario Health) New Drug Funding Program database. Statistical analysis was performed from October 2020 to January 2021. Exposures: First-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the proportion of patients treated with each chemotherapy regimen over time and overall survival for each regimen. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare overall survival between treatment regimens after adjustment for confounding variables, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and matching. Results: From 2008 to 2018, 5465 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada. The median (range) age of patients was 66.9 (27.8-93.4) years; 2447 (45%) were female; 878 (16%) had prior pancreatic resection, and 328 (6%) had prior adjuvant gemcitabine. During the time period when only gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX were funded (2011-2015), 49% (929 of 1887) received FOLFIRINOX. When GEMNAB was subsequently funded (2015-2018), 9% (206 of 2347) received gemcitabine, 44% (1034 of 2347) received FOLFIRINOX, and 47% (1107 of 2347) received GEMNAB. The median overall survival increased from 5.6 months (95% CI, 5.1-6.0 months) in 2008 to 2011 to 6.9 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.4 months) in 2011 to 2015 to 7.6 months (95% CI, 7.1-8.0 months) in 2015 to 2018. Patients receiving FOLFIRINOX were younger and healthier than patients receiving GEMNAB. After adjustment and weighting, FOLFIRINOX was associated with better overall survival than GEMNAB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69-0.81]). In analyses comparing patients treated with GEMNAB and gemcitabine, GEMNAB was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy within a universal health care system found that drug funding decisions were associated with increased uptake of new treatment options over time and improved survival. Both FOLFIRINOX and GEMNAB were associated with survival benefits in distinct patient populations.

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Bevacizumab With First-Line Combination Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Studies in Three Canadian Provinces.

Background. Real-world evidence can be a valuable tool when clinical trial data are incomplete or uncertain. Bevacizumab was adopted as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on significant survival improvements in initial clinical trials; however, survival benefit diminished in subsequent analyses. Consequently, there is uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab therapy achieved in practice. Objective. To assess real-world cost-effectiveness of first-line bevacizumab with irinotecan-based chemotherapy versus irinotecan-based chemotherapy alone for mCRC in British Columbia (BC), Saskatchewan, and Ontario, Canada. Methods. Using provincial cancer registries and linked administrative databases, we identified mCRC patients who initiated publicly funded irinotecan-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, in 2000 to 2015. We compared bevacizumab-treated patients to historical controls (treated before bevacizumab funding) and contemporaneous controls (receiving chemotherapy without bevacizumab), using inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting with propensity scores to balance baseline covariates. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) using 5-year cost and survival adjusted for censoring, with bootstrapping to characterize uncertainty. We also conducted one-way sensitivity analysis for key drivers of cost-effectiveness. Results. The cohorts included 12,112 (Ontario), 1,161 (Saskatchewan), and 2,977 (BC) patients. Bevacizumab significantly increased treatment costs, with mean ICERs between $78,000 and $84,000/LYG (life-year gained) in the contemporaneous comparisons and $75,000 and $101,000/LYG in the historical comparisons. Reducing the cost of bevacizumab by 50% brought ICERs in all comparisons below $61,000/LYG. Limitations. Residual confounding in observational data may bias results, while the use of original list prices overestimates current bevacizumab cost. Conclusion. The addition of bevacizumab to irinotecan-based chemotherapy extended survival for mCRC patients but at significant cost. At original list prices bevacizumab can only be considered cost-effective with certainty at a willingness-to-pay threshold over $100,000/LYG, but price reductions or discounts have a significant impact on cost-effectiveness.