Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:02:08.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A systematic literature review of revealed preferences of decision-makers for recommendations of cancer drugs in health technology assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2022

Yitong Wang Open the ORCID record for Yitong Wang [Opens in a new window] ,
Tingting Qiu ,
Mateusz Nikodem ,
Clément Francois  and
Mondher Toumi
Yitong Wang*
Affiliation:
Public Health Department, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
Tingting Qiu
Affiliation:
Public Health Department, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
Mateusz Nikodem
Affiliation:
Health Economics and Outcomes Research Department, Creativ-Ceutical, Kraków, Poland
Clément Francois
Affiliation:
Public Health Department, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
Mondher Toumi
Affiliation:
Public Health Department, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
*
*Author for correspondence: Yitong Wang, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

This review intends to provide an overview of revealed preferences of decision-makers for recommendations of cancer drugs in health technology assessment (HTA) among the different agencies.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to July 2020. The studies were eligible for inclusion if they conducted a quantitative analysis of HTA’s previous decisions for cancer drugs. The factors with p-values below the significance level of .05 were considered as the statistically significant factors for HTA decisions.

Results

A total of nine studies for six agencies in Australia, Belgium, France, South Korea, the UK, and Canada were eligible to be included. From the univariable analysis, improvements in clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness were found as significant factors for the agencies in Belgium, South Korea, and Canada. From the multivariable analysis, cost-effectiveness was found as a positive factor for the agencies in the UK, South Korea, and Canada. Few factors related to characteristics of disease and technology were found to be significant among the included agencies.

Conclusions

Despite the different drug reimbursement systems and the socioeconomic situations, cost-effectiveness and/or improvement on clinical outcomes seemed to be the most important factors for recommendations of cancer drugs among the agencies.

Keywords

FactorsHealth technology assessmentDecision-makersCancer drugs
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , 2022 , e36
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sung, H, Ferlay, J, Siegel, RL, et al (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 71, 209–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, SJ, Li, EC, Matusiak, LM, Schumock, GT (2018) Spending on antineoplastic agents in the United States, 2011 to 2016. J Oncol Pract. 14, JOP1800069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jazieh, AR, Akbulut, H, Curigliano, G, et al (2020 ) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care: A global collaborative study. JCO Glob Oncol. 6, 1428–1438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swedish Institute for Health Economics (2019) Comparator report on cancer in Europe 2019 – Disease burden, costs and access to medicines [cited September 2021]. Available at: https://ihe.se/en/publicering/comparator-report-on-cancer-in-europe-2019/.Google Scholar
Nature reviews (2019) FDA drug approvals, 8 January 2020; [cited September 2021]. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00001-7.Google Scholar
Cox, EM, Edmund, AV, Kratz, E, Lockwood, SH, Shankar, A (2020) Regulatory affairs 101: Introduction to expedited regulatory pathways. Clin Transl Sci. 13, 451–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladanie, A, Schmitt, AM, Speich, B, et al (2020) Clinical trial evidence supporting US food and drug administration approval of novel cancer therapies between 2000 and 2016. JAMA Network Open. 3, e2024406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2020) Addressing challenges in access to oncology medicines [cited September 2021]. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Addressing-Challenges-in-Access-to-Oncology-Medicines-Analytical-Report.pdf.Google Scholar
pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) (2011) pCODR expert review committee deliberative framework [cited September 2021]. Available at: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/The%20pCODR%20Expert%20Review%20Committee%20%28pERC%29/pcodr_perc_deliberative_frame.pdf.Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2016) Cancer drugs fund [cited September 2021]. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/cancer/cdf/.Google Scholar
Lee, B, Bae, E-Y, Bae, S, et al (2021) How can we improve patients’ access to new drugs under uncertainties? South Korea’s experience with risk sharing arrangements. BMC Health Serv Res. 21, 967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wenzl, M, Chapman, S (2019) Performance-based managed entry agreements for new medicines in OECD countries and EU member states.Google Scholar
Pujolras, LM, Cairns, J (2015) Why do some countries approve a cancer drug and others don’t? J Cancer Policy. 4, 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adkins, EM, Nicholson, L, Floyd, D, et al (2017) Oncology drugs for orphan indications: How are HTA processes evolving for this specific drug category? Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 9, 327–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chabot, I, Rocchi, A (2014) Oncology drug health technology assessment recommendations: Canadian versus UK experiences. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 6, 357–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lim, CS, Lee, Y-G, Koh, Y, Heo, DS (2014) International comparison of the factors influencing reimbursement of targeted anti-cancer drugs. BMC Health Serv Res. 14, 595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, KE (2012) A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies-evidence from the real world. Health Policy. 107, 218–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghijben, P, Gu, Y, Lancsar, E, Zavarsek, S (2018) Revealed and stated preferences of decision makers for priority setting in health technology assessment: A systematic review. PharmacoEconomics. 36, 323–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) (2009) Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care [cited September 2021]. Available at: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf.Google Scholar
Goetghebeur, MM, Cellier, MS (2018) Can reflective multicriteria be the new paradigm for healthcare decision-making? The EVIDEM journey. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 16, 54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karikios, DJ, Chim, L, Martin, A, et al (2017) Is it all about price? Why requests for government subsidy of anticancer drugs were rejected in Australia. Intern Med J. 47, 400–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, E-S, Kim, J-A, Lee, E-K (2016) National reimbursement listing determinants of new cancer drugs: A retrospective analysis of 58 cancer treatment appraisals in 2007–2016 in South Korea. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 17, 401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J, Vivot, A, Alter, L, Durand Zaleski, I (2020) Appraisal of cancer drugs: A comparison of the French health technology assessment with value frameworks of two oncology societies. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 20, 405–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maynou Pujolras, L, Cairns, J (2019) What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries. Health Policy. 123, 130–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagase, F, Stafinski, T, Sun, J, Jhangri, G, Menon, D (2019) Factors associated with positive and negative recommendations for cancer and non-cancer drugs for rare diseases in Canada. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 14, 127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niraula, S, Nugent, Z (2018) New cancer drug approvals from the perspective of a universal healthcare system: Analyses of the pan-Canadian oncology drug review recommendations. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 16, 1460–1466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pauwels, K, Huys, I, Nys, K, Casteels, M, Simoens, S (2015) Predictors for reimbursement of oncology drugs in Belgium between 2002 and 2013. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 15, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinto, A, Naci, H, Neez, E, Mossialos, E (2020) Association between the use of surrogate measures in pivotal trials and health technology assessment decisions: A retrospective analysis of NICE and CADTH reviews of cancer drugs. Value Health. 23, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skedgel, C, Wranik, W, Hu, M (2018) 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. 36, 467–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y, Qiu, T, Zhou, J, Francois, C, Toumi, M (2021) Which criteria are considered and how are they evaluated in health technology assessments? A review of methodological guidelines used in Western and Asian countries. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 19, 281–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicod, E, Annemans, L, Bucsics, A, et al (2019) HTA programme response to the challenges of dealing with orphan medicinal products: Process evaluation in selected European countries. Health Policy. 123, 140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, S, Ellis, M, Brownrigg, J (2021) The impact of rarity in NICE’s health technology appraisals. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 16, 218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrario, A, Kanavos, P (2015) Dealing with uncertainty and high prices of new medicines: A comparative analysis of the use of managed entry agreements in Belgium, England, the Netherlands and Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 124, 39–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solà-Morales, O, Volmer, T, Mantovani, L (2019) Perspectives to mitigate payer uncertainty in health technology assessment of novel oncology drugs. J Mark Access Health Policy. 7, 1562861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, C, Naci, H, Gurpinar, E, et al (2017) Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European medicines agency: Retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13. BMJ. 359, j4530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, A, Porcher, R, Crequit, P, Ravaud, P, Dechartres, A (2017) Differences in treatment effect size between overall survival and progression-free survival in immunotherapy trials: A meta-epidemiologic study of trials with results posted at clinicaltrials.gov. Am J Clin Oncol. 35, 1686–1694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, NR, Renfro, LA, Schild, SE, et al (2015 ) Multitrial evaluation of progression-free survival as a surrogate end point for overall survival in first-line extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 10, 1099–1106.Google ScholarPubMed
Ciani, O, Davis, S, Tappenden, P, et al (2014 ) Validation of surrogate endpoints in advanced solid tumors: Systematic review of statistical methods, results, and implications for policy makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 30, 312–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grigore, B, Ciani, O, Dams, F, et al (2020 ) Surrogate endpoints in health technology assessment: An international review of methodological guidelines. PharmacoEconomics. 38, 1055–1070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciani, O, Grigore, B, Blommestein, H, et al (2021 ) Validity of surrogate endpoints and their impact on coverage recommendations: A retrospective analysis across international health technology assessment agencies. Med Decis Making. 41. 439–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, JD, Foley, KA, Russell, MW (2014) Current challenges in health economic modeling of cancer therapies: A research inquiry. Am Health Drug Benefit. 7, 153–162.Google ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Wang et al. supplementary material

Wang et al. supplementary material

Download Wang et al. supplementary material(File)
File 92.9 KB