MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Inclusion of health-related quality-of-life data in oncology drug reimbursement submissions in Canada: A review of submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review.

2018· review· en· W2893562808 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adam Raymakers, Dean A. Regier, Stuart Peacock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReimbursementMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Economic evaluationInclusion (mineral)Family medicineQuality-adjusted life yearClinical trialHealth careCost effectivenessInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

94 Background: For health technologies, and cancer treatments specifically, economic evaluation is often used to assess the value of new treatments. The preferred approach to economic evaluation is often cost-utility analysis (CUA). In CUA, incremental costs and benefits of a new treatment and a standard of care are calculated with benefits quantified using the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); the QALY attempts to account for the quantity and quality of life (using a utility weight). The utility weight often comes from a generic, preference-based measure of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), such as the 5-dimension EuroQol measure (EQ-5D). Many submissions for reimbursement by manufacturers, and indeed many clinical trials, still do not include HRQoL data which may result in lower quality submissions and thus, sub-optimal decisions. Methods: We reviewed submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR), the body charged with making reimbursement recommendations in Canada. We reviewed submissions from those first recorded (August 2012) to the present (June 2018). Only submissions that were completed (status listed as 'Notification to Implement Issued') were included. Upon completion, three documents are produced by pCODR: the final recommendation from the pCODR Expert Review Committee, the final clinical guidance report, and the final economic guidance report. All three documents were searched for how HRQoL was incorporated into the economic evaluation. Results: In total, 135 submissions were made to pCODR over the period. Of these, 107 (79.3%) had been completed and met the criteria for inclusion. In most studies, the incremental gain in QALYs from the new technology was small (in 2017 submissions the mean QALY gain was 1.1 QALYs). In addition, few studies reported an original measure of HRQoL, with most citing previously completed studies of variable relevance and quality. Conclusions: Our results indicate that manufacturers should improve the collection of HRQoL data of patients alongside clinical trials. This would enhance the focus on patients and improve decision-making around reimbursement of treatments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.206
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.441
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2060.441
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0600.068
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0170.005
Open science0.0090.005
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.794
GPT teacher head0.642
Teacher spread0.153 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→