» Articles » PMID: 31087278

Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2019 May 16
PMID 31087278
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Objective: Precision (stratified or personalised) medicine is underpinned by the premise that it is feasible to identify known heterogeneity using a specific test or algorithm in patient populations and to use this information to guide patient care to improve health and well-being. This study aimed to understand if, and how, previous economic evaluations of precision medicine had taken account of the impact of capacity constraints.

Methods: A meta-review was conducted of published systematic reviews of economic evaluations of precision medicine (test-treat interventions) and individual studies included in these reviews. Due to the volume of studies identified, a sample of papers published from 2007 to 2015 was collated. A narrative analysis identified whether potential capacity constraints were discussed qualitatively in the studies and, if relevant, which quantitative methods were used to account for capacity constraints.

Results: A total of 45 systematic reviews of economic evaluations of precision medicine were identified, from which 222 studies focusing on test-treat interventions, published between 2007 and 2015, were extracted. Of these studies, 33 (15%) qualitatively discussed the potential impact of capacity constraints, including budget constraints; quality of tests and the testing process; ease of use of tests in clinical practice; and decision uncertainty. Quantitative methods (nine studies) to account for capacity constraints included static methods such as capturing inefficiencies in trials or models and sensitivity analysis around model parameters; and dynamic methods, which allow the impact of capacity constraints on cost effectiveness to change over time.

Conclusions: Understanding the cost effectiveness of precision medicine is necessary, but not sufficient, evidence for its successful implementation. There are currently few examples of evaluations that have quantified the impact of capacity constraints, which suggests an area of focus for future research.

Citing Articles

Incorporating Resource Constraints in Health Economic Evaluations: Overview and Methodological Considerations.

Thokala P, Duarte H, Wright S, Husereau D, Durand-Zaleski I, Lindgren P Pharmacoecon Open. 2024; 9(2):161-178.

PMID: 39688639 PMC: 11865382. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00537-z.


Different Models, Same Results: Considerations When Choosing Between Approaches to Model Cost Effectiveness of Chimeric-Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Versus Standard of Care.

Gye A, De Abreu Lourenco R, Goodall S Pharmacoeconomics. 2024; 42(12):1359-1371.

PMID: 39243347 PMC: 11564325. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01430-7.


Economic Assessment in Resource-Constrained Systems: Individual-Level Simulation Model in Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Diabetic Macular Oedema.

Li T, Berdunov V, Hamilton R, Rojas Y, Buhrer C, Cox O Ophthalmol Ther. 2024; 13(10):2577-2597.

PMID: 39106031 PMC: 11408461. DOI: 10.1007/s40123-024-00999-8.


Virtual twin for healthcare management.

Polasek T Front Digit Health. 2023; 5:1246659.

PMID: 37781454 PMC: 10540783. DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1246659.


Capturing the Impact of Constraints on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cell and Gene Therapies: A Systematic Review.

Gavan S, Wright S, Thistlethwaite F, Payne K Pharmacoeconomics. 2023; 41(6):675-692.

PMID: 36905571 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01234-7.


References
1.
. Gene expression profiling for guiding adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in women with early breast cancer: an evidence-based and economic analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2012; 10(23):1-57. PMC: 3382301. View

2.
Perez-Ellis C, Goncalves A, Jacquemier J, Marty M, Girre V, Roche H . Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab (herceptin) in HER2-overexpressed metastatic breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2009; 32(5):492-8. DOI: 10.1097/COC.0b013e3181931277. View

3.
Ramsay C, Grant A, Wallace S, Garthwaite P, Monk A, Russell I . Assessment of the learning curve in health technologies. A systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001; 16(4):1095-108. DOI: 10.1017/s0266462300103149. View

4.
Weldon C, Trosman J, Gradishar W, Benson 3rd A, Schink J . Barriers to the use of personalized medicine in breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2012; 8(4):e24-31. PMC: 3396824. DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000448. View

5.
Chen A, Dowdy D . Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men: risk calculators for real-world decision-making. PLoS One. 2014; 9(10):e108742. PMC: 4186823. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108742. View