Search

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.

Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatment, patients with pre-existing autoimmune diseases (PADs) have largely been excluded from clinical trials evaluating this drug class. This study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of ICI therapy in individuals with PAD in a real-world setting. A retrospective study of patients exposed to ICI therapy between 2012 and 2019 was conducted. Patients with PAD were identified and matched to an ICI-exposed group without PAD based on age, sex, and cancer type. Primary outcomes included toxicity, time to treatment failure, overall survival, and objective response rate. The association between PAD status and outcomes was determined using Cox and logistic regression modeling. A total of 813 patients exposed to ICI therapy were identified, of which 8.2% (N=67) had a PAD. When compared with a matched cohort without PAD (N=132), there was no significant difference in the rates of new immune-related adverse events (irAEs, 42.4% in the non-PAD group vs. 47.8% in the PAD group, P=0.474). After controlling for the type of ICI, there was no significant association between PAD status and irAE (odds ratio 1.67, 95% CI: 0.9-3.21 P=0.1). There was no significant association between overall survival and PAD status (hazard ratio 1.12, 95% CI: 0.76-1.66. P=0.56) or between time to treatment failure and PAD status (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI: 0.6-1.12, P=0.22). There was an association between PAD status and objective response rate (odds ratio 3.28, 95% CI: 1.28-8.38, P=0.013). In summary, PAD status was not associated with enhanced toxicity when compared with patients without PAD, with similar oncologic effectiveness between these 2 groups., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

FISH cytogenetics, TP53 sequencing, and IGHV mutational status are increasingly used as prognostic and predictive markers in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), particularly as components of the CLL International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI) and in directing therapy with novel agents. However, testing outside of clinical trials is not routinely available in Canada. As a centralized CLL clinic at CancerCare Manitoba, we are the first Canadian province to evaluate clinical outcomes and survivorship over a long period of time, incorporating the impact of molecular testing and the CLL-IPI score. We performed a retrospective analysis on 1315 patients diagnosed between 1960 and 2018, followed over a 12-year period, where 411 patients had molecular testing and 233 patients had a known CLL-IPI score at the time of treatment. Overall, 40.3% ( n = 530) of patients received treatment, and 47.5% ( n = 252) of patients received multiple lines of therapy. High-risk FISH and CLL-IPI (4-10) were associated with higher mortality (HR 2.03, p = 0.001; HR 2.64, p = 0.002), consistent with other studies. Over time, there was an increase in the use of targeted agents in treated patients. The use of Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors improved survival in patients with unmutated IGHV and/or TP53 aberrations (HR 2.20, p = 0.001). The major cause of death in patients who received treatment was treatment/disease-related (32%, n = 42) and secondary malignancies (57%, n = 53) in those who were treatment-naïve. Our data demonstrate the importance of molecular testing in determining survivorship in CLL and underpinning the likely immune differences in outcomes for those treated for CLL.

Oncology pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and assistants are key members of the multidisciplinary health care team (MHT) caring for patients receiving immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors. The International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP) developed this position statement to provide guidance on the role of oncology pharmacy practitioners in caring for patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.Four key recommendations were identified: 1) participation as an integrated, collaborative member of the MHT;2) provision of education and training for patients, students, residents, fellows and other members of the MHT;3) involvement in clinical governance to optimise the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and4) involvement in research and development in the field of immunotherapy.In summary, oncology pharmacy practitioners play essential roles within the MHT in caring for patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

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.

Objective: Selpercatinib and pralsetinib are new targeted therapies used to treat patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to RET gene rearrangements. The objective of this article is to review selpercatinib and pralsetinib in the context of RET-fusion-positive NSCLC., Data Sources: The pivotal LIBRETTO-001 and ARROW trials were evaluated regarding the use of selpercatinib and pralsetinib as treatment for RET-fusion-positive NSCLC. Comparative studies, review articles and current studies on selpercatinib and pralsetinib in RET-fusion-positive NSCLC were searched on pubmed.org and scholar.google.com using "selpercatinib," "pralsetinib," and "NSCLC" as keywords. Product monographs were searched on google.ca and uptodate.com using the keywords "selpercatinib," "pralsetinib," and/or "monograph.", Data Summary: Selpercatinib and pralsetinib are orally administered highly selective RET inhibitors approved by the FDA following the accelerated approvals granted due to the pivotal LIBRETTO-001 and ARROW trials which evaluated selpercatinib and pralsetinib, respectively. Both drugs have shown efficacy for brain metastases and are primarily metabolized by CYP3A4 through hepatic metabolism. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse effects of selpercatinib were hypertension, increased ALT level, and increased AST level while for pralsetinib, it was neutropenia, hypertension, and anemia. The safety profile shows similarities in severity and tolerability but additional monitoring for QT prolongation in patients on selpercatinib is recommended, compared to the risks of interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis for patients on pralsetinib., Conclusions: Overall, the increased use of selpercatinib and pralsetinib has led to the implementation of these drugs in the clinical practice of healthcare professionals such as pharmacists.

Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common type of leukemia in North America. Previous studies have shown improved progression free survival (PFS) and response rates in unfit patients treated with obinutuzumab compared to other regimens. The aim of this study was to evaluate the obinutuzumab-chlorambucil regimen in the context of historical treatments and first-dose infusion reactions at CancerCare Manitoba (CCMB)., Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients treated with obinutuzumab from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017 at CCMB. A minimum data set was extracted for patients treated with other front-line therapies. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate patient demographics, toxicity, duration and dosing of obinutuzumab treatment. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate time-to-next-treatment (TTNT), overall survival (OS) and PFS for patients treated with obinutuzumab. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to investigate associations between infusion related reactions (IRRs) and age at treatment, pre-treatment lymphocyte count, cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) and receipt of prior chemotherapy., Results: Forty seven percent of patients receiving frontline therapy received chlorambucil and obinutuzumab. Sixty-seven patients were treated with obinutuzumab and consisted of 36 males (53.7%) and 31 females (46.3%) with 29 patients (43.3%) over age 75 years. Rates of grade 3 and 4 obinutuzumab IRRs were lower (6%) compared to the CLL11 clinical trial (20%) due to local practices including slower infusion rates and using chlorambucil before starting obinutuzumab treatment. Many patients had difficulty tolerating the full dosage of chlorambucil. Only 26 patients (38.8%) had their dose of chlorambucil escalated to the full dose of 0.5 mg/kg. In addition, only 18 patients (26.9%) received all doses of obinutuzumab and all 12 doses of chlorambucil., Conclusions: In summary, first dose infusion reactions with obinutuzumab can be markedly reduced by using chlorambucil to decrease the lymphocyte count before obinutuzumab and by using a very slow initial obinutuzumab infusion rate. Modifications in chlorambucil dosing and obinutuzumab administration can improve tolerance without significant loss in efficacy., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The CanREValue Collaboration established the Reassessment & Uptake Working Group to develop a preliminary process to reassess funded cancer drugs in Canada. A simulated exercise was conducted to evaluate the proposed reassessment process using a real-world case. We invited 32 attendees including representatives from Health Canada and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, along with payers, clinicians, academics, and patient representatives. A case was developed using a real-world study on a publicly funded cancer drug. In facilitated group sessions, participants were asked to deliberate upon the evidence presented in the case to issue reassessment recommendations. Several themes were identified through the deliberation discussions. While the generalizability of real-world evidence (RWE) is perceived as a strength, trust in the RWE depends largely on the source of the real-world data. The attendees suggested several improvements to the proposed reassessment process including evidence requirement for reassessment, recommendation categories, and a priori study protocols. This exercise generated important insights on the evidence required for conducting reassessment and considerations for improvements of the proposed reassessment process. Building upon lessons from this exercise, future work would continue to refine the reassessment process as part of the overall CanREValue framework.

Intervention: In April 2012, the Manitoba Home Cancer Drug Program (HCDP) was introduced to allow 100% coverage for eligible oral anticancer agents (OAA) and supportive medications for Manitobans with cancer requiring these therapies., Research Questions: What is the extent of use and cost of OAAs among outpatients in Manitoba from 2003/04 to 2015/16? Did the HCDP change OAA user and prescription patterns?, Methods: This was a retrospective, population-based study using administrative data to measure the prevalence of drug utilization over time and the impact of HCDP on OAA use and prescriptions using generalized linear models. Manitobans with cancer who filled an OAA or supportive medication covered by HCDP from 2003/04 to 2015/16 were included., Results: This study included 22,393 people with cancer who filled an OAA prescription. The prevalence of OAA use increased from 222 per 100,000 to 328 per 100,000 from 2003/04 to 2015/16. Hormone therapy for breast cancer was the most common class of OAA used (increased from 154 per 100,000 to 231 per 100,000). We observed a 2.6-fold decrease in the prevalence of oral alkylating agents and a 10.7-fold increase in the prevalence of protein kinase inhibitors during the study period. The total cost of targeted OAAs per year for all Manitobans with cancer increased from $1.8 million to $19 million., Conclusion: We observed an increase in OAA prevalence and the cost of oral targeted chemotherapy is high. Our findings underline the need for addressing these high-cost medications in future developments of a national drug program.

Background: Daratumumab is used in the treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma. Daratumumab infusion-related reactions can occur with the highest incidence on the first infusion., Methods: A retrospective review of all daratumumab infusions used as part of the DVd and DRd regimens for relapsed multiple myeloma was undertaken. The review of infusion-related reactions was conducted by reviewing the treatment room nursing note on the days that daratumumab was administered. If the patient experienced an infusion-related reaction, then the data captured included if the full dose was administered., Results: Daratumumab infusion-related reactions occurred most frequently on the first dose. The rates of infusion-related reactions using a split dose approach for daratumumab administration were lower than that reported in clinical trials. All of the infusion-related reactions were managed with appropriate interventions in the outpatient setting. The adoption of rapid infusion daratumumab beginning with cycle 2 of DVd and DRd was well tolerated., Conclusions: Our experience of daratumumab infusions using a split dose approach was associated with an infusion-related reaction rate in 28% of patients on cycle 1, day 1 of DVd and DRd regimens. All patients were able to complete full doses of daratumumab by utilizing split dose. The rates of daratumumab infusion-related reactions are highest on the first infusion. In addition, our adoption of rapid infusion daratumumab was safe.

The product monograph for reference bevacizumab (Avastin) and biosimilar bevacizumab (Mvasi) recommend to infuse the first dose of bevacizumab over 90 min, second dose over 60 min and third and subsequent doses over 30 min. Despite the product monograph recommendations, many institutions adopted an accelerated bevacizumab (Avastin) 0.5 mg/kg/min infusion time. Our province adopted the accelerated infusion time at time of biosimilar bevacizumab (Mvasi) adoption. Our experience with the accelerated infusion time was well tolerated in the first five months of biosimilar bevacizumab adoption across different tumor types.

Aims: Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is an aggressive form of leukemia with a poor prognosis in adult patients. The addition of the monoclonal antibody rituximab to standard chemotherapy has been shown to improve survival in adults with ALL. However, it is unknown whether the addition of rituximab is cost-effective. The objective was to determine the economic impact of rituximab in addition to standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy vs SOC alone in newly-diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-negative, CD20-positive, B-cell precursor ALL., Methods: A decision analytic model was constructed, based upon the Canadian healthcare system. It included the following health states over a lifetime horizon (max ≈60 years): event-free survival (EFS), relapsed/resistant disease, cure, and death. SOC was either hyper-CVAD or the Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) ALL consortium. EFS, overall survival, and serious adverse event (SAE) rates were derived from a large randomized controlled trial. Costs of the model included: first-line treatment and administration, disease management, second-line and third-line treatment and administration, palliative care, and SAE-related treatments. Inputs were sourced from provincial and national public data, the literature, and cancer agency input., Results: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) increased by 2.20 QALYs with rituximab in addition to SOC. The resulting mean Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was C$21,828/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of C$100,000/QALY, the probability of being cost-effective was 98%. Decision outcomes were robust to the probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses, including the SOC backbone as either hyper-CVAD or DFCI., Limitations: The results of this analysis are limited by generalizability of the chemotherapy backbone to Canadian practice., Conclusions: For adults with ALL, rituximab in addition to SOC was found to be a cost-effective intervention, compared to SOC alone. The addition of rituximab is associated with increased life years and increased QALYs at a reasonable incremental cost.