Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research

Factors associated with positive and negative recommendations for cancer and non-cancer drugs for rare diseases in Canada

Authors: Fernanda Naomi Inagaki Nagase, Tania Stafinski, Jian Sun, Gian Jhangri, Devidas Menon

Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In Canada, reimbursement recommendations on drugs for common and rare diseases are overseen by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) and made through the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) and the Common Drug Review (CDR). While the agency specifies information requirements for the review of drug submissions, how that information is used by each process to formulate final reimbursement recommendations, particularly on drugs for rare diseases (DRDs) in which per patient treatment costs are often high, is unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine which factors contribute to recommendation type for DRDs.

Methods

Information was extracted from CDR and pCODR recommendations on drugs for diseases with a prevalence < 1 in 2000 from January 2012 to April 2018. Data were tabulated and multiple logistic regression was applied to explore the association between recommendation type and the following factors: condition/review process (cancer vs non-cancer), year, prevalence, clinical effectiveness (improvements in surrogate, clinical and patient reported outcomes), safety, quality of evidence (availability of comparative data, consistency between population in trial and indication, and bias), clinical need, treatment cost, and incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER). Two-way interactions were also explored.

Results

A total of 103 recommendations were included. Eleven were resubmissions, all of which received a positive recommendation. Among new submissions (n = 92), DRDs that were safe or offered improvements in clinical or patient reported outcomes were more likely to receive positive reimbursement recommendations. No associations between recommendation type and daily treatment cost, cost-effectiveness, or condition (cancer or non-cancer) were found.

Conclusions

Clinical effectiveness, as opposed to economic considerations or whether the drug is indicated for cancer or non-cancer, determine the type of reimbursement recommendation.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hughes DA, Tunnage B, Yeo ST. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM. 2005;98(11):829–36.CrossRef Hughes DA, Tunnage B, Yeo ST. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM. 2005;98(11):829–36.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Drummond MF, Wilson DA, Kanavos P, Ubel P, Rovira J. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):36–42.CrossRef Drummond MF, Wilson DA, Kanavos P, Ubel P, Rovira J. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):36–42.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference McCormick JI, Berescu LD, Tadros N. Common drug review recommendations for orphan drugs in Canada: basis of recommendations and comparison with similar reviews in Quebec, Australia, Scotland and New Zealand. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13(1):27.CrossRef McCormick JI, Berescu LD, Tadros N. Common drug review recommendations for orphan drugs in Canada: basis of recommendations and comparison with similar reviews in Quebec, Australia, Scotland and New Zealand. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13(1):27.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Rawson NS. Health technology assessment of new drugs for rare disorders in Canada: impact of disease prevalence and cost. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):59.CrossRef Rawson NS. Health technology assessment of new drugs for rare disorders in Canada: impact of disease prevalence and cost. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):59.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Chabot I, Rocchi A. Oncology drug health technology assessment recommendations: Canadian versus UK experiences. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;6:357–67.CrossRef Chabot I, Rocchi A. Oncology drug health technology assessment recommendations: Canadian versus UK experiences. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;6:357–67.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Janoudi G, Amegatse W, McIntosh B, Sehgal C, Richter T. Health technology assessment of drugs for rare diseases: insights, trends, and reasons for negative recommendations from the CADTH common drug review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11(1):164.CrossRef Janoudi G, Amegatse W, McIntosh B, Sehgal C, Richter T. Health technology assessment of drugs for rare diseases: insights, trends, and reasons for negative recommendations from the CADTH common drug review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11(1):164.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Rocchi A, Miller E, Hopkins RB, Goeree R. Common drug review recommendations: an evidence base for expectations? Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(3):229–46.CrossRef Rocchi A, Miller E, Hopkins RB, Goeree R. Common drug review recommendations: an evidence base for expectations? Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(3):229–46.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Maguire B, Tilden D. PHP165 - key drivers of Pbac decisions for the reimbursement of orphan drugs on the life saving drugs program. Value Health. 2013;16(7):A480–1.CrossRef Maguire B, Tilden D. PHP165 - key drivers of Pbac decisions for the reimbursement of orphan drugs on the life saving drugs program. Value Health. 2013;16(7):A480–1.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Tordrup D, Tzouma V, Kanavos P. Orphan drug considerations in health technology assessment in eight european countries. Rare Dis Orphan Drugs. 2014;1(3):86–97. Tordrup D, Tzouma V, Kanavos P. Orphan drug considerations in health technology assessment in eight european countries. Rare Dis Orphan Drugs. 2014;1(3):86–97.
13.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
14.
go back to reference Lee DK, Wong B. An orphan drug framework (ODF) for Canada. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2014;21(1):e42–6.PubMed Lee DK, Wong B. An orphan drug framework (ODF) for Canada. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2014;21(1):e42–6.PubMed
15.
go back to reference NICE Citzens Council. Ultra orphan drugs. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2004 Nov 19;Citzens Council Reports no. 4. NICE Citzens Council. Ultra orphan drugs. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2004 Nov 19;Citzens Council Reports no. 4.
17.
go back to reference FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools). 2-5-2018. Silver Spring, MD; Bethesda, MD, Food and Drug Administration (US); National Institute of Health (US). FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools). 2-5-2018. Silver Spring, MD; Bethesda, MD, Food and Drug Administration (US); National Institute of Health (US).
18.
go back to reference Hosmer D, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant R. Applied logistic regression. 3rd ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2013.CrossRef Hosmer D, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant R. Applied logistic regression. 3rd ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2013.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med. 2008;3:17.CrossRef Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med. 2008;3:17.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Hosmer D, Lemeshow S, Kalr K. Goodness-of-fit testing for the logistic regression model when the estimated probabilities are small. Biom J. 1988;30:911–24.CrossRef Hosmer D, Lemeshow S, Kalr K. Goodness-of-fit testing for the logistic regression model when the estimated probabilities are small. Biom J. 1988;30:911–24.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Hosmer D, Lemeshow S. Goodness-of-fit tests for the multiple logistic regression model. Communications Stastitics. 1980;A9:1043–69. Hosmer D, Lemeshow S. Goodness-of-fit tests for the multiple logistic regression model. Communications Stastitics. 1980;A9:1043–69.
22.
go back to reference Rocchi A, Menon D, Verma S, Miller E. The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: to lambda and beyond. Value Health. 2008;11(4):771–83.CrossRef Rocchi A, Menon D, Verma S, Miller E. The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: to lambda and beyond. Value Health. 2008;11(4):771–83.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Simoens S. Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:42.CrossRef Simoens S. Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:42.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005;14(2):197–208.CrossRef Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005;14(2):197–208.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference CADTH. Consultation on recommendation framework for CADTH Common Drug Review and pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review programs. 2018. 2018. CADTH. Consultation on recommendation framework for CADTH Common Drug Review and pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review programs. 2018. 2018.
26.
go back to reference McDonald H, Charles C, Elit L, Gafni A. Is there an economic rationale for cancer drugs to have a separate reimbursement review process for resource allocation purposes? Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(3):235–41.CrossRef McDonald H, Charles C, Elit L, Gafni A. Is there an economic rationale for cancer drugs to have a separate reimbursement review process for resource allocation purposes? Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(3):235–41.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Hoch JS, Beca J, Sabharwal M, Livingstone SW, Fields AL. Does it matter whether Canada's separate health technology assessment process for Cancer drugs has an economic rationale? Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(8):879–82.CrossRef Hoch JS, Beca J, Sabharwal M, Livingstone SW, Fields AL. Does it matter whether Canada's separate health technology assessment process for Cancer drugs has an economic rationale? Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(8):879–82.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Morgan SG, Thomson PA, Daw JR, Friesen MK. Inter-jurisdictional cooperation on pharmaceutical product listing agreements: views from Canadian provinces. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:34.CrossRef Morgan SG, Thomson PA, Daw JR, Friesen MK. Inter-jurisdictional cooperation on pharmaceutical product listing agreements: views from Canadian provinces. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:34.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Skedgel C, Wranik D, Hu M. The relative importance of clinical, economic, patient values and feasibility criteria in Cancer drug reimbursement in Canada: a revealed preferences analysis of recommendations of the pan-Canadian oncology drug review 2011-2017. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(4):467–75.CrossRef Skedgel C, Wranik D, Hu M. The relative importance of clinical, economic, patient values and feasibility criteria in Cancer drug reimbursement in Canada: a revealed preferences analysis of recommendations of the pan-Canadian oncology drug review 2011-2017. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(4):467–75.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Fleming TR. Surrogate endpoints and FDA's accelerated approval process. Health Aff (Millwood ). 2005;24(1):67–78.CrossRef Fleming TR. Surrogate endpoints and FDA's accelerated approval process. Health Aff (Millwood ). 2005;24(1):67–78.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Factors associated with positive and negative recommendations for cancer and non-cancer drugs for rare diseases in Canada
Authors
Fernanda Naomi Inagaki Nagase
Tania Stafinski
Jian Sun
Gian Jhangri
Devidas Menon
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1750-1172
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-019-1104-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2019 Go to the issue