Skip to main content

Perspectives on the Common Drug Review Process at the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Decision Making in a World of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Abstract

The Common Drug Review (CDR) is a federal review process that provides funding and adoption recommendations to Canadian provinces and territories on non-oncological drugs. This chapter will begin with providing an introduction to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) and its role within the Canadian health-care system and will then describe and provide a commentary on the intricacies of the CDR process. The pathway of the CDR process is then outlined, from manufacturer submission, to the formation and evaluation of that submission by a review team, to the dissemination and publication of final recommendations from a pan-Canadian Drug Expert Committee. In addition to the CDR process pathway, details on key factors considered and desired in HTA submissions are outlined (large disease burden or an unmet need), as well as the recommended methodology manufacturers should consider when conducting clinical trials and cost-effectiveness models. This chapter then discusses CADTH’s performance, as reviewed by other organizations against fellow international HTA agencies. Based on the discussed strengths and limitations, the chapter concludes with providing future direction, encouraging CADTH’s continued focus on improved transparency and responsiveness while also urging them to conduct continued reviews (past the adoption milestone) that manage obsolescence and facilitate evidence translation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This process excludes the Province of Quebec, which has its own independent health technology assessment (HTA) body (l’Institut national d’excellence en santé et en services sociaux, INESSS) and which independently administers the health-care insurance plan of its inhabitants. INESSS requires the same methodological approach as the one used by CADTH in its pharmacoeconomic assessments [7].

References

  1. Menon D, Stafinski T (2009) Health technology assessment in Canada: 20 years strong? Value Health 12(Suppl 2):14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Government of Canada Strategic Policy Branch, Health Care Policy Directorate HC (2011) Canada’s Health Care System [Health Canada, 2011]

    Google Scholar 

  3. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2016) About CADTH. In: CADTH.ca. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth

  4. Canada Health Act, C. 6, s. 1 (1985) Available from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-6/fulltext.html

  5. Canadian Institute for Health Information (2005) Exploring the 70/30 split: how Canada’s health care system is financed, pp 1–133

    Google Scholar 

  6. Labrie Y (2015) Setting the record straight on health care funding in Canada. Notes Heal Care Ser

    Google Scholar 

  7. (Québec) C du médicament (2007) Selecting medication for coverage in Quebec: a responsible, transparent process. Information on the scientific evaluation process of medication. Government of Quebec, Quebec

    Google Scholar 

  8. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2016) Frequently asked questions about pCODR. In: CADTH.ca. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/pcodr/faqs

  9. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2014) 25 years of supporting informed health care decisions. 2013–2014 Annual Report, pp 1–13. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/CADTH-Annual-Report-13-14.pdf

  10. Rocchi A, Chabot I, Glennie J (2015) Evolution of health technology assessment: best practices of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 7:287–298

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Battista RN, Côté B, Hodge MJ, Husereau D (2009) Health technology assessment in Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25(Suppl 1):53–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dubois A, Dubé M-P (2014) Are payers ready to assess the combined value of drugs with a companion diagnostic? Cognoscienti 31–6

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ferrusi IL, Ames D, Lim ME, Goeree R (2009) Health technology assessment from a Canadian device industry perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 6(5):353–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Health Canada (2015) How Drugs are Reviewed in Canada. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/activit/fsfi/reviewfs_examenfd-eng.php

  15. Paris V, Belloni A (2014) Value in pharmaceutical pricing country profile: Canada, p 1–16. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/health/Value-in-Pharmaceutical-Pricing-Australia.pdf

  16. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2013) Procedure for Common Drug Review. CADTH Common Drug Review. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, pp 1–68. Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/process/CDR_Procedure_e.pdf

  17. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2015) Consultation on recommendation framework for CADTH Common Drug Review and pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review programs, pp 1–4. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/consult/recommendations_consultation_document.pdf

  18. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2014) Submission guidelines for the CADTH Common Drug Review. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, pp 1–113. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/process/CDR_Submission_Guidelines.pdf

  19. Wells G, Shukla VK, Bak G, Bai A (2012) Quality assessment tools project report. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Ottawa, pp 1–139

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mills F, Poinas AC, Siu E, Wyatt G (2014) Consistency in reimbursement decisions at Canadian HTA agencies: INESSS versus CDR. Value Health 17(3):A28–A28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rocchi A, Miller E, Hopkins RB, Goeree R (2012) Common drug review recommendations: an evidence base for expectations? PharmacoEconomics 30(3):229–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Solon C, Kanavos P (2015) An analysis of HTA decisions for orphan drugs in Canada and Australia. Working paper No 42/2015, pp 1–36

    Google Scholar 

  23. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2006) Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. 3rd edn. Ottawa, pp 1–75

    Google Scholar 

  24. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Recommendation Framework for CADTH Common Drug Review and pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Programs: guidance for CADTH ’ s Drug Expert Committees (2016) Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/templates/pre-sub-phase/pCODR_CDR_recommendations_framework.pdf

  25. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B, Luce BR, Neumann PJ, Siebert U et al (2008) Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24(3):244–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Neumann PJ, Drummond MF, Jönsson B, Luce BR, Schwartz JS, Siebert U et al (2010) Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26(1):71–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Canadian Diabetes Association (2012) In the balance: a renewed vision for the common drug review. Canadian Diabetes Association, pp 1–33. Available from: https://www.diabetes.ca/CDA/media/documents/publications-and-newsletters/advocacy-reports/renewed-vision-for-the-common-drug-review-english.pdf

  28. Stephens J, Hanke J, Doshi J (2012) International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): does practice meet the principles proposed for good research? Comp Eff Res 2:29–44

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wilsdon T, Fiz E, Haderi A (2014) A comparative analysis of the role and impact of health technology assessment. Charles River Associates, pp 1-132. Available from: http://www.efpia.eu/uploads/documents/cra-comparative-analysis.pdf

  30. Levy AR, Mitton C, Johnston KM, Harrigan B, Briggs AH (2010) International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions. PharmacoEconomics 28(10):813–830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Health Canada, Health Technology Assessment Task Group (2004) Health Technology Strategy 1.0 Final Report June 2004 Information and Emerging Technologies. Federal/Provincial/Territorial Advisory Committee on Information and Emerging Technologies, pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  32. Blomqvist Å, Busby C, Husereau D (2013) Capturing value from Health Technologies in Lean Times. CD Howe Inst 396:2–28

    Google Scholar 

  33. Spitz S (2013) A decade of the Common Drug Review. CMAJ 185(7):E277–E278

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Bae G, Bae EY, Bae S (2015) Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea. Health Policy 119(5):577–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, Yong K, Lee KM, Manns BJ (2009) Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA 302(13):1437–1443

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lexchin J, Mintzes B (2008) Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland. Am J Manag Care 14(9):581–588

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gamble J-M, Weir DL, Johnson JA, Eurich DT (2011) Analysis of drug coverage before and after the implementation of Canada’s Common Drug Review. CMAJ 183(17):E1259–E1266

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Milliken D, Venkatesh J, Yu R, Su Z, Thompson M, Eurich D (2015) Comparison of drug coverage in Canada before and after the establishment of the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance. BMJ Open 5(9):e008100–e008100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Morgan S, Hanley G, Raymond C, Blais R (2009) Breadth, depth and agreement among provincial formularies in Canada. Healthc policy Polit santé 4(4):e162–e184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Paradis PE, Mishagina N, Carter V, Raymond V (2012) Economic impact of delays in listing decisions by provincial drug plans after a positive Common Drug Review recommendation: the case of a smoking-cessation treatment. Healthc Q 15(2):52–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. (Rx&D) CR-BPC (2015) Access to new medicines table of contents. Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D). Available from: http://innovativemedicines.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/RxD_6580_AccessToMedicinesReport_WEB.pdf

  42. (Rx&D) CR-BPC (2012) The Rx&D international report on access to medicines. Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D). Available from: file: http://www.wyatthealth.com/wp-content/uploads/IRAM/iram-2011-2012-English.pdf; Healthcare/Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D) - 2012.pdf

  43. (Rx&D) CR-BPC (2010) The Rx&D international report on access to medicines. Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D). Available from: http://www.wyatthealth.com/wp-content/uploads/IRAM/iram-2009-2010.pdf

  44. (Rx&D) CR-BPC (2011) The Rx&D international report on access to medicines. Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D), pp 1–26. Available from: http://www.wyatthealth.com/wp-content/uploads/IRAM/iram-2010-2011-English.pdf

  45. Gagnon M-P, Desmartis M, Poder T, Witteman W (2014) Effects and repercussions of local/hospital-based health technology assessment (HTA): a systematic review. Syst Rev 3:129

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Husereau D, Cameron CG (2011) The use of health technology assessment to inform the value of provider fees: current challenges and opportunities. CHSRF series of reports on cost drivers and health SYSTEM efficiency: paper 6. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, pp1–33. Available from: http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/Libraries/Commissioned_Research_Reports/Husereau-Fee-Schedule-E.sflb.ashx

  47. Science TC for I in R (2016) Canadian HTA/Payer Agency Metrics Assessment Project. The Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science. Available from: http://www.cirsci.org/canadian-htapayer-agency-metrics-assessment-project/.

  48. Polisena J, Lavis JN, Juzwishin D, McLean-Veysey P, Graham ID, Harstall C et al (2015) Supporting the use of health technology assessments by decision-makers. Healthc Policy Polit santé 10(4):10–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. (HTAi) HTA international (2016) HTAi: disinvestment and early awareness. Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi). Available from: http://www.htai.org/interest-groups/disinvestment-and-early-awareness.html.

  50. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Policy Perspectives on the Obsolescence of Health... In: CADTH.ca. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/collaboration-and-outreach/advisory-bodies/policy-forum/discussion-papers/policy-perspectives-obsolescence-health#5

Download references

Acknowledgments

Editing assistance was provided by Ana Bozas, PhD, a salaried employee of Analysis Group, Inc.

Disclaimer

This research was not sponsored. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of (their) current or past employers, or any related entities, or those of scientific collaborations of which they are members.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Lefebvre .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lefebvre, P., Lafeuille, MH., Tiggelaar, S. (2017). Perspectives on the Common Drug Review Process at the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. In: Birnbaum, H., Greenberg, P. (eds) Decision Making in a World of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Adis, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3262-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3262-2_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Adis, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-3261-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-3262-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics