Impact of rarity on Canadian oncology health technology assessment and funding

• Published in: International journal of technology assessment in health care Vol. 36; no. 4; pp. 404 - 409
• Main Authors: Keech, James, Dai, Wei Fang, Trudeau, Maureen, Mercer, Rebecca E., Naipaul, Rohini, Wright, Frances C., Ferguson, Sarah E., Darling, Gail, Gavura, Scott, Eisen, Andrea, Kouroukis, C. Tom, Beca, Jaclyn, Chan, Kelvin K.W.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, USA Cambridge University Press 01.08.2020
• Subjects: Assessment; Cancer; Cancer therapies; Clinical decision making; Cost analysis; Decision making; Disease; Drug development; Drugs; Evaluation; Funding; Health technology assessment; Indication; Oncology; Patients; Rare diseases; Technology assessment; Canada; Health technology assessment (HTA); Rarity; Drug funding; Unmet need
• ISSN: 0266-4623; 1471-6348
• DOI: 10.1017/S0266462320000483

The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) evaluates new cancer drugs for public funding recommendations. While pCODR's deliberative framework evaluates overall clinical benefit and includes considerations for exceptional circumstances, rarity of indication is not explicitly addressed. Given the high unmet need that typically accompanies these indications, we explored the impact of rarity on oncology HTA recommendations and funding decisions. We examined pCODR submissions with final recommendations from 2012 to 2017. Incidence rates were calculated using pCODR recommendation reports and statistics from the Canadian Cancer Society. Indications were classified as rare if the incidence rate was lower than 1/100,000 diagnoses, a definition referenced by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Each pCODR final report was examined for the funding recommendation/justification, level of supporting evidence (presence of a randomized control trial [RCT]), and time to funding (if applicable). Of the ninety-six pCODR reviews examined, 16.6 percent were classified as rare indications per above criteria. While the frequency of positive funding recommendations were similar between rare and nonrare indication (78.6 vs. 75 percent), rare indications were less likely to be presented with evidence from RCT (50 vs. 90 percent). The average time to funding did not differ significantly across provinces. Rare indications appear to be associated with weaker clinical evidence. There appears to be no association between rarity, positive funding recommendations, and time to funding. Further work will evaluate factors associated with positive recommendations and the real-world utilization of funded treatments for rare indications.