This policy framework attempts to address the policy challenges of funding drugs for rare diseases. The framework will be used to assess other drugs in future and will inevitably require modification with experience. It is hoped that it may be of value to other policymakers.

No abstract

Purpose Whether the ASCO Value Framework and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) measure similar constructs of clinical benefit is unclear. It is also unclear how they relate to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and funding recommendations in the United Kingdom and Canada. Methods Randomized clinical trials of oncology drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada between 2006 and August 2015 were identified and scored using the ASCO version 1 (v1) framework, ASCO version 2 (v2) framework, and ESMO-MCBS by at least two independent reviewers. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess construct (between frameworks) and criterion validity (against QALYs from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review [pCODR]). Associations between scores and NICE/pCODR recommendations were examined. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results From 109 included randomized clinical trials, 108 ASCOv1, 111 ASCOv2, and 83 ESMO scores were determined. Correlation coefficients for ASCOv1 versus ESMO, ASCOv2 versus ESMO, and ASCOv1 versus ASCOv2 were 0.36 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.54), 0.17 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.37), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63), respectively. Compared with NICE QALYs, correlation coefficients were 0.45 (ASCOv1), 0.53 (ASCOv2), and 0.46 (ESMO); with pCODR QALYs, coefficients were 0.19 (ASCOv1), 0.20 (ASCOv2), and 0.36 (ESMO). None of the frameworks were significantly associated with NICE/pCODR recommendations. Inter-rater reliability was good for all frameworks. Conclusion The weak-to-moderate correlations of the ASCO frameworks with the ESMO-MCBS, as well as their correlations with QALYs and with NICE/pCODR funding recommendations, suggest different constructs of clinical benefit measured. Construct convergent validity with the ESMO-MCBS did not increase with the updated ASCO framework.

JSH: In July 2011, the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review [pcodr (http://www.pcodr.ca/)] began accepting submissions by pharmaceutical manufacturers and clinician-based tumour groups to have cancer drugs reimbursed by provincial payers in Canada. Doesn’t Canada already have a body reviewing drugs? [...]

This AEP produced improvements in pharmacists' abilities to facilitate plans for SPs in a community pharmacy setting.

BackgroundPublic drug plans are faced with increasingly difficult funding decisions. In Canada, the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) makes funding recommendations to the provincial and territorial drug plans responsible for cancer drugs. Assessments of the economic models submitted by pharmaceutical manufacturers are publicly reported.ObjectivesThe main objective of this research was to identify recurring methodological issues in economic models submitted to pCODR for funding reviews. The secondary objective was to explore whether there exists any observed relationships between reported methodological issues and funding recommendations made by pCODR’s expert review committee.MethodsPublicly available Economic Guidance Reports from July 2011 (inception) until June 2014 for drug reviews with a final funding recommendation (N = 34) were independently examined by two authors. Major methodological issues from each review were abstracted and grouped into nine main categories. Each issue was also categorized based on perception of the reviewer’s actions to manage it.ResultsThe most commonly reported issues involved costing (59% of reviews), time horizon (56%), and model structure (36%). Several types of issues were identified that usually could not be resolved, such as quality of clinical data or uncertainty with indirect comparisons. Issues with costing or choice of utility estimates could usually be addressed or explored by reviewers. No statistically significant relationship was found between any methodological issue and funding recommendations from the expert review committee.ConclusionsThe findings provide insights that can be used by parties who submit or review economic evidence for continuous improvement and consistency in economic modeling, reporting, and decision making.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s41669-017-0018-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract