Comparing the Change from Base Case to Re-Analyzed ICER Values for CADTH Oncology Evaluations

Author(s)

Stino M1, Shah S2, Kipentzoglou K3, Cameron C4
1EVERSANA, Cherry Hill, NJ, USA, 2Eversana, Mumbai, MH, India, 3Eversana, London, UK, 4EVERSANA, Sydney, NS, Canada

OBJECTIVE: The CADTH reimbursement review process determines cost-effectiveness using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). CADTH makes three possible recommendations: reimburse (recommended), reimburse with conditions (conditionally recommended), and do not reimburse (not recommended). ICER values are reported exactly, as a range, or as dominant/dominated. This study determines the ICER change between the manufacturer submitted and CADTH reanalyzed values for oncology reviews, stratified by decision type.

METHODS: CADTH economic reports for oncology products submitted between 2019 and 2021 were extracted from the Pricentric HTA database. The base case and final re-analysis ICERs were extracted for all economic comparators and patient populations. Each ICER value within a submission was considered as a separate datapoint. Only datapoints with exact ICERs for the base case and the re-analysis were included. The mean percent change in ICER values (% Δ ICER) were calculated and stratified by the recommendation type.

RESULTS: CADTH economic reports encompassing 80 oncology indications were extracted and 168 unique datapoints were generated based on the economic comparator and patient population. Exact ICER values for the base case and re-analysis were available for 57 datapoints (mean % Δ ICER = +207.91%). Conditional recommendations had a mean % Δ ICER of +255.65% (N=40) and non-recommendations had a mean % Δ ICER = +93.15% (N=15). Only 2/57 of decisions were recommended (mean % Δ ICER = +113.63%). Datapoints with a mean % Δ ICER < 50% accounted for 38.6% (N=22) of datapoints; those with a mean % Δ ICER between 50 and 100%, accounted for 21.05% (N=12) datapoints; and, 40.35% (N=23) had a mean% Δ ICER ≥ 100%

CONCLUSIONS: For oncology drugs, there is a large discordance between manufacturer submitted ICERs and re-analyses conducted by CADTH. Future research should aim to better understand these discrepancies in cost-effectiveness estimates, especially if ICERs are linked to drug pricing.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2022-05, ISPOR 2022, Washington, DC, USA

Code

HTA52

Topic

Economic Evaluation, Health Technology Assessment

Topic Subcategory

Decision & Deliberative Processes

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas

Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×