How nonrandomized trials (NRT) inform pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) expert review committee (pERC) recommendations in blood cancer

Autor: Alexandra Chambers, Valerie McDonald, Missale Tiruneh, Catherine Moltzan, Kristina Ellis, Stephanie Ross, Adam E. Haynes, Maureen E. Trudeau
Rok vydání: 2018
Předmět:
Zdroj: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 36:100-100
ISSN: 1527-7755
0732-183X
DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.36.30_suppl.100
Popis: 100 Background: In Canada, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health’s pERC makes reimbursement recommendations for cancer drugs based on pCODR reviews of best available evidence, which in some circumstances, is from Phase II NRTs. To date, the majority of pERC recommendations based on NRT evidence have been for blood cancers. Objective: To examine aspects of NRT evidence that may influence pERC reimbursement recommendations for blood cancers. Methods: Final pERC Recommendations on blood cancer reviews supported by NRTs were included (July 2011 to June 2018). Factors that influenced Final Recommendations, such as clinical benefit, alignment with patient values and cost-effectiveness, were extracted. Results: As of June 2018, 10 conditional and 6 negative decisions were made in 13 Final Recommendations. Among conditional reimbursement recommendations, substantial need for treatment options and poor prognosis with available therapies were commonly noted. Assessment of the feasibility of randomized controlled trials (RCT) varied. The magnitude of benefit was impressive or a substantial benefit was seen in subgroups with greater need. Some recommendations noted benefit above historical outcomes or consistent evidence with other indications or trials. Most recommendations reported an improvement in quality of life (QoL) and a manageable toxicity profile. Limitations included short trial follow-up. Factors affecting cost-effectiveness and alignment with patient values varied. Among negative recommendations, there was less certainty about burden of illness and need. Uncertainty about magnitude of clinical benefit was attributed to lack of direct or indirect comparison to available options, lack of long term data or comparison to historical evidence, limited QoL data, and variability in toxicity. All cases were not cost-effective and partially aligned with patient values. Conclusions: pERC may accept evidence from NRTs to make reimbursement recommendations for blood cancers when there is a high burden of illness, unmet need, reasonable demonstration of efficacy and manageable toxicities. Feasibility of RCT was not a consistent factor.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: