Oncology drug health technology assessment recommendations: Canadian versus UK experiences

Background: Canada has two health technology assessment (HTA) agencies responsible for oncology drug funding recommendations: the Institut National d'Excellence en Sante et Services Sociaux (INESSS) for the province of Quebec 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.