RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: New requirements in Canada's pricing processes for patented drugs may exacerbate delays in regulatory and reimbursement reviews. This study seeks to better understand the impact of any additional delays on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients by measuring the following: (a) durations and outcomes of regulatory and reimbursement reviews of NSCLC drugs in Canada and reference countries; (b) delays in Canada's reviews of three NSCLC drugs (nivolumab, afatinib, and pemetrexed [NAP]); and (c) estimating clinical, patient, and economic impacts of delays in Canada's reviews on access to NAP. METHODS: Information from the Context Matters database and the literature (2005-2020) was used to evaluate the durations and outcomes of reimbursement reviews of NSCLC drugs in Canada and comparator countries. Public information was used to assess delays in Canada's reviews of NAP. Empirical modeling with data from the literature and the Southern Alberta Lung Cancer database was used to estimate the impact of delays in Canada's NAP reviews on patients (i.e., as losses in person-years of life and quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]). RESULTS: Regulatory and reimbursement reviews in countries of interest take 12-18 months. In Canada, reviews of NSCLC drugs took 216 days (median), with a 24% rejection rate (mean = 19%). Delays in NAP reviews ranged from 5 to 94 days at Health Canada, 0-80 days at CADTH/pCODR, and 12-797 days in Canadian provinces. These delays may have affected 6400 patients, who lost up to 1740 person-years of life and 1122 QALYs (valued at CA$112 million). CONCLUSION: Changes to Canada's prescription drug pricing processes may prolong reviews.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars have the potential to enhance the sustainability of evolving health care systems. A sustainable biosimilars market requires all stakeholders to balance competition and supply chain security. However, there is significant variation in the policies for pricing, procurement, and use of biosimilars in the European Union. A modified Delphi process was conducted to achieve expert consensus on biosimilar market sustainability in Europe. METHODS: The priorities of 11 stakeholders were explored in three stages: a brainstorming stage supported by a systematic literature review (SLR) and key materials identified by the participants; development and review of statements derived during brainstorming; and a facilitated roundtable discussion. RESULTS: Participants argued that a sustainable biosimilar market must deliver tangible and transparent benefits to the health care system, while meeting the needs of all stakeholders. Key drivers of biosimilar market sustainability included: (i) competition is more effective than regulation; (ii) there should be incentives to ensure industry investment in biosimilar development and innovation; (iii) procurement processes must avoid monopolies and minimize market disruption; and (iv) principles for procurement should be defined by all stakeholders. However, findings from the SLR were limited, with significant gaps on the impact of different tender models on supply risks, savings, and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: A sustainable biosimilar market means that all stakeholders benefit from appropriate and reliable access to biological therapies. Failure to care for biosimilar market sustainability may impoverish biosimilar development and offerings, eventually leading to increased cost for health care systems and patients, with fewer resources for innovation.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to conduct an indirect treatment comparison between cabazitaxel, abiraterone and enzalutamide to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel relative to comparators in the treatment of patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer who progress on docetaxel-based therapies. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to inform the network meta-analysis of cabazitaxel, abiraterone and enzalutamide. Due to a lack of head-to-head trials, studies with a comparator arm of best supportive care were included in the analysis. Overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events were compared within both Bayesian and Frequentist frameworks. The ratios for survival outcomes were estimated using hazard ratios (HR), and the ratios for adverse events between groups were estimated using odds ratios (ORs); uncertainty was reported as 95% confidence (Frequentist) and credible (Baysesian) Intervals. RESULTS: Three of thirteen trials identified for abstraction were relevant for analyses. Median overall survival was not statistically significantly different for abiraterone (HR = 1.04; 95% CI = 0.83-1.28) or enzalutamide (HR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.69-1.11) when compared to cabazitaxel in the Bayesian analysis. Anaemia (OR = 3.71; 95% CI = 1.01-10.44), diarrhoea (OR = 16.60; 95% CI = 1.41-75.31) and haematuria (OR = 3.88; 95% CI = 1.03-10.09) were more likely to occur in the cabazitaxel group than the abiraterone group, while pyrexia risk was higher in cabazitaxel compared to enzalutamide (OR = 36.23; 95% CI = 1.14-206.40). Frequentist analyses produced similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The scarcity of clinical studies and lack of a common comparator limited analyses. The adverse event results must be interpreted with caution as many were based on small numbers. The results from this analysis indicate comparable survival outcomes and adverse event profiles. As these pivotal studies may not reflect the contemporary treatment landscape and patient profiles, additional research, including head-to-head clinical trials and real world observational studies, should be conducted to further elucidate the beneficial effects of these therapies.
