Dataset Information

Comparing Manufacturer Submitted and Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Reanalysed Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for Novel Oncology Drugs.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To determine the magnitude of difference between manufacturer-submitted and pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental cost (?C), and incremental effectiveness (?E); to examine whether there is a significant difference in the proportion of ICERs deemed cost-effective; to evaluate trends in the ICERs over time; and to identify methodological issues in manufacturer-submitted economic models.

Methods

Economic guidance reports for all drug indications submitted from July 2011-November 2018 were extracted from the pCODR database. Cumulative distribution plots were constructed to compare the manufacturer-submitted economic values with both the pCODR lower- and upper-reanalyzed estimates. The proportion of drug reviews considered cost-effective at varying willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds by the manufacturer and pCODR were calculated. Manufacturer changes in ICERs over time from 2012 to 2018 were determined. Recurring methodological issues with manufacturer submissions were tallied.

Results

There were 73 unique indications that were included. Manufacturer-submitted ICERs were consistently lower than pCODR estimates for most indications. Manufacturer-submitted ICERs were generally more cost-effective over a range of WTP thresholds. From 2012 to 2018, manufacturer and economic guidance panel (EGP) lower limit reanalyzed ICERs did not change significantly over time. However, EGP upper limit re-analyses did show decreasing cost-effectiveness (increasing ICERs). The two most common issues identified in the manufacturer-submitted models were related to survival time horizon and utility estimates.

Conclusions

Manufacturers tend to overestimate the cost-effectiveness of their therapies when submitting economic models to pCODR. Although certain methodological issues are still common in manufacturer-submitted models, revision rates are high for most issues raised by pCODR.

SUBMITTER: Saluja R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7924399 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing Manufacturer Submitted and Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Reanalysed Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for Novel Oncology Drugs.

Saluja Ronak R Jiao Tina T Koshy Liza L Cheung Matthew M Chan Kelvin K W KKW

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) 20210120 1

<h4>Background</h4>To determine the magnitude of difference between manufacturer-submitted and pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental cost (ΔC), and incremental effectiveness (ΔE); to examine whether there is a significant difference in the proportion of ICERs deemed cost-effective; to evaluate trends in the ICERs over time; and to identify methodological issues in manufacturer-submitted economic models.<h4>Methods</h4>Econ ...[more]

PMID: 33498460

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:ImportanceAlthough manufacturer-sponsored coupons are commonly used, little is known about how patients use them within a treatment episode.ObjectivesTo examine when and how frequently patients use manufacturer coupons during a treatment episode for a chronic condition, and to characterize factors associated with more frequent use.Design, setting, and participantsThis is a retrospective cohort study of a 5% nationally representative sample of anonymized longitudinal retail pharmacy claims data from October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2019, obtained from IQVIA's Formulary Impact Analyzer. The data were analyzed from September to December 2022. Patients with new treatment episodes using at least 1 manufacturer coupon over a 12-month period were identified. This study focused on patients with 3 or more fills for a given drug and characterized the association of the outcomes of interest with patient, drug, and drug class characteristics.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were (1) the frequency of coupon use, measured as the proportion of prescription fills accompanied by manufacturer coupon within the treatment episode, and (2) the timing of first coupon use relative to the first prescription fill within the treatment episode.ResultsA total of 36 951 treatment episodes accounted for 238 474 drug claims and 35 352 unique patients (mean [SD] age, 48.1 [18.2] years; 17 676 women [50.0%]). Among these episodes, nearly all instances (35 103 episodes [95.0%]) of first coupon use occurred within the first 4 prescription fills. Approximately two-thirds of treatment episodes (24 351 episodes [65.9%]) used a coupon for the incident fill. Coupons were used for a median (IQR) of 3 (2-6) fills. The median (IQR) proportion of fills with a coupon was 70.0% (33.3%-100.0%), and many patients discontinued the drug after the last coupon. After adjustment for covariates, there was no significant association between an individual's out-of-pocket costs or neighborhood-level income and the frequency of coupon use. The estimated proportion of fills with a coupon was greater for products in competitive (19.5% increase; 95% CI, 2.1%-36.9%) or oligopolistic (14.5% increase; 95% CI, 3.5%-25.6%) markets than monopoly markets when there is only 1 drug in the therapeutic class.Conclusions and relevanceIn this retrospective cohort analysis of individuals receiving pharmaceutical treatment for chronic diseases, the frequency of manufacturer-sponsored drug coupon use was associated with the degree of market competition, rather than patients' out-of-pocket costs.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To assess the incremental effects of adding extra antihypertensive drugs from a new class to a patient's regimen. DESIGN:Instrumental variable analysis of data from SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). To account for confounding by indication-when treatments seem less effective if they are administered to sicker patients-randomization status was used as the instrumental variable. Patients' randomization status was either intensive (systolic blood pressure target <120 mm Hg) or standard (systolic blood pressure target <140 mm Hg) treatment. Results from instrumental variable models were compared with those from standard multivariable models. SETTING:Secondary data analysis of a randomized clinical trial conducted at 102 sites in 2010-15. PARTICIPANTS:9092 SPRINT participants with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk but no history of diabetes or stroke. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES:Systolic blood pressure, major cardiovascular events, and serious adverse events. RESULTS:In standard multivariable models not adjusted for confounding by indication, addition of an antihypertensive drug from a new class was associated with modestly lower systolic blood pressure (-1.3 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval -1.6 to -1.0) and no change in major cardiovascular events (absolute risk of events per 1000 patient years, 0.5, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 2.3). In instrumental variable models, the addition of an antihypertensive drug from a new class led to clinically important reductions in systolic blood pressure (-14.4 mm Hg, -15.6 to -13.3) and fewer major cardiovascular events (absolute risk -6.2, -10.9 to -1.3). Incremental reductions in systolic blood pressure remained large and similar in magnitude for patients already taking drugs from zero, one, two, or three or more drug classes. This finding was consistent across all subgroups of patients. The addition of another antihypertensive drug class was not associated with adverse events in either standard or instrumental variable models. CONCLUSIONS:After adjustment for confounding by indication, the addition of a new antihypertensive drug class led to large reductions in systolic blood pressure and major cardiovascular events among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes. Effects on systolic blood pressure persisted across all levels of baseline drug use and all subgroups of patients.

Dataset Information

Comparing Manufacturer Submitted and Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Reanalysed Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for Novel Oncology Drugs.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparing Manufacturer Submitted and Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Reanalysed Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for Novel Oncology Drugs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets