Literature DB >> 24034308

Current methodological issues in the economic assessment of personalized medicine.

Lieven Annemans1, Ken Redekop, Katherine Payne.   

Abstract

There is a need for methodological scrutiny in the economic assessment of personalized medicine. In this article, we present a list of 10 specific issues that we argue pose specific methodological challenges that require careful consideration when designing and conducting robust model-based economic evaluations in the context of personalized medicine. Key issues are related to the correct framing of the research question, interpretation of test results, data collection of medical management options after obtaining test results, and expressing the value of tests. The need to formulate the research question clearly and be explicit and specific about the technology being evaluated is essential because various test kits can have the same purpose and yet differ in predictive value, costs, and relevance to practice and patient populations. The correct reporting of sensitivity/specificity, and especially the false negatives and false positives (which are population dependent), of the investigated tests is also considered as a key element. This requires additional structural complexity to establish the relationship between the test result and the consecutive treatment changes and outcomes. This process involves translating the test characteristics into clinical utility, and therefore outlining the clinical and economic consequences of true and false positives and true and false negatives. Information on treatment patterns and on their costs and outcomes, however, is often lacking, especially for false-positive and false-negative test results. The analysis can even become very complex if different tests are combined or sequentially used. This potential complexity can be handled by explicitly showing how these tests are going to be used in practice and then working with the combined sensitivities and specificities of the tests. Each of these issues leads to a higher degree of uncertainty in economic models designed to assess the added value of personalized medicine compared with their simple pharmaceutical counterparts. To some extent, these problems can be overcome by performing early population-level simulations, which can lead to the identification and collection of data on critical input parameters. Finally, it is important to understand that a test strategy does not necessarily lead to more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). It is possible that the test will lead to not only fewer QALYs but also fewer costs, which can be defined as "decremental" cost per QALYs. Different decision criteria are needed to interpret such results.
© 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).

Entities:  

Keywords:  guidelines; health economics; modeling; personalized medicine

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24034308     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  26 in total

1.  Value of a Hypothetical Pharmacogenomic Test for the Diagnosis of Statin-Induced Myopathy in Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk.

Authors:  Dominic Mitchell; Jason R Guertin; Jacques LeLorier
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.074

Review 2.  Can genomic medicine improve financial sustainability of health systems?

Authors:  Christine Y Lu; Joshua P Cohen
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.074

3.  Some economics on personalized and predictive medicine.

Authors:  F Antoñanzas; C A Juárez-Castelló; R Rodríguez-Ibeas
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-11-08

4.  Economic evaluation of personalized medicine: a call for real-world data.

Authors:  Robert Terkola; Fernando Antoñanzas; Maarten Postma
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-12

5.  "What Goes Around Comes Around": Lessons Learned from Economic Evaluations of Personalized Medicine Applied to Digital Medicine.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Michael P Douglas; Julia R Trosman; Deborah A Marshall
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 5.725

6.  Personalized Medicine and Pay for Performance: Should Pharmaceutical Firms be Fully Penalized when Treatment Fails?

Authors:  Fernando Antoñanzas; Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas; Carmelo A Juárez-Castelló
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  Methodological Issues in Assessing the Economic Value of Next-Generation Sequencing Tests: Many Challenges and Not Enough Solutions.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Patricia A Deverka; Deborah A Marshall; Sarah Wordsworth; Dean A Regier; Kurt D Christensen; James Buchanan
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 8.  Cost-effectiveness analyses of genetic and genomic diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Katherine Payne; Sean P Gavan; Stuart J Wright; Alexander J Thompson
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 53.242

9.  The cost of molecular-guided therapy in oncology: a prospective cost study alongside the MOSCATO trial.

Authors:  Arnaud Pagès; Stéphanie Foulon; Zhaomin Zou; Ludovic Lacroix; François Lemare; Thierry de Baère; Christophe Massard; Jean-Charles Soria; Julia Bonastre
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Concepts of 'personalization' in personalized medicine: implications for economic evaluation.

Authors:  Wolf Rogowski; Katherine Payne; Petra Schnell-Inderst; Andrea Manca; Ursula Rochau; Beate Jahn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Reiner Leidl; Uwe Siebert
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.