Comparing manufacturer submitted analysis and Common Drug Review reanalysis of results: A review of health technology assessment reports for non-oncology medications from 2018 to 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Identifying key differences between the manufacturer's submitted analysis and the Canada's Common Drug Review (CDR) economic reanalysis is a crucial step toward creating more appropriate models by manufacturers. We compared manufacturers’ submitted analysis to CDR reanalysis in order to identify any variations in incremental costs utility ratio (ICUR) and 3-year Budget impact analysis (BIA). We assessed the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold and CDR critiques on manufacturers’ clinical and economic reports. Method A pair of reviewers extracted data regarding therapeutic category, percent price reduction requested by CDR, WTP, and the critiques on the manufacturers' clinical and economic reports in publicly available CDR reports from 2018 to 2022. We used Wilcoxon rank test to assess the difference between mean incremental QALY, ICUR, and BIA in manufacturers and CDR reanalysis reports and chi-square tests and logistic regression to assess the relationship between the variables and the final CDR recommendation. Results Of 178 reports assessed, 31 received "do not reimburse" recommendation and 147 received "reimburse with criteria or conditions". The median ICUR in manufacturer's analysis was $138,658/QALY and significantly lower than ICUR reanalyses by CDR of $380,251/QALY. The ICUR in manufacturers' submitted reports was 2.5-fold lower than in the CDR reanalysis ($138,658/QALY versus $380,251/QALY). The CDR reanalysis median for 3-year BIA was $4,575,102 which was 27% higher than the manufacturers submitted 3-year BIA (p value<0.001). The most frequent CDR critiques were clinical effectiveness and the uncertainty of evidence in cost-effectiveness analysis and miscalculations in the population of patients and the percentage of market share in BIA. From 2018 to 2020, $100,000 was the most frequent WTP threshold followed by a $50,000 threshold, but during 2021 and 2022, the CDR only used $50,000 as a WTP threshold. Conclusion Manufacturers may tend to underestimate the costs or overestimate the effect of their medications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.396 | 0.787 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.064 | 0.057 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".