Literature DB >> 26502985

A Framework for Prioritizing Research Investments in Precision Medicine.

Anirban Basu1,2, Josh J Carlson1, David L Veenstra1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The adoption of precision medicine (PM) has been limited in practice to date, and yet its promise has attracted research investments. Developing foundational economic approaches for directing proper use of PM and stimulating growth in this area from multiple perspectives is thus quite timely.
METHODS: Building on our previously developed expected value of individualized care (EVIC) framework, we conceptualize new decision-relevant metrics to better understand and forecast the expected value of PM. Several aspects of behavior at the patient, physician, and payer levels are considered that can inform the rate and manner in which PM innovations diffuse throughout the relevant population. We illustrate this framework and the methods using a retrospective evaluation of the use of OncotypeDx genomic test among breast cancer patients.
RESULTS: The enriched metrics can help inform many facets of PM decision making, such as evaluating alternative reimbursement levels for PM tests, implementation and education programs for physicians and patients, and decisions around research investments by manufacturers and public entities. We replicated prior published results on evaluation of OncotypeDx among breast cancer patients but also illustrated that those results are based on assumptions that are often not met in practice. Instead, we show how incorporating more practical aspects of behavior around PM could lead to drastically different estimates of value.
CONCLUSION: We believe that the framework and the methods presented can provide decision makers with more decision-relevant tools to explore the value of PM. There is a growing recognition that data on adoption is important to decision makers. More research is needed to develop prediction models for potential diffusion of PM technologies.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EVIC; breast cancer; diffusion; genomic test; precision medicine

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26502985      PMCID: PMC5845804          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15610780

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  39 in total

1.  The long and winding road to warfarin pharmacogenetic testing.

Authors:  Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Deepak Voora
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  John Hornberger; Leon E Cosler; Gary H Lyman
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.229

3.  Gene expression profiling and breast cancer care: what are the potential benefits and policy implications?

Authors:  Nina Oestreicher; Scott D Ramsey; Hannah M Linden; Jeannine S McCune; Laura J van't Veer; Wylie Burke; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 8.822

4.  Individualization at the heart of comparative effectiveness research: the time for i-CER has come.

Authors:  Anirban Basu
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Personalized medicine in the era of genomics.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Bruce M Psaty
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-10-10       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Initial Trends in the Use of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay for Patients With Breast Cancer in the Medicare Population, 2005-2009.

Authors:  Michaela A Dinan; Xiaojuan Mi; Shelby D Reed; Bradford R Hirsch; Gary H Lyman; Lesley H Curtis
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 31.777

7.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of recurrence score-guided treatment using a 21-gene assay in early breast cancer.

Authors:  Daphne T Tsoi; Miho Inoue; Catherine M Kelly; Sunil Verma; Kathleen I Pritchard
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2010-04-26

8.  A pharmacogenetic versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing.

Authors:  Stephen E Kimmel; Benjamin French; Scott E Kasner; Julie A Johnson; Jeffrey L Anderson; Brian F Gage; Yves D Rosenberg; Charles S Eby; Rosemary A Madigan; Robert B McBane; Sherif Z Abdel-Rahman; Scott M Stevens; Steven Yale; Emile R Mohler; Margaret C Fang; Vinay Shah; Richard B Horenstein; Nita A Limdi; James A S Muldowney; Jaspal Gujral; Patrice Delafontaine; Robert J Desnick; Thomas L Ortel; Henny H Billett; Robert C Pendleton; Nancy L Geller; Jonathan L Halperin; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Michael D Caldwell; Robert M Califf; Jonas H Ellenberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing to predict treatment response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor.

Authors:  Madlaina Costa-Scharplatz; Antoinette D I van Asselt; Lucas M Bachmann; Alfons G H Kessels; Johan L Severens
Journal:  Pharmacogenet Genomics       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 10.  Exome sequencing: the sweet spot before whole genomes.

Authors:  Jamie K Teer; James C Mullikin
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 6.150

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Implementing Precision Medicine: The Ethical Challenges.

Authors:  Diane M Korngiebel; Kenneth E Thummel; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Trends Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 14.819

Review 2.  Tools for the Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine: A Scoping Review of Frameworks for Valuing Heterogeneity-Informed Decisions.

Authors:  Reka E Pataky; Stirling Bryan; Mohsen Sadatsafavi; Stuart Peacock; Dean A Regier
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 4.558

Review 3.  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

4.  Testing for a Sweet Spot in Randomized Trials.

Authors:  Donald A Redelmeier; Deva Thiruchelvam; Robert J Tibshirani
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 5.  Biomarkers for the Prediction and Judgement of Sepsis and Sepsis Complications: A Step towards precision medicine?

Authors:  Thilo von Groote; Melanie Meersch-Dini
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 4.964

6.  A two-stage prediction model for heterogeneous effects of treatments.

Authors:  Konstantina Chalkou; Ewout Steyerberg; Matthias Egger; Andrea Manca; Fabio Pellegrini; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 2.497

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.