Dataset Information

Impact of a novel prioritization framework on clinician-led oncology drug submissions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In Canada, requests for public reimbursement of cancer drugs are predominately initiated by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Clinician-led submissions provide a mechanism to initiate the drug funding process when industry does not submit a request for funding consideration. Although such requests are resource-intensive to produce, Cancer Care Ontario (cco) has the capacity to facilitate clinician-led submissions. In 2014, cco began developing a cancer drug prioritization framework that allocates resources to systematically address a growing number of clinician-identified funding gaps with clinician-led submissions.

Methods

Cancer site-specific drug advisory committees established by cco consist of health care practitioners whose roles include identifying and prioritizing funding gaps. The committees submit their identified gaps to a cross-cancer-site prioritization exercise in which the requests are ranked based on a set of guiding principles derived from health technology assessment. The requests are then sequentially allocated the resources needed to meet submission requirements. Whether the funding gap is of provincial or pan-Canadian relevance determines where the submission is filed for assessment.

Results

Since its inception, the cco framework has identified 17 funding gaps in 9 cancer sites. In 4 prioritizations, the framework supported 6 submissions. As of June 2018, the framework had contributed to the eventual funding of more than 9 new drug-indication pairs, with more awaiting funding consideration.

Conclusions

The cco prioritization framework has enabled clinicians to effectively and systematically identify, prioritize, and fill funding gaps not addressed by industry. Ultimately, the framework helps to ensure that patients can access evidence-informed and cost-effective therapies. The framework will continue to evolve as it encounters new challenges, including funding requests for rare indications.

SUBMITTER: Keech J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6476458 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of a novel prioritization framework on clinician-led oncology drug submissions.

Keech J J Beca J J Eisen A A Kennedy E E Kim J J Kouroukis C T CT Darling G G Ferguson S E SE Finelli A A Petrella T M TM Perry J R JR Chan K K Gavura S S

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) 20190401 2

<h4>Background</h4>In Canada, requests for public reimbursement of cancer drugs are predominately initiated by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Clinician-led submissions provide a mechanism to initiate the drug funding process when industry does not submit a request for funding consideration. Although such requests are resource-intensive to produce, Cancer Care Ontario (cco) has the capacity to facilitate clinician-led submissions. In 2014, cco began developing a cancer drug prioritization framewor ...[more]

PMID: 31043821

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study examines financial conflict of interest (FCOI) of clinicians who made submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR), the arm of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health that recommends whether oncology drug indications should be publicly funded. Final reports from pCODR published between October 2016 and February 2019 were examined.DesignDescriptive study.Data sourcesWebsite of pCODR.InterventionsNone.Primary and secondary outcomesThe primary outcome is the number of submissions declaring FCOI. Secondary outcomes are the number of times where clinicians agreed and disagreed with preliminary recommendation from pCODR and the association between the distribution of individual clinicians' FCOI and pCODR's funding recommendations.ResultsThere were 46 drug indication reports from pCODR. Clinicians made 261 submissions. Clinicians declared they received payments from companies 323 times and named 38 different companies making those payments a total of 500 times. Financial conflicts with drug companies were declared in 176 (66.3%) of all submissions. In 21 (45.7%) of the 46 drug indications, 50% or more of the clinicians had a conflict with the company making the drug. Clinicians commented on 37 preliminary recommendations. In all 25 where pCODR recommended funding or conditional funding, the clinicians either agreed or agreed in part. pCODR recommended that the drug indication not be funded 12 times and 9 times clinicians disagreed with that recommendation. The distribution of clinician responses was statistically significantly different depending on whether pCODR recommended funding/conditional funding or do not fund p<0.0001 (Fisher exact test). The distribution of clinicians' FCOI differed depending on whether the recommendation was fund/conditional fund or do not fund p=0.027 (Fisher exact test).ConclusionFinancial conflicts with pharmaceutical companies are widespread among experts making submissions to the pCODR.

Project description:Oncology-associated adverse drug/device reactions can be fatal. Some clinicians who treat single patients with severe oncology-associated toxicities have researched case series and published this information. We investigated motivations and experiences of select individuals leading such efforts. Clinicians treating individual patients who developed oncology-associated serious adverse drug events were asked to participate. Inclusion criteria included having index patient information, reporting case series, and being collaborative with investigators from two National Institutes of Health funded pharmacovigilance networks. Thirty-minute interviews addressed investigational motivation, feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers, FDA personnel, and academic leadership, and recommendations for improving pharmacovigilance. Responses were analyzed using constant comparative methods of qualitative analysis. Overall, 18 clinicians met inclusion criteria and 14 interviewees are included. Primary motivations were scientific curiosity, expressed by six clinicians. A less common theme was public health related (three clinicians). Six clinicians received feedback characterized as supportive from academic leaders, while four clinicians received feedback characterized as negative. Three clinicians reported that following the case series publication they were invited to speak at academic institutions worldwide. Responses from pharmaceutical manufacturers were characterized as negative by 12 clinicians. One clinician's wife called the post-reporting time the "Maalox month," while another clinician reported that the manufacturer collaboratively offered to identify additional cases of the toxicity. Responses from FDA employees were characterized as collaborative for two clinicians, neutral for five clinicians, unresponsive for negative by six clinicians. Three clinicians endorsed developing improved reporting mechanisms for individual physicians, while 11 clinicians endorsed safety activities that should be undertaken by persons other than a motivated clinician who personally treats a patient with a severe adverse drug/device reaction. Our study provides some of the first reports of clinician motivations and experiences with reporting serious or potentially fatal oncology-associated adverse drug or device reactions. Overall, it appears that negative feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers and mixed feedback from the academic community and/or the FDA were reported. Big data, registries, Data Safety Monitoring Boards, and pharmacogenetic studies may facilitate improved pharmacovigilance efforts for oncology-associated adverse drug reactions. These initiatives overcome concerns related to complacency, indifference, ignorance, and system-level problems as barriers to documenting and reporting adverse drug events- barriers that have been previously reported for clinician reporting of serious adverse drug reactions.

Project description:ImportanceParents of children with cancer value strong therapeutic relationships with oncology clinicians, but not every relationship is positive.ObjectiveTo identify the prevalence of challenging parent-clinician relationships in pediatric oncology and factors associated with these challenges from parent and clinician perspectives.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey was conducted among parents and oncology clinicians of children with cancer within 3 months of diagnosis from November 2015 to July 2019 at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Boston Children's Hospital and Texas Children's Hospital. Participants were 400 parents of children with cancer and 80 clinicians (ie, oncology physicians and nurse practitioners). Parents completed surveys about relationships with 1 to 2 primary oncology clinicians; clinicians completed surveys about relationships with parents. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to August 2021.ExposuresAt least 3 previous clinical visits between parent and clinician.Main outcomes and measuresThe Relationship Challenges Scale Parent Version and Clinician Version were developed and used to measure threats to the therapeutic alliance. For the Relationship Challenges Scale-Parent version, relationships were considered challenging if a parent responded to any single question in the 2 lowest of 4 possible categories. For the Relationship Challenges Scale-Clinician version, challenges were considered to be present if a clinician reported responses in the 3 lowest of 6 possible response categories to any question.ResultsAmong 400 parents, there were 298 [74.5%] women, 25 Asian individuals (6.3%), 28 Black individuals (7.0%), 97 Hispanic individuals (24.3%), 223 White individuals (55.8%), and 10 individuals (2.4%) with other race or ethnicity; race and ethnicity data were missing for 17 (4.3%) individuals. Among 80 clinicians, there were 57 (71.3%) women, 38 attending physicians (47.5%), 32 fellows (40.0%), and 10 nurse practitioners (12.5%). Parents identified 676 unique relationships with clinicians, and clinician reports were available for 338 relationships. Among 338 relationships with paired parent and clinician surveys, 81 relationships (24.0%) were considered challenging by parents, 127 relationships (37.6%) were considered challenging by clinicians, and 33 relationships (9.8%) were considered challenging by parent and clinician. Parents with Asian or other race or ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] vs White parents, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.59-8.26) or who had lower educational attainment (OR for ≤high school vs >high school, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.56-5.90) were more likely to experience relationships as challenging. Clinicians used a variety of strategies more frequently in 127 relationships in which they perceived challenges vs 211 relationships in which they did not perceive challenges, such as holding regular family meetings (22 relationships [17.3%] vs 13 relationships [6.2%]; P = .009) and offering extra time and attention (66 relationships [52%] vs 60 relationships [28.4%]; P < .001). However, these strategies were not used with increased frequency when parents experienced relationships as challenging vs when parents did not experience this.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study found that nearly one-quarter of parents of children with cancer reported challenges in the therapeutic relationship with their oncologist and that clinicians used strategies to improve relationships more frequently when they experienced the relationship as challenging. These findings suggest that new strategies are needed to improve experiences for parents and to help clinicians recognize and attend to parents whose experiences are suboptimal.

Project description:BackgroundPediatric oncology patients have a high rate of clinical deterioration frequently requiring critical care. Patient deterioration events are distressing for clinicians, but little is known about how Pediatric Early Warning Systems (PEWS) impact clinicians' emotional responses to deterioration events.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 83 nurses, pediatricians, oncologists, and intensive care clinicians who had recently participated in a patient deterioration event at two pediatric oncology hospitals of different resource-levels: St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (N = 42 participants) in Memphis, Tennessee or Unidad Nacional de Oncología Pediátrica (N = 41 participants) in Guatemala City, Guatemala. Interviews were conducted in the participants' native language (English or Spanish), transcribed, and translated into English. Each transcript was coded by two researchers and analyzed for thematic content.ResultsEmotions around patient deterioration including concern, fear, and frustration were reported across all disciplines at both hospitals. Concern was often triggered by an elevated PEWS score and usually resulted in increased attention, which reassured bedside clinicians that patients were receiving necessary interventions. However, persistently elevated PEWS scores, particularly at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, occasionally resulted in a false sense of relief, diminishing clinician attention and negatively impacting patient care. Nurses at both institutions described how PEWS amplified their voices, engendering confidence and empowerment, two of the only positive emotions described in the study.ConclusionClinicians experienced a range of emotions while caring for high-risk patients in the setting of clinical deterioration. These emotions have the potential to contribute to compassion fatigue and burnout, or to resilience. Acknowledgment and further investigation of the complex interplay between PEWS and clinician emotions are necessary to maximize the impact of PEWS on patient safety while simultaneously supporting staff wellbeing.

Dataset Information

Impact of a novel prioritization framework on clinician-led oncology drug submissions.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Impact of a novel prioritization framework on clinician-led oncology drug submissions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure