Current Methodological Issues in the Economic Assessment of Personalized Medicine

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.

Improvement in risk prediction, early detection and prevention of breast cancer in the NHS Breast Screening Programme and family history clinics: a dual cohort study

“…Generating robust evidence to identify the predictive value of risk-scoring algorithms will be a common challenge as health-care systems embrace the move towards personalised medicine. 329 A further key assumption was the assumed independence between the estimated risk of developing breast cancer and subsequent rate at which breast cancer progresses. This has implications for the treatment strategies used by clinicians and the overall survival of women.…”

The economic case for precision medicine

“…The potential economic case for precision medicine is reliant on the amenability of clinicians to follow a protocol for testing [25,27,59]. Model-based economic evaluations may assume implicitly that diagnostic testing protocols are followed.…”

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

“…There remain several unsolved questions, previously described by a number of authors, that pose challenges to the application of economic evaluation to PM [5][6][7][8]. In particular, the main elements that require further research and consensus include [5][6][7][8]:…”