cadth 2015 b1 slides allan grill-pcodr-cadth_symposium2015presentationfinal
Post on 16-Jul-2015
86 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Allan Grill, MD, CCFP, MPH Family Physician Member, pERC
Mona Sabharwal, BScPhm, Pharm. D., R.Ph.,
Executive Director, pCODR
Nianda Penner, BSc(Pharm), R.Ph., Knowledge Management, pCODR
CADTH Symposium, Concurrent Session B1 Monday, April 13, 2015
Disclaimer
• I have no financial conflicts of interest to declare • I receive a per diem remuneration for work
associated with CED and pERC membership • The opinions expressed in this presentation
reflect the presenters own personal experiences with Health Technology Assessment and public drug policy, and do not represent the opinions of other pERC members, pCODR, CADTH, the Ontario Public Drug Programs, Cancer Care Ontario, or the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
3
• To review the discordance rates associated with pERC recommendations and provincial cancer drug funding decisions
• To outline the potential reasons for discordance in the context of Health Technology Assessment (HTA)
• To present the results of a national survey among drug funding decision makers outlining the challenges and potential solutions towards enhancing alignment for Canada’s national cancer drug review process
OBJECTIVES
4
• pCODR/CADTH Overview: § Health Technology Assessment § National, evidence-based cancer drug review process § Consistency & clarity via Deliberative Framework à legitimacy § Process should guide provinces in drug-funding decision making
Background
5
Background
• pERC recommendations are meant to: § Achieve best possible health outcomes § Contribute to health system sustainability § Promote equity across provinces
• Is there discordance between recommendations and decisions?
6
• A state of disagreement and disharmony
What is Discordance?
7
As of December 31, 2014, pERC had issued 39 final recommendations:
• 7 (18%) positive recommendations • 24 (61%) conditional recommendations • 8 (21%) negative recommendations
pERC Final Recommendations
18%
61% 21%
Positive Recommendation
Conditional Recommendation
Negative Recommendation
8
Of the funding decisions made, percentage of those funding decisions that are in concordance with the pERC recommendations:
Rate of Concordance
75
80
85
90
95
100
BC AB SK MB ON NB NS PEI NL
%
9
pERC Recommendations to Fund
1. Pazopanib (Votrient) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma [Jan 20, 2012]
2. Bendamustine hydrochloride (Treanda) for NHL [Dec 14, 2012]
3. Axitinib (Inlyta) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma [Apr 11, 2013]
4. Bortezomib (Velcade) for multiple myeloma, pre-ASCT [Apr 11, 2013]
5. Pazopanib (Votrient) resubmissions for metastatic renal cell carcinoma [Sep 16, 2013]
6. Afatinib (Giotrif) for non-small cell lung cancer [May 20, 2014]
7. Arsenic trioxide (Trisenox) for Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia [Mar 5, 2014]
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Provincial Funding as of December 31, 2014
Funded Under Negotiation with Manufacturer
Under Provincial Consideration Not Funded
10
pERC Recommendations to Not Fund 1. Pazopanib (Votrient) for soft
tissue sarcoma [Dec 14, 2012]
2. Bendamustine hydrochloride (Treanda) for CLL [Dec 14, 2012]
3. Bortezomib (Velcade) for multiple myeloma, post-ASCT [Apr 11, 2013]
4. Lapatinib (Tykerb) for breast cancer [Jul 22, 2013
5. Regorafenib (stivarga) for metastatic colorectal cancer [Dec 2, 2013]
6. Cetuximab (Erbitux0 for metastatic colorectal cancer [Jan 27, 2014]
7. Aflibercept (Zaltrap) for metastatic colorectal cancer [Sep 22, 2014]
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Provincial Funding as of December 31, 2014
Funded Under Negotiation with Manufacturer
Under Provincial Consideration Not Funded
11
pERC Recommendations to Fund on Conditions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Provincial Funding as of December 31, 2014
Funded Under NegoMaMon with Manufacturer Under Provincial ConsideraMon Not Funded
12
• So we know there is some discordance.
• What are the potential reasons for discordance between pERC and the provinces ?
• Do challenges exist that undermine pERC’s impact on policy-makers leading to discordance?
• Can these challenges be overcome?
More Questions
13
• Hypothesized reasons for discordance § pERC member/HTA perspective
• Designed an on-line survey • Survey issued to participating provincial ministries of health and
cancer agencies • Survey period March 4, 2015 to April 1, 2015 • 4 questions: Multiple choice + Free text
§ Choose answers based on our developed hypotheses § List challenges that limit the effectiveness of HTA processes § List solutions that enhance alignment between pERC
recommendations and provincial drug funding decisions • Anonymity respected • 100% response rate
Methods
14
1. If your province has made or is to make a decision to fund a drug where the recommendation from the HTA review is to not fund, what are the reasons for funding?
Survey Responses
54.5
36.4
63.6
27.3
Comparators in trial not funded by province
Comparators in trial not relevant to pracMce
PoliMcal pressure
High tumour group priority %
%
%
%
15
Other Reasons for decision to fund where the recommendation from the HTA review is not to fund: • Rarity of cancer
§ Low probability of future clinical trials
• Exceptional access – patient sub-groups (e.g. no other treatment options)
• Risk-sharing agreement/pay for performance agreement § If no patient benefit, then no cost to the province
• “Under consideration” may mean compassionate case-by-case funding
Survey Responses
16
2. If your province has made or is to make a decision to not fund a drug where the recommendation from the HTA review is to fund (with or without conditions), what are the reasons for not funding?
Survey Responses
9.1%
18.2%
63.6%
27.3%
90.9%
Disagreement with the economic review
Disagreement with the clinical review
Drug was not a priority for local tumour group
PaMent populaMon/disease not treated in province
Budget constraint
%
%
%
%
%
17
Other Reasons for decision not to fund where the recommendation from the HTA review is to fund: • Multiple choices/lines of therapy already exist (no therapeutic gap) • Budget impact analysis (not always clear for every province in pERC
review) • Provincial budgets do not align with the HTA process, particularly in
a fiscally constrained year • Unsuccessful negotiation with manufacturers • Uncertainty – may require additional information
Survey Responses
18
3. If your province makes a funding decision to fund a drug prior to completion of the HTA review, what would be the reason(s)?
Survey Responses
%
%
%
%
42.9%
57.1%
28.6%
Local tumour group priority
PoliMcal pressure
High disease burden in the province %
%
%
%
%
%
19
Other reasons for funding prior to HTA recommendation: • Evidence shows survival advantage
§ Ethical challenge not to fund
• Pressure re: patient access to clinical trials • Overwhelming clinical need • Expanded eligibilities not mentioned in pERC review
§ other lines of therapy, indication creep
Survey Responses
20
Challenges and barriers that may limit evidence-based recommendations: • Quality of clinical trails (design, outcomes measures) • Standard of care in other jurisdictions (e.g. comparators not available in
Canada) • Re-interpretation of evidence not being studied in a clinical trial
(tumour groups) • Trial population not generalizable (e.g. too wide vs. too narrow) • Technology constraints (f/u trial protocols may be easier to follow in
some jurisdictions) • Too much dependence on manufacturer for submissions
• Would prefer more tumour group submissions but resources scarce • pERC’s adherence to evidence-based patient eligibility criteria
• Provinces feel pressure to expand eligibility due to demands
Survey Responses
21
Potential solutions to enhance alignment of funding decisions with HTA recommendations: • Pan Canadian Pricing Alliance • Quicker response from pCODR • More tumour group input on priorities • pERC to be more clear on prioritization with each recommendation • National Drug Program • PAG should be more aligned due to their involvement in the pERC
process • Funding decisions may suggest otherwise • Wording of same decisions varies province to province
• Strengthen national consensus on treatment pathways and add to pERC’s clinical review
Survey Responses
22
• Some discordance should be expected regarding HTA recommendations § Majority associated with conditional recommendations
• Overlap exists between HTA challenges and solutions § Trade-off between being too strict and too lenient (e.g. eligibility
criteria) § Trade-off between evidence-based framework vs. local interests
• Discordance may lead to a lack of consistency in decision making • Discordance may lead to a lack of transparency • Uncertainty requires more data, and priorities could be shifted to
achieve this • Consider HTA committee performance review to enhance
accountability
Take Home Messages
Thank you
23
top related