ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2024
Health Technology Assessment Reports for Non-Oncology Medications in Canada from 2018 to 2022: Methodological Critiques on Manufacturers' Submissions and a Comparison between Manufacturer and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Analyses.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIdentifying key differences between manufacturers' submitted analysis and economic reanalysis by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) is an important step toward understanding reimbursement recommendations. We compared economic values reported in manufacturers' analysis with the CADTH reanalysis and also assessed methodological critiques.
methodsTwo reviewers extracted data from the clinical and economic reports in publicly available CADTH reports from 2018 to 2022. We used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test to assess the difference between mean economic values, and the Chi-square test to assess the association between the CADTH critique final recommendations.
resultsOf the total submissions, 99.4% included effectiveness critiques, 88.8% included model structure critiques, 69.1% included utility score critiques, and 78.7% included cost critiques. The median incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) in the manufacturers' analyses was $138,658/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), 2.5-fold lower than the CADTH's reanalysis at $380,251/QALY (p < 0.001). The median CADTH reanalysis for 3-year budget impact analysis (BIA) was $4,575,102, which was 27% higher than the manufacturers' submitted 3-year BIA (p < 0.001). CADTH requested a price reduction for 95% of all submissions, and the median price reduction request was 63.5%. In 2021 and 2022, the willingness-to-pay threshold identified in CADTH reports remained constant at $50,000 per QALY gained for all medications.
conclusionThere was high frequency of CADTH critiques on manufacturers' submissions in all four aspects of economic submissions: effectiveness, cost, utility score and structure. We observed a higher median incremental cost and lower median incremental QALYs in the CADTH reanalysis compared with the manufacturers' submissions. The resulting higher ICUR in the CADTH reanalysis often leads to a recommendation that the manufacturer needs to reduce its price. The 3-year budget impact was higher in the CADTH reanalyses compared with manufacturers' submissions.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.