Kathryn A Phillips1, Patricia A Deverka2, Deborah A Marshall3, Sarah Wordsworth4, Dean A Regier5, Kurt D Christensen6, James Buchanan4. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy; Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS); UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy; and UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: kathryn.Phillips@ucsf.edu. 2. American Institutes for Research, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. Nuffield Department of Population Health, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 5. Cancer Control BC, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 6. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests has been increasing, but few studies have examined their economic value. Several studies have noted that there are methodological challenges to conducting economic evaluations of NGS tests. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine key methodological challenges for conducting economic evaluations of NGS tests, prioritize these challenges for future research, and identify how studies have attempted solutions to address these challenges. METHODS: We identified challenges for economic evaluations of NGS tests using prior literature and expert judgment of the co-authors. We used a modified Delphi assessment to prioritize challenges, based on importance and probability of resolution. Using a structured literature review and article extraction we then assessed whether published economic evaluations had addressed these challenges. RESULTS: We identified 11 challenges for conducting economic evaluations of NGS tests. The experts identified three challenges as the top priorities for future research: complex model structure, timeframe, and type of analysis and comparators used. Of the 15 published studies included in our literature review, four studies described specific solutions relevant to five of the 11 identified challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Major methodological challenges to economic evaluations of NGS tests remain to be addressed. Our results can be used to guide future research and inform decision-makers on how to prioritize research on the economic assessment of NGS tests.
BACKGROUND: Clinical use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests has been increasing, but few studies have examined their economic value. Several studies have noted that there are methodological challenges to conducting economic evaluations of NGS tests. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine key methodological challenges for conducting economic evaluations of NGS tests, prioritize these challenges for future research, and identify how studies have attempted solutions to address these challenges. METHODS: We identified challenges for economic evaluations of NGS tests using prior literature and expert judgment of the co-authors. We used a modified Delphi assessment to prioritize challenges, based on importance and probability of resolution. Using a structured literature review and article extraction we then assessed whether published economic evaluations had addressed these challenges. RESULTS: We identified 11 challenges for conducting economic evaluations of NGS tests. The experts identified three challenges as the top priorities for future research: complex model structure, timeframe, and type of analysis and comparators used. Of the 15 published studies included in our literature review, four studies described specific solutions relevant to five of the 11 identified challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Major methodological challenges to economic evaluations of NGS tests remain to be addressed. Our results can be used to guide future research and inform decision-makers on how to prioritize research on the economic assessment of NGS tests.
Authors: Don Husereau; Deborah A Marshall; Adrian R Levy; Stuart Peacock; Jeffrey S Hoch Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Brett Doble; Thomas John; David Thomas; Andrew Fellowes; Stephen Fox; Paula Lorgelly Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Carlos J Gallego; Brian H Shirts; Caroline S Bennette; Greg Guzauskas; Laura M Amendola; Martha Horike-Pyne; Fuki M Hisama; Colin C Pritchard; William M Grady; Wylie Burke; Gail P Jarvik; David L Veenstra Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathryn A Phillips; Uri Ladabaum; Mark J Pletcher; Deborah A Marshall; Michael P Douglas Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Yonghong Li; Lance A Bare; Richard A Bender; John J Sninsky; Leslie S Wilson; James J Devlin; Frederic M Waldman Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.074
Authors: Deborah Schofield; Khurshid Alam; Lyndal Douglas; Rupendra Shrestha; Daniel G MacArthur; Mark Davis; Nigel G Laing; Nigel F Clarke; Joshua Burns; Sandra T Cooper; Kathryn N North; Sarah A Sandaradura; Gina L O'Grady Journal: NPJ Genom Med Date: 2017-03-03 Impact factor: 8.617
Authors: Zoë P Mackay; Dmitry Dukhovny; Kathryn A Phillips; Alan H Beggs; Robert C Green; Richard B Parad; Kurt D Christensen Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Deborah A Marshall; Luiza R Grazziotin; Dean A Regier; Sarah Wordsworth; James Buchanan; Kathryn Phillips; Maarten Ijzerman Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Talitha Feenstra; Isaac Corro-Ramos; Dominique Hamerlijnck; George van Voorn; Salah Ghabri Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: May Ee Png; Miaoqing Yang; Nia Roberts; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Oliver Rivero-Arias; Stavros Petrou Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Robin Z Hayeems; David Dimmock; David Bick; John W Belmont; Robert C Green; Brendan Lanpher; Vaidehi Jobanputra; Roberto Mendoza; Shashi Kulkarni; Megan E Grove; Stacie L Taylor; Euan Ashley Journal: NPJ Genom Med Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 8.617
Authors: Michiel van de Ven; Maarten IJzerman; Valesca Retèl; Wim van Harten; Hendrik Koffijberg Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2022-03-27 Impact factor: 4.615