ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Public payer reimbursement for non-oncology drugs in Canada, including orphan drugs, is based on recommendations by the Common Drug Review (CDR) (with the exception of Quebec). CDR has been criticized for negative recommendations for orphan drugs and contributing to delays in patient access to these drugs. However, it is unclear how CDR makes recommendations for orphan drugs and the role clinical and economic factors play in decision making. The objective of the present study was to analyze the basis for CDR orphan drug recommendations and to compare recommendations to those in other jurisdictions. METHODS: A list of orphan drugs reviewed by CDR (between 2004 and 2017) was compiled and final recommendations (list/do not list) assessed. The basis of each recommendation was categorized as clinical only, price only or combined clinical and price factors, based on the ranking of clinical and price parameters in recommendation summaries. The reimbursement status of the same drugs was determined in Quebec and other jurisdictions and level of agreement with CDR decisions assessed using a kappa analysis. RESULTS: Sixty eight orphan drug submissions were identified in the CDR database. Clinical, clinical and price and price parameters were the basis of 48.5%, 44.1% and 7.4% of the reviews, respectively, and corresponding positive recommendation rates were 45.5%, 86.7% and 40.0% (p = 0.0008); overall positive recommendation rate was 63.2%. Positive recommendation rate increased from 50.0% for drugs reviewed between 2004 and 2009 to 86.7% in 2016; however, 84.6% of the latter were conditional on a price reduction. Of the drugs reviewed by CDR, 80.9%, 88.2%, 80.9% and 58.8% were reviewed for the same indications by health technology assessment agencies in Quebec, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand, respectively, with positive listing rates ranging from 60.0% (Quebec) to 92.7% (Australia) with fair (kappa coefficient 0.3307) to poor (kappa coefficient 0.0611) agreement with CDR in listing decisions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The positive CDR recommendation rate for orphan drugs was highest when clinical and price parameters supported the assessment. Over time there has been an increase in CDR positive recommendation rates for orphan drugs, although most are conditional on a price reduction. It is unclear if this change in CDR recommendations will impact equitable and timely access to orphan drugs across Canada.
Subject(s)
Orphan Drug Production/economics , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/methods , Advisory Committees , Australia , Canada , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , New Zealand , QuebecABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to quantify the long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir (Levemir) versus intermediate-acting neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Canada, and to assess the sensitivity of results to dis-utilities for hypoglycemic events. dagger Levemir is a trade name of Novo Nordisk, Princeton, NJ, USA RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The web-based IMS-CORE diabetes model has a menu-driven interface programmed in hypertext markup language (HTML). It was used to project lifetime (60 years for T1DM and 35 years for T2DM) clinical and economic outcomes for patients on detemir vs. NPH. Cohort characteristics, utilities, and costs were derived from published literature. For T1DM, clinical trial data for HbA(1c) improvement (detemir -0.94% +/- 1.07; NPH -0.82% +/- 1.01) from baseline, and rates of hypoglycemic events (major events: 0.20 vs. 0.80 per patient-year for detemir vs. NPH, respectively) were modeled. For T2DM, observational study data for HbA(1c) improvement (detemir -0.18%) from baseline, and reductions in hypoglycemic events (major events: 0.0995 vs. 1.33 per patient-year for detemir vs. NPH, respectively) were modeled. Base-case hypoglycemia dis-utilities were -0.0118 for major and -0.0035 for minor events. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on discount rate and hypoglycemia dis-utility. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included costs of treatment/management and costs (and incidence) of diabetes-related complications. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from differences in total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Average total costs for T1DM were $CAN 83 622 +/- 4585 for detemir and $CAN 72 016 +/- 4593 for NPH. QALYs increased by 0.475 years with detemir, with an ICER of $CAN 24 389/QALY. Average direct costs for T2DM were $CAN 74 919 +/- 6391 (detemir) and $CAN 69 230 +/- 6840 (NPH). QALYs increased by 0.305 years. The ICER was $CAN 18 677. Although detemir was associated with slightly lower costs for most complications, results were driven by the differences in rates and costs for hypoglycemic events, and their assumed dis-utility. Study limitations include the use of single trials for clinical assumptions and the lack of analyses for patient risk sub-groups. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide evidence for the cost-effectiveness of detemir vs. NPH in treating T1 and T2DM in Canada, and support the key role of assumptions regarding the impact of hypoglycemic events. Additional work is needed to determine the extent to which results are robust for different sub-groups of patients and for variation in assumptions around HbA(1c) improvements and hypoglycemic event rates.