International HTA Experience with Targeted Therapy Approvals for Lung Cancer

View/ Open
File version
Version of Record (VoR)
Author(s)
Maraiki, Fatma
Byrnes, J
Tuffaha, H
Hinder, M
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2019
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the listing success rates and time incurred to listing of recently approved lung cancer medications across Australia, Canada and England. METHODS: A comparison between the three countries was performed with respect to the listing status, time incurred for listing and differences in recommendations made for cost effectiveness. Major uncertainties and limitations that compromise health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations were identified. RESULTS: The listing success rate was found to be low across all three countries (33% Canada, 17% England and 8% Australia). Across the ...
View more >OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the listing success rates and time incurred to listing of recently approved lung cancer medications across Australia, Canada and England. METHODS: A comparison between the three countries was performed with respect to the listing status, time incurred for listing and differences in recommendations made for cost effectiveness. Major uncertainties and limitations that compromise health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations were identified. RESULTS: The listing success rate was found to be low across all three countries (33% Canada, 17% England and 8% Australia). Across the HTA agencies' reviews, comparators were either dissimilar or altered for effectiveness and/or economic analysis. Overall, limited evidence was found for all indications, and uncertainties were identified due to indirect analyses (70%) and survival extrapolation (100%). Although most of the indications were concluded to be not cost effective, some were subsequently listed (47%) at a reduced price and/or with a specific access programme. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a low listing success rate for novel lung therapies internationally within different HTA jurisdictions. Major uncertainties that are resistant to available solutions seem to be common across different countries; thus, international solutions would be beneficial.
View less >
View more >OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the listing success rates and time incurred to listing of recently approved lung cancer medications across Australia, Canada and England. METHODS: A comparison between the three countries was performed with respect to the listing status, time incurred for listing and differences in recommendations made for cost effectiveness. Major uncertainties and limitations that compromise health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations were identified. RESULTS: The listing success rate was found to be low across all three countries (33% Canada, 17% England and 8% Australia). Across the HTA agencies' reviews, comparators were either dissimilar or altered for effectiveness and/or economic analysis. Overall, limited evidence was found for all indications, and uncertainties were identified due to indirect analyses (70%) and survival extrapolation (100%). Although most of the indications were concluded to be not cost effective, some were subsequently listed (47%) at a reduced price and/or with a specific access programme. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a low listing success rate for novel lung therapies internationally within different HTA jurisdictions. Major uncertainties that are resistant to available solutions seem to be common across different countries; thus, international solutions would be beneficial.
View less >
Journal Title
PharmacoEconomics - Open
Volume
3
Issue
1
Copyright Statement
© The Author(s) 2018. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Subject
Health economics
Social Sciences
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Economics
Health Care Sciences & Services