CADTH Drug Portfolio Information Session Pharmaceutical - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CADTH Drug Portfolio Information Session

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, Industry Associations, and Consultants

OCTOBER 14, 2015

Welcome

ROBYN OSGOOD MODERATOR

Presenters

• Dr. Brian O’Rourke

President and Chief Executive Officer, CADTH

• Mr. Brent Fraser

Vice-President, Pharmaceutical Reviews, CADTH

• Dr. Chander Sehgal

Director, CADTH Common Drug Review and Optimal Use

• Dr. Mona Sabharwal

Executive Director, CADTH pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review

• Dr. Michelle Mujoomdar

Director, Scientific Affairs, CADTH

• Mr. Ken Bond

Director, Strategic Initiatives, CADTH

3

Overview of the Agenda

TOPIC LEAD Welcome Robyn Osgood Introductory Remarks Brian O’Rourke CADTH Scientific Advice Program Michelle Mujoomdar Evolving Patient Engagement Processes Ken Bond CADTH Drug Portfolio Updates Brent Fraser pCODR Consultations and Updates Mona Sabharwal CDR and Optimal Use Consultations and Updates Chander Sehgal CDR/pCODR Alignment – Consultations and Updates Brent Fraser Open Forum Robyn Osgood

Principles for the meeting

• Open, respectful discussion
• Let’s listen
• Loop back to address outcomes/unanswered questions

5

Introductory Remarks

• DR. BRIAN O’ROURKE

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Session Objectives

• 1. Outline CADTH’s Scientific Advice Program
• 2. Outline CADTH’s Patient Engagement Strategy
• 3. Provide program updates from the CADTH drug portfolio
• 4. Provide an update on CDR-pCODR alignment activities,

including progress to date and key priority areas

• 5. Answer questions and discuss key issues

7

CADTH Scientific Advice Program

MICHELLE MUJOOMDAR, PhD. DIRECTOR, SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS

About the CADTH Scientific Advice Program

• Voluntary, fee-for-service consultation for pharmaceutical

companies

• Advice on early drug development plans from a health

technology assessment (HTA) perspective

• Advice at an early point in the drug development process

9

• Industry interest (requests since 2008)
• CADTH Pilot
• Comparable International Programs:
• NICE (UK)
• EUnetHTA (Europe)
• AIFA(Italian Medicines Agency)
• G-BA (Germany)
• EMA-HTA Joint Advice

Why Scientific Advice at CADTH?

Development of a CADTH Program

Guiding Principles

• Voluntary
• Non-binding
• Fee-for-service based on cost recovery
• Will not detract or divert resources from other CADTH

programs Our Approach to Developing the Program

• Engagement with Industry
• Learn from existing programs at leading HTA agencies
• Adapt and build on the strengths of CADTH

Eligibility

• New drug products
• Existing drug products with new indications
• Drugs for rare diseases
• Subsequent entry biologics (SEBs)
• Oncology products

12

Types of questions asked

• Patient population
• Comparator
• Outcomes
• Follow-up
• Analyses
• Health Economic-related

13

Features of a Scientific Advice program

General

• Face-to-face meeting with open, candid exchange
• Written record of advice
• Value in experts attending meeting; all participants must

be knowledgeable Nature of the advice

• Relevant, timely, constructive, and actionable with a

specific point of view provided

• Balance between covering all issue and discussing key

issues in depth

Patient Involvement

15

Two approaches:

• 1. Information provided by company
• 2. Patient interview

Potential Benefits

• Early input in drug development process
• Recommendations based on better evidence
• Reduced uncertainty
• Test new development strategies
• Advice in context

16

17

www.cadth.ca/scientificadvice

scientificadvice@cadth.ca requests@cadth.ca

18

Evolving Patient Involvement Processes

KEN BOND DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

Opportunities for Input

• Submissions from individual patients and

caregivers

• Therapeutic Review feedback and process

revisions

Enhancing Input and Feedback

Assessments:

• Use of patient group input in CDR
• Letters of appreciation

Medical Devices and Procedures

• Explicit consideration of patient values and

preferences

• Systematic review of patient preferences and

values

• Patient interviews to validate key outcomes
• Patient groups to comment on draft report and

recommendations

Collaboration and Outreach

• Patient Community Liaison Forum webpage

www.cadth.ca/cadth-patient-community-liaison- forum

• HTAi Patient and Citizen Involvement Interest

Group Meeting October 18-20

• CADTH 2016 Symposium

24

CADTH Drug Portfolio Updates

BRENT FRASER VICE-PRESIDENT, PHARMACEUTICAL REVIEWS

Timeframes

• April 2014: pCODR transfer to CADTH
• June 2014: CDR Stakeholder information sessions
• Feb 2015: CDR & pCODR Stakeholder engagement sessions
• Feb-Sept 2015
• Written stakeholder feedback opportunity
• CADTH’s establishes the CDR-pCODR alignment working group to identify

areas for alignment and prepare procedural changes

• Ongoing consultation with participating jurisdictions (drug plans and cancer

agencies)

• Sept-Oct 2015:
• CADTH drug portfolio information session
• Stakeholder consultations of key alignment initiatives
• Identification of additional procedural and process items for alignment

between the CDR and pCODR programs

• January – March 2016: Implementation of the procedural decisions made

27

pCODR Consultations and Updates

• DR. MONA SABHARWAL

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CADTH PAN-CANADIAN ONCOLOGY DRUG REVIEW

Patient Engagement & Collaboration

New Initiative:

• Expanding the CADTH Drug Review Process to Receive Patient

Input Submissions From Individual Patients and Caregivers Collaboration Projects (2015):

• Illustrating key components of the existing “Guide for Patient

Advocacy Groups” through two narrated slide decks

• Cancer Drug Pipeline Information for Patient Advocacy Groups

29

Proposal:

• Develop a mechanism that will increase opportunities for

clinicians to participate in the CADTH pCODR process Objectives:

• Provide value-added contextual information for Clinical Guidance

Panel and pERC

• Enable cancer specialists to provide input on value of a particular

drug and its place in therapy

• Solicit values of broad clinician community
• Continue to foster relationships with the clinician community

30

Consultation on Enhance Clinician Engagement

Industry/ Tumour Group pCODR * Patient Advocacy Groups

• 1. Conduct

Pre- Submission Planning activities including getting input from PAG and notifying Patient Advocacy Groups

• 2. Prepare

& submit Request for Drug Review 4.2 Conduct Economic Review 5. Summarize & Review with pERC

• 6. Prepare &

Publicly Post Initial Recomm, Post Reviews

• 8. Summarize

& Review with pERC 3.1 Screen Submission and Initiate Review Process End‡ Variable 5 business days 70-90 business days 12 business days 10 business days 20 business days 7.1 Get Feedback from Submitter (and impacted manufacturer) 7.3a Get Feedback from Patient Advocacy Group 7.2 Get Feedback from PAG

• 9. Prepare &

Publicly Post Final Recomm & Post Input 12 business days *Includes pCODR Secretariat, Clinical Guidance Panel, Economic Guidance Panel, pCODR Expert Review Committee (pERC) and Provincial Advisory Group (PAG) 4.1.1/4.2.2 Clarify info with Submitter during review 4.1 Conduct Clinical Review 3.2a Collect Patient Advocacy Group Input Estimated 99 – 149 business days 7.4 Eligible for Early Conversion ? No Yes ‡Next steps could include Recommendation implementation, Procedural Review or Resubmission 3.2b Collect Regsitered Clinician Input 7.3b Get Feedback from Registered Clinician

Proposed Approach for Clinician Engagement

32

CDR and Optimal Use of Drugs – Consultations and Updates

• DR. CHANDER SEHGAL

DIRECTOR, CADTH COMMON DRUG REVIEW AND OPTIMAL USE

Revised voluntary withdrawal process

• CADTH has recently seen an increase in the number of

submissions that are withdrawn by manufacturers during the embargo period.

• In order to be accountable to stakeholders, CADTH has a public

responsibility to communicate the outcomes of drug reviews that were considered by CDEC.

• CADTH plans to revise the CDR Procedure by only permitting

withdrawal of a submission up until 4:00 p.m. EST five business days before CDEC is scheduled to deliberate.

• This procedural change would be effective for all submissions

targeting the Jan 2016 CDEC meeting or later.

CADTH responses to manufacturer comments

• To increase the transparency of the CDR process, CADTH plans to

revise the CDR Procedure and provide manufacturers with the CDR review team’s responses to their comments regarding the draft CDR review reports.

• This would be effective for all submissions and resubmissions

targeting the January 2016 CDEC meeting or later.

• Responses will be provided seven business days prior to the

CDEC meeting

• The responses will be provided for information only and

manufacturers should not contact CADTH regarding the content of the response document.

Identification of Topics for Therapeutic Reviews

Topic Identification CADTH Staff (PDOs, LOs) Policy Makers, Government CDEC, CDR Environmental Scans, Horizon Scans

Patient Input

• Pilot process initiated in 2012 (MS Therapeutic Review) –

until August 2015

• Reasons for seeking Patient Input for CDR Submissions

and Therapeutic Reviews:

• Share lived experience
• Identify unmet needs of existing therapy
• Identify treatment outcomes of greatest importance
• Ask for patient input early to ensure the above are

considered during the project development

Stakeholder Engagement

Therapeutic Review Process

Stakeholders

Patient Groups Public Health Care Providers Industry Jurisdictions Project Scoping Topic Identification/Refinement  Specialist experts  Proposed Project Scope      Active Research Phase List of Included Studies      Draft Science Report (clinical and economic)      Recommendations Phase Draft Recommendations Report      CDEC Committee Membership    Knowledge Mobilization Phase Knowledge Mobilization Tools  

39

CDR/pCODR Alignment – Consultations and Updates

BRENT FRASER VICE-PRESIDENT, PHARMACEUTICAL REVIEWS

Key Principles

• ‘Alignment’ does not imply ‘identical’
• Build on best practices of both programs
• Customer and Stakeholder engagement key in informing

decisions

• Final decision made by CADTH after considering

stakeholder feedback and internal factors (e.g. impact of the changes on budget, resourcing and timelines)

Summary of Written Feedback on CDR-pCODR alignment (May 2015)

• 1. Exploring possibility of enhancing transparency of the drug review

process (e.g., examining more open expert review committee meetings)

• Different views of what an ‘open meeting’ means; this ranges from
• bserving to full participation
• Majority are supportive of the ability to attend CDEC/pERC meeting to have

better insight of the deliberation process, and having a two-step process (i.e., open meeting and in-camera session for deliberation)

• One submitter noted that alternative approaches to achieve greater

transparency could include: a) a midpoint meeting b) sharing of the reviewer comments on the manufacturer response to clinical and PE Reports, and c) publication of the draft recommendation for stakeholder comment 42

Summary of Written Feedback on CDR- pCODR alignment (May 2015)

• 2. Explore the inclusion of individual patient or caregiver input
• Different approaches were submitted for individual patient submissions
• Some suggested no new formal process should be required
• May be done through the current template process or by other

specialized surveys or focused groups, facilitated by CADTH, developed to reflect and accommodate possible special needs of patient populations

• Other suggestion:
• Designate CADTH staff person, the two patient PERC representatives

and the patient Navigator position to gather and synthesize this information

• Opposing view:
• CADTH should not conduct interviews or focus groups, as this would be

seen as counter to the purpose of having the patient input not influenced by the assessor

43

Summary of Written Feedback on CDR-pCODR alignment (May 2015)

3. Explore pros and cons of mid-point review meeting

• Full support with having a mid-point or checkpoint meeting

4. Explore pros and cons of posting initial recommendations

• Majority support with posting initial recommendation
• One submitter stated that the initial recommendation should not

be posted publicly, but rather released only to process participants and kept under embargo until the release of the final recommendation

44

Summary of Written Feedback on CDR-pCODR alignment (May 2015)

5. Other comments

• support CADTH’s adoption of pCODR guiding principles
• support the concept that both CDR and pCODR use the same

recommendation nomenclature

• support CADTH adopting pCODR deliberative framework for both review

processes

• support having a process for additional clinician engagement
• support performance metrics reporting and tracking the uptake of pCODR

recommendations by participating plans, and that this should be done in the similar fashion for CDR

• support the inclusion of procedural review mechanism for the CDR process,

modelled largely on the pCODR option 45

Mandatory Advanced Notification

• CADTH is proposing to establish a mandatory advance

notification period of 180 calendar days for all pending submissions and resubmissions to CDR and pCODR.

• The applicant would also be required to provide a follow-up

confirmation of the anticipated filing date one month before that date, at which time there would be public notification

• The key objectives of having advance notification:
• improve forecasting of the quantity and type of CDR and

pCODR applications to be filed.

• help with resource planning, including clinical expert

recruitment, and budgeting for both programs.

Disclosure of submitted prices

• CADTH has encountered a variety of issues concerning

different interpretations by pharmaceutical manufacturers when the “submitted price” for a drug is filed as a confidential price for review through CDR or pCODR.

• These situations have led to confusion between individual

manufacturers and CADTH jurisdictional customers.

• CADTH is proposing that all applicants be required to

agree to the disclosure of the submitted price.

• This revision would enhance transparency for both the

CDR and pCODR processes.

CDEC and pERC Recommendation Framework

Current Recommendation Categories CDR recommendations pCODR recommendations Four recommendation categories:

• List
• List with clinical criteria and/or

conditions

• Do not list at the submitted price
• Do not list

Three recommendation categories:

• Recommend to fund
• Recommend to fund with conditions
• Do not recommend funding

Proposed recommendation framework for CDR and pCODR:

• 1. Reimburse
• 2. Reimburse with clinical criteria and/or conditions
• 3. Do not reimburse

Detailed context provided in the consultation document posted on CADTH website on October 9th

Future Topics for Alignment

• Posting embargoed CDEC recommendations
• This occurs in the pCODR process but not in the CDR

process.

• Procedural review
• Collaborative space
• This is currently being used in the pCODR process but not in

the CDR process.

• Touch point meeting during an ongoing review
• Open CDEC and pERC meetings
• Other topics?

50

2016 CADTH Symposium

52

@CADTH_ACMTS linkedin.com/company/cadth slideshare.net/CADTH-ACMTS youtube.com/CADTHACMTS cadth.ca/photoblog requests@cadth.ca

Connect With Us