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.

Focused Jurisdictional Scan of Glomerulonephritis Medication Access in Canada: A Program Report.

Purpose of Program: Glomerulonephritis (GN) is a group of rare kidney diseases that is increasingly being managed with higher cost immunosuppressive (IS) agents in Canada. Ontario Health's Ontario Renal Network (ORN) oversees the management and delivery of GN services in the province. Stakeholder surveys previously conducted by ORN identified that both clinicians and patients do not perceive access to GN medications as comprehensive or timely. The program conducted a focused jurisdictional scan among 7 provinces to inform ORN initiatives to improve access to GN medications. Specifically, the program examined clinician experience with GN access, public drug coverage criteria, and timelines for public coverage for select IS agents (ie, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil [MMF], mycophenolate sodium, rituximab, and eculizumab) used to manage GN in adults who live in Canada. Methods: For the selected IS agents, a focused jurisdictional scan on medication access was conducted by ORN in 2018 and updated in July 2022. Information was obtained by searching the gray literature and/or credible online sources for public funding policies and eligibility criteria. Findings were supplemented by personal communications with provincial drug programs and consulting GN clinical experts from 7 provinces (ie, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Quebec). Key Findings: Clinicians from different provinces prescribe IS agents similarly for GN indications, despite distinctions in public drug funding policies. While patients can obtain public funding for many IS agents, for GN, most provinces rely on case-by-case review processes. In addition, provinces can vary in their funding criteria and which IS agents are listed on the public formulary. For IS agents that require prior authorization or case-by-case review, timelines vary by province with decisions taking a few days to weeks. British Columbia, with a GN-specific drug formulary, had the most integrated and efficient system for patients and prescribers. Limitations: This scan primarily relied on publicly available information for drug coverage criteria and clinician experience with access in their province. Since this scan was conducted, public drug coverage criteria and/or application processes may have changed. Implications: While patients in most provinces have similar needs and nephrologists similar prescribing patterns, gaps still exist for publicly funded GN medications. Interprovincial differences in the drugs funded, funding criteria, and application process may affect timely and equitable access to GN medications across Canada. Given the rarity of GN, a pan-Canadian funding approach may be warranted to improve the current state.

Objectif du programme: Les glomérulonéphrites (GN) sont un groupe de néphropathies rares qui sont de plus en plus fréquemment traitées avec les agents immunosuppresseurs (IS) coûteux au Canada. Le Réseau rénal de l'Ontario (ORN­Ontario Renal Network) de Santé Ontario supervise la gestion et la prestation des services liés à la GN dans cette province. Des enquêtes menées précédemment par l'ORN auprès des parties prenantes ont révélé que tant les cliniciens que les patients ne percevaient pas l'accès aux médicaments pour traiter la GN comme complet ou opportun. Le programme a mené une analyse ciblée des territoires de compétences dans sept provinces afin d'orienter les initiatives de l'ORN ayant pour objectif d'améliorer l'accès aux médicaments pour traiter la GN. Plus précisément, le programme a examiné l'expérience des cliniciens en matière d'accès aux médicaments pour traiter la GN, les critères d'admissibilité au régime public d'assurance-médicaments et les délais de couverture publique de certains agents IS (p. ex., tacrolimus, cyclosporine, mycophénolate mofétil [MMF], mycophénolate sodique, Rituximab, éculizumab) utilisés pour traiter la GN chez les adultes canadiens. Méthodologie: Une analyse ciblée des territoires de compétences quant à l'accès aux médicaments a été réalisée par l'ORN en 2018 et mise à jour en juillet 2022. L'information quant aux politiques de financement public et aux critères d'admissibilité a été obtenue en effectuant une recherche dans la littérature grise et des sources crédibles en ligne. Les résultats ont été complétés par des communications directes avec les régimes provinciaux d'assurance-médicaments et des experts cliniques de la GN de sept provinces (Alberta, Colombie-Britannique, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nouvelle-Écosse et Québec). Principaux résultats: Les cliniciens des différentes provinces prescrivent des agents IS de façon similaire pour les indications liées à la GN, malgré des distinctions dans les politiques publiques de financement des médicaments. Bien que les patients bénéficient d'une couverture publique pour de nombreux agents IS, pour le traitement de la GN, la plupart des provinces s'appuient sur des processus d'examen au cas par cas. De plus, il peut exister des différences entre les provinces en ce qui concerne les critères de financement et les agents IS qui figurent sur leur formulaire public. Dans le cas des agents IS nécessitant une autorisation au préalable ou un examen au cas par cas, les délais varient d'une province à l'autre; les décisions pouvant prendre de quelques jours à quelques semaines. La Colombie-Britannique, qui dispose d'un formulaire de médicaments pour traiter spécifiquement la GN, présente le système le plus intégré et le plus efficace pour les patients et les prescripteurs. Limites: Cette analyse s'est principalement appuyée sur des renseignements accessibles au public en ce qui concerne les critères de couverture des médicaments et l'expérience des cliniciens en matière d'accès dans leur province. Les critères de couverture des médicaments publics et les processus de demande pourraient avoir changé depuis que cette analyse a été effectuée. Conclusion: Bien que les patients de la plupart des provinces aient des besoins similaires et que les néphrologues aient des habitudes de prescription similaires, des lacunes subsistent en ce qui concerne le financement public des médicaments pour traiter la GN. Les différences interprovinciales entre les médicaments financés, les critères de financement et le processus de demande peuvent avoir une incidence sur l'accès opportun et équitable aux médicaments pour traiter la GN à travers le Canada. Étant donné la rareté de cette maladie, une approche de financement pancanadienne pourrait être justifiée afin d'améliorer l'état actuel.

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.

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.

Clinician Perspectives of COVID-19-Related Cancer Drug Funding Measures in Ontario.

The COVID-19 pandemic has a significant impact on cancer patients and the delivery of cancer care. To allow clinicians to adapt treatment plans for patients, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) issued a series of interim funding measures for the province's New Drug Funding Program (NDFP), which covers the cost of most hospital-delivered cancer drugs. To assess the utility of the measures and the need for their continuation, we conducted an online survey of Ontario oncology clinicians. The survey was open 3-25 September 2020 and generated 105 responses. Between April and June 2020, 46% of respondents changed treatment plans for more than 25% of their cancer patients due to the pandemic. Clinicians report broad use of interim funding measures. The most frequently reported strategies used were treatment breaks for stable patients (62%), extending dosing intervals (59%), and deferring routine imaging (56%). Most clinicians anticipate continuing to use these interim funding measures in the coming months. The survey showed that adapting cancer drug funding policies has supported clinical care in Ontario during the pandemic.

Impact of rarity on Canadian oncology health technology assessment and funding.

OBJECTIVES: The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) evaluates new cancer drugs for public funding recommendations. While pCODR's deliberative framework evaluates overall clinical benefit and includes considerations for exceptional circumstances, rarity of indication is not explicitly addressed. Given the high unmet need that typically accompanies these indications, we explored the impact of rarity on oncology HTA recommendations and funding decisions. METHODS: We examined pCODR submissions with final recommendations from 2012 to 2017. Incidence rates were calculated using pCODR recommendation reports and statistics from the Canadian Cancer Society. Indications were classified as rare if the incidence rate was lower than 1/100,000 diagnoses, a definition referenced by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Each pCODR final report was examined for the funding recommendation/justification, level of supporting evidence (presence of a randomized control trial [RCT]), and time to funding (if applicable). RESULTS: Of the ninety-six pCODR reviews examined, 16.6 percent were classified as rare indications per above criteria. While the frequency of positive funding recommendations were similar between rare and nonrare indication (78.6 vs. 75 percent), rare indications were less likely to be presented with evidence from RCT (50 vs. 90 percent). The average time to funding did not differ significantly across provinces. CONCLUSION: Rare indications appear to be associated with weaker clinical evidence. There appears to be no association between rarity, positive funding recommendations, and time to funding. Further work will evaluate factors associated with positive recommendations and the real-world utilization of funded treatments for rare indications.

Are population-based patient-reported outcomes associated with overall survival in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer?

BACKGROUND: Advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) patients often have substantial symptom burden. In Ontario, patients routinely complete the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), which screens for nine symptoms (scale: 0-10), in cancer clinics. We explored the association between baseline patient-reported outcomes, via ESAS, and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Advanced pancreatic cancer patients with ESAS records prior to receiving publicly funded drugs from November 2008 to March 2016 were retrospectively identified from Cancer Care Ontario's administrative databases. We examined three composite ESAS scores: total symptom distress score (TSDS: 9 symptoms), physical symptom score (PHS: 6/9 symptoms), and psychological symptom score (PSS: 2/9 symptoms); Composite scores greater than defined thresholds (TSDS ≥36, PHS ≥24, PSS ≥8) were considered as high symptom burden. Crude OS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios (HRs) were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Analysis was repeated in a sub-cohort with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status and metastasis. RESULTS: We identified 2199 APC patients (mean age 64 years, 55% male) with ESAS records prior to receiving chemotherapy. Crude median survival was 4.5 and 7.3 months for high and low TSDS, respectively. High TSDS was associated with lower OS (HR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.33, 1.63). In the sub-cohort (n = 393) with ECOG status and metastasis, high TSDS was also associated with lower OS (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.73). Similar trends were observed for PHS and PSS. CONCLUSIONS: Higher burden of patient-reported outcome was associated with reduced OS among APC patients. The effect was prominent after adjusting for ECOG status.