Assessing Relationships Between the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Revised ICERs and Unmet Need, Clinical Benefit, Price Reductions, and Listing Negotiation Timelines

Author(s)

Balijepalli C1, Li J1, Ferrazzi S2, Mathers E3, Gullapalli L1, Awan A3
1Pharmalytics Group, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2PharmaAccess, Waterdown, ON, Canada, 3AbbVie Corporation, Saint-Laurent, QC, Canada

OBJECTIVES: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) generally uses a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). We reviewed non-oncology drug submissions made to CADTH, to understand the relationship between CADTH’s revised ICERs and unmet need, clinical benefit, price reductions and listing negotiation timelines.

METHODS: Reimbursement review reports of non-oncology submissions in 2021 and 2022 were obtained from the CADTH website to extract clinical and economic data. Time to engagement and negotiation duration were calculated using data obtained from the pan Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA).

RESULTS: Overall, 72 submissions were reviewed. Of the 60 positive reimbursement recommendations, the median CADTH revised base case ICER was more than twice that of the sponsor ($475,196/QALY vs $206,439/QALY). For rare diseases, the median CADTH revised ICER vs. sponsor base case was $907,578/QALY vs $358,763/QALY. For reviews with a clear clinical benefit (i.e., no mention of uncertainty in efficacy in clinical review report), the corresponding values were $423,392/QALY vs $134,117/QALY. A price reduction was recommended in 41/60 reviews. Of note, 71% (15/21) of positive recommendations for rare diseases had a price reduction target of ≥70% off the submitted price. In submissions with a clear clinical benefit, 59% (19/32) had a price reduction target of ≥70%, while 67% (12/18) addressing an unmet need according to the CADTH expert review committee had a price reduction target of ≥70%. Nearly 78% (47/60) of submissions completed pCPA negotiations; the median time to engagement was 3.8 months and the median time for negotiation was 3.9 months.

CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that CADTH revised ICERs were > 2x higher than sponsor reported ICERs, leading to significant price reduction recommendations even for reviews demonstrating a clear clinical benefit or addressing unmet need. ICER findings and their relationship to price reductions or other submission factors require further investigation.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2024-05, ISPOR 2024, Atlanta, GA, USA

Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 6, S1 (June 2024)

Code

HTA67

Topic

Economic Evaluation, Health Policy & Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment

Topic Subcategory

Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis, Decision & Deliberative Processes, Reimbursement & Access Policy

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

×