Oncology drug health technology assessment recommendations: Canadian versus UK experiences

CANADA HAS TWO HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (HTA) AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR ONCOLOGY DRUG FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS: the Institut National d'Excellence en Santé et Services Sociaux (INESSS) for the province of Québec and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review for the rest of Canada. The objective of the research was to review and compare the recommendations of these two agencies alongside an international comparator - the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom - with respect to their recommendations records and the influence of clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence on the recommendations.

Recommendations were identified from the three agencies from January 1, 2002 to June 1, 2013. Recommendations were limited to five cancer sites (lung, breast, colon, kidney, blood) and to metastatic/advanced settings. Descriptive analyses examined the frequency of positive recommendations and factors related to a positive recommendation. For each recommendation, only publicly available information posted on the agency website was used to abstract data.

There was a wide variation in the rate of positive recommendations, ranging from 48% for NICE to 95% for Canada's national process (among the 74% of its recommendations that were publicly posted). Interagency agreement was low, with full agreement for only six of the 14 drugs commonly reviewed by all three agencies. Evidence of a survival gain was not necessary for a positive recommendation; progression-free survival was acceptable. Different approaches were taken when addressing unacceptable cost-effectiveness. NICE was most likely to yield a negative recommendation on these grounds, whereas Canada's national process was most likely to yield a positive recommendation with a required pricing arrangement.

In this analysis, the primary reason for the observed divergence between agency recommendations appeared to be the availability of mechanisms in each jurisdiction to address cost-effectiveness subsequent to the HTA assessment process. Furthermore, caution is needed when interpreting cross-agency comparisons between HTA agencies, as recommendations may not correspond directly to subsequent funding decisions and actual patient access. This may be a concern, given the high international profile of assessments conducted by the reviewed HTA agencies.