Evaluation of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Submitted for Reimbursement Recommendation Decisions in Canada

• Published in: JAMA internal medicine Vol. 181; no. 4; p. 499
• Main Authors: Meyers, Daniel E, Jenei, Kristina, Chisamore, Timothy M, Gyawali, Bishal
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.04.2021
• Subjects: Antineoplastic Agents - economics; Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use; Canada; Cohort Studies; Humans; Insurance, Health, Reimbursement; Neoplasms - drug therapy; Neoplasms - mortality; Canada
• ISSN: 2168-6114
• DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.8588

Cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration have come under scrutiny for marginal clinical benefits; however, the clinical benefits of cancer drugs recommended for reimbursement in Canada have not been adequately studied. To assess the differences in the clinical evidence and benefit of cancer drugs that received a positive vs a negative recommendation for provincial reimbursement in Canada. This cohort study obtained publicly available regulatory documents from the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) and corresponding clinical trial documentation. All cancer drugs with a solid tumor indication that were submitted from the inception of the pCODR (July 2011) to February 2020 were evaluated. To be included, submissions had to have a final reimbursement recommendation; submissions that were incomplete, were withdrawn, or had a pending decision were excluded. A completed reimbursement recommendation decision from the pCODR. Final reimbursement recommendation (positive vs negative); trial characteristics; and relevant clinical outcomes (ie, overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS]), including the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores available at the time of pCODR assessment. Between 2011 and 2020, the pCODR issued 104 reimbursement recommendation decisions for cancer drugs with a solid tumor indication. Among these drug submissions, 78 (75.0%) received a positive recommendation, of which 72 (92.3%) were conditional. Drugs that received a positive recommendation compared with those with a negative recommendation were more likely to have phase 3 randomized clinical trial design (92.3% [72 of 78] vs 53.8% [14 of 26]; P < .001) and have substantial benefit according to the ESMO-MCBS scores (61.5% [48 of 78] vs 19.2% [5 of 26]; P < .001). The most common primary end points associated with the successful submissions were PFS (53.9%) and OS (32.1%). Overall, 39 of 78 submissions (50.0%) that received a positive recommendation had shown OS benefit, with median (interquartile range) OS gains of 3.7 (2.7-6.5) months. This cohort study found that, although the pCODR takes into account the magnitude of clinical benefit, only half of the cancer drugs that received a positive recommendation had evidence of improved OS and the survival gains were usually modest. These results suggest that, although the pCODR helps filter out some cancer drugs with low quality of evidence and low magnitude of benefit, cancer drugs without meaningful patient benefit continue to enter the Canadian market; these findings are important for making reimbursement policy decisions globally.