Deborah A Marshall1, Luiza R Grazziotin2, Dean A Regier3, Sarah Wordsworth4, James Buchanan4, Kathryn Phillips5, Maarten Ijzerman6. 1. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: damarsha@ucalgary.ca. 2. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Alberta Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK; National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, England, UK. 5. Center for Translational & Policy Research on Personalized Medicine, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy, San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at San Franciso, San Francisco, CA, USA. 6. Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands; Cancer Health Services Research, University of Melbourne Centre for Cancer Research, School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to describe the unique challenges and present potential solutions and approaches for economic evaluations of precision medicine (PM) interventions using simulation modeling methods. METHODS: Given the large and growing number of PM interventions and applications, methods are needed for economic evaluation of PM that can handle the complexity of cascading decisions and patient-specific heterogeneity reflected in the myriad testing and treatment pathways. Traditional approaches (eg, Markov models) have limitations, and other modeling techniques may be required to overcome these challenges. Dynamic simulation models, such as discrete event simulation and agent-based models, are used to design and develop mathematical representations of complex systems and intervention scenarios to evaluate the consequence of interventions over time from a systems perspective. RESULTS: Some of the methodological challenges of modeling PM can be addressed using dynamic simulation models. For example, issues regarding companion diagnostics, combining and sequencing of tests, and diagnostic performance of tests can be addressed by capturing patient-specific pathways in the context of care delivery. Issues regarding patient heterogeneity can be addressed by using patient-level simulation models. CONCLUSION: The economic evaluation of PM interventions poses unique methodological challenges that might require new solutions. Simulation models are well suited for economic evaluation in PM because they enable patient-level analyses and can capture the dynamics of interventions in complex systems specific to the context of healthcare service delivery.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to describe the unique challenges and present potential solutions and approaches for economic evaluations of precision medicine (PM) interventions using simulation modeling methods. METHODS: Given the large and growing number of PM interventions and applications, methods are needed for economic evaluation of PM that can handle the complexity of cascading decisions and patient-specific heterogeneity reflected in the myriad testing and treatment pathways. Traditional approaches (eg, Markov models) have limitations, and other modeling techniques may be required to overcome these challenges. Dynamic simulation models, such as discrete event simulation and agent-based models, are used to design and develop mathematical representations of complex systems and intervention scenarios to evaluate the consequence of interventions over time from a systems perspective. RESULTS: Some of the methodological challenges of modeling PM can be addressed using dynamic simulation models. For example, issues regarding companion diagnostics, combining and sequencing of tests, and diagnostic performance of tests can be addressed by capturing patient-specific pathways in the context of care delivery. Issues regarding patient heterogeneity can be addressed by using patient-level simulation models. CONCLUSION: The economic evaluation of PM interventions poses unique methodological challenges that might require new solutions. Simulation models are well suited for economic evaluation in PM because they enable patient-level analyses and can capture the dynamics of interventions in complex systems specific to the context of healthcare service delivery.
Authors: Deborah A Marshall; Lina Burgos-Liz; Maarten J IJzerman; William Crown; William V Padula; Peter K Wong; Kalyan S Pasupathy; Mitchell K Higashi; Nathaniel D Osgood Journal: Value Health Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Jonathan Karnon; James Stahl; Alan Brennan; J Jaime Caro; Javier Mar; Jörgen Möller Journal: Value Health Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: William Crown; Nasuh Buyukkaramikli; Praveen Thokala; Alec Morton; Mustafa Y Sir; Deborah A Marshall; Jon Tosh; William V Padula; Maarten J Ijzerman; Peter K Wong; Kalyan S Pasupathy Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: O Trédan; Q Wang; D Pissaloux; P Cassier; A de la Fouchardière; J Fayette; F Desseigne; I Ray-Coquard; C de la Fouchardière; D Frappaz; P-E Heudel; A Bonneville-Levard; A Fléchon; M Sarabi; P Guibert; T Bachelot; M Pérol; B You; N Bonnin; O Collard; C Leyronnas; V Attignon; C Baudet; E Sohier; J-P Villemin; A Viari; S Boyault; S Lantuejoul; S Paindavoine; I Treillleux; C Rodriguez; V Agrapart; V Corset; G Garin; S Chabaud; D Pérol; J-Y Blay Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Christopher James Sampson; Renée Arnold; Stirling Bryan; Philip Clarke; Sean Ekins; Anthony Hatswell; Neil Hawkins; Sue Langham; Deborah Marshall; Mohsen Sadatsafavi; Will Sullivan; Edward C F Wilson; Tim Wrightson Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 4.981
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
Authors: Auliasari M Utami; Farida Rendrayani; Qisty A Khoiry; Fitri Alfiani; Arif S W Kusuma; Auliya A Suwantika Journal: J Multidiscip Healthc Date: 2022-09-13
Authors: Robin Z Hayeems; Francois Bernier; Kym M Boycott; Taila Hartley; Christine Michaels-Igbokwe; Deborah A Marshall Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-10-10 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Raymond Henderson; Peter Keeling; Declan French; Dave Smart; Richard Sullivan; Mark Lawler Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 6.603