Search

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration developed an MCDA rating tool to assess and prioritize potential post-market real-world evidence (RWE) questions/uncertainties emerging from public drug funding decisions in Canada. In collaboration with a group of multidisciplinary stakeholders from across Canada, the rating tool was developed following a three-step process: (1) selection of criteria to assess the importance and feasibility of an RWE question; (2) development of rating scales, application of weights and calculating aggregate scores; and (3) validation testing. An initial MCDA rating tool was developed, composed of seven criteria, divided into two groups. Group A criteria assess the importance of an RWE question by examining the (1) drug’s perceived clinical benefit, (2) magnitude of uncertainty identified, and (3) relevance of the uncertainty to decision-makers. Group B criteria assess the feasibility of conducting an RWE analysis including the (1) feasibility of identifying a comparator, (2) ability to identify cases, (3) availability of comprehensive data, and (4) availability of necessary expertise and methodology. Future directions include partnering with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health’s Provincial Advisory Group for further tool refinement and to gain insight into incorporating the tool into drug funding deliberations.

Purpose of Program: Glomerulonephritis (GN) is a group of rare kidney diseases that is increasingly being managed with higher cost immunosuppressive (IS) agents in Canada. Ontario Health’s Ontario Renal Network (ORN) oversees the management and delivery of GN services in the province. Stakeholder surveys previously conducted by ORN identified that both clinicians and patients do not perceive access to GN medications as comprehensive or timely. The program conducted a focused jurisdictional scan among 7 provinces to inform ORN initiatives to improve access to GN medications. Specifically, the program examined clinician experience with GN access, public drug coverage criteria, and timelines for public coverage for select IS agents (ie, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil [MMF], mycophenolate sodium, rituximab, and eculizumab) used to manage GN in adults who live in Canada. Methods: For the selected IS agents, a focused jurisdictional scan on medication access was conducted by ORN in 2018 and updated in July 2022. Information was obtained by searching the gray literature and/or credible online sources for public funding policies and eligibility criteria. Findings were supplemented by personal communications with provincial drug programs and consulting GN clinical experts from 7 provinces (ie, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Quebec). Key Findings: Clinicians from different provinces prescribe IS agents similarly for GN indications, despite distinctions in public drug funding policies. While patients can obtain public funding for many IS agents, for GN, most provinces rely on case-by-case review processes. In addition, provinces can vary in their funding criteria and which IS agents are listed on the public formulary. For IS agents that require prior authorization or case-by-case review, timelines vary by province with decisions taking a few days to weeks. British Columbia, with a GN-specific drug formulary, had the most integrated and efficient system for patients and prescribers. Limitations: This scan primarily relied on publicly available information for drug coverage criteria and clinician experience with access in their province. Since this scan was conducted, public drug coverage criteria and/or application processes may have changed. Implications: While patients in most provinces have similar needs and nephrologists similar prescribing patterns, gaps still exist for publicly funded GN medications. Interprovincial differences in the drugs funded, funding criteria, and application process may affect timely and equitable access to GN medications across Canada. Given the rarity of GN, a pan-Canadian funding approach may be warranted to improve the current state.

Abstract Background Advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) patients often have substantial symptom burden. In Ontario, patients routinely complete the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), which screens for nine symptoms (scale: 0‐10), in cancer clinics. We explored the association between baseline patient‐reported outcomes, via ESAS, and overall survival (OS). Methods Advanced pancreatic cancer patients with ESAS records prior to receiving publicly funded drugs from November 2008 to March 2016 were retrospectively identified from Cancer Care Ontario's administrative databases. We examined three composite ESAS scores: total symptom distress score (TSDS: 9 symptoms), physical symptom score (PHS: 6/9 symptoms), and psychological symptom score (PSS: 2/9 symptoms); Composite scores greater than defined thresholds (TSDS ≥36, PHS ≥24, PSS ≥8) were considered as high symptom burden. Crude OS was assessed using Kaplan‐Meier method. Hazard ratios (HRs) were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Analysis was repeated in a sub‐cohort with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status and metastasis. Results We identified 2199 APC patients (mean age 64 years, 55% male) with ESAS records prior to receiving chemotherapy. Crude median survival was 4.5 and 7.3 months for high and low TSDS, respectively. High TSDS was associated with lower OS (HR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.33, 1.63). In the sub‐cohort (n = 393) with ECOG status and metastasis, high TSDS was also associated with lower OS (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.73). Similar trends were observed for PHS and PSS. Conclusions Higher burden of patient‐reported outcome was associated with reduced OS among APC patients. The effect was prominent after adjusting for ECOG status.