August 19, 2016 – The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has released a Draft Evidence Report assessing the comparative clinical effectiveness and value of treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The report, as well as accompanying draft voting questions, will be open to public comment for four weeks.
This report evaluates the health outcomes and economic effects of certain tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and programmed death 1 (PD-1) immunotherapy agents in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The effects of both classes of agents are evaluated in epidermal growth factor receptor positive (EGFR+) NSCLC, and PD-1 agents are evaluated in EGFR- NSCLC.
The report is a draft version of the Evidence Report that will serve as the basis for deliberation and discussion at an upcoming public meeting of the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (Midwest CEPAC) on October 20, 2016.
ICER is committed to engaging with all stakeholders in a thorough and transparent manner. Before completing this Draft Evidence Report, ICER reached out to key stakeholders, including patient groups, clinical experts, and the manufacturers of the drugs under review to engage them in the process. ICER also opened a Draft Scoping Document to public comment for a three-week period. The current draft report incorporates input received from patients, clinicians, manufacturers, and other stakeholders through each of these opportunities for engagement.
The Draft Evidence Report, as well as the accompanying voting questions, will be open to public comment until September 16, 2016 at 5PM ET. All stakeholders are invited to submit formal comments. Comments should be emailed to firstname.lastname@example.org. Guidelines for submitting public comments, including formatting specifications, are available on the ICER website. ICER will review all comments received and incorporate any needed changes in the Evidence Reports that will be posted on or about September 28, 2016. All comments received will be posted publicly along with the Evidence Report.
The Evidence Report, including value-based price benchmarks for the treatments under review, will be the subject of the October 20th Midwest CEPAC public meeting. The independent Council will vote on key questions raised in the reports, and a policy roundtable will discuss recommendations to apply the evidence to policy and practice.
During the public meeting, there will be a limited amount of time available for interested stakeholders to make an oral comment on the report. Beginning today, requests to submit oral comment are being accepted on a rolling basis. All requests must be emailed to email@example.com by 5PM on Friday, September 16, 2016. For more information about registering for oral comment, please visit our website.
More information on our methods for public engagement can be found here.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent non-profit research institute that produces reports analyzing the evidence on the effectiveness and value of drugs and other medical services. ICER’s reports include evidence-based calculations of prices for new drugs that accurately reflect the degree of improvement expected in long-term patient outcomes, while also highlighting price levels that might contribute to unaffordable short-term cost growth for the overall health care system.
ICER’s reports incorporate extensive input from all stakeholders and are the subject of public hearings through three core programs: the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (Midwest CEPAC) and the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC). These independent panels review ICER’s reports at public meetings to deliberate on the evidence and develop recommendations for how patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers can improve the quality and value of health care. For more information about ICER, please visit ICER’s website.