Assessing the Cost-effectiveness of Precision Medicine: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal BMJ Open

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2022 Apr 6

PMID 35383079

Authors

Wenjia Chen

Thunyarat Anothaisintawee

Dimple Butani

Yi Wang

Yaroslava Zemlyanska

Chong Boon Nigel Wong

Suchin Virabhak

M A Hrishikesh

Yot Teerawattananon

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Precision medicine (PM) involves gene testing to identify disease risk, enable early diagnosis or guide therapeutic choice, and targeted gene therapy. We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the cost-effectiveness profile of PM stratified by intervention type, identify sources of heterogeneity in the value-for-money of PM.

Methods And Analysis: We will perform a systematic search in Embase, MEDLINE, EconLit and CRD databases for studies published in English language or with translation in English between 1 January 2011 and 8 July 2021 on the topic of cost-effectiveness analysis of PM interventions. The focus will be on studies that reported health and economic outcomes. Study quality will be assessed using the Biases in Economic Studies checklist. The incremental net benefit of PM screening, diagnostic, treatment-targeting and therapeutic interventions over conventional strategies will be respectively pooled across studies using a random-effect model if heterogeneity is present, otherwise a fixed-effect model. Subgroup analyses will be performed based on disease area, WHO region and World Bank country-income level. Additionally, we will identify the potential sources of heterogeneity with random-effect meta-regressions. Finally, biases will be detected using jackknife sensitivity analysis, funnel plot assessment and Egger's tests.

Ethics And Dissemination: For this type of study ethics approval or formal consent is not required. The results will be disseminated at various presentations and feedback sessions, in conference abstracts and manuscripts that will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021272956.

Citing Articles

Exploratory Cost-Utility Analysis of a 37-Gene Panel Versus Usual Care to Guide Therapy for Patients with Intermediate-Risk Myeloid Malignancies.

Lindsay D, Henden A, Nelles R, Elliott T, Collins L Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2024; .

PMID: 39532783 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00927-8.

Identification and Application of Emerging Biomarkers in Treatment of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Systematic Review.

Restrepo J, Martinez Guevara D, Pareja Lopez A, Montenegro Palacios J, Liscano Y Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(13).

PMID: 39001401 PMC: 11240412. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16132338.

Precision Medicine-Are We There Yet? A Narrative Review of Precision Medicine's Applicability in Primary Care.

Evans W, Meslin E, Kai J, Qureshi N J Pers Med. 2024; 14(4).

PMID: 38673045 PMC: 11051552. DOI: 10.3390/jpm14040418.

Mapping the value for money of precision medicine: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Chen W, Boon Wong N, Wang Y, Zemlyanska Y, Butani D, Virabhak S Front Public Health. 2023; 11:1151504.

PMID: 38074712 PMC: 10704154. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1151504.

Expanding access to high-cost medicines under the Universal Health Coverage scheme in Thailand: review of current practices and recommendations.

Butani D, Faradiba D, Dabak S, Isaranuwatchai W, Huang-Ku E, Pachanee K J Pharm Policy Pract. 2023; 16(1):138.

PMID: 37936171 PMC: 10631213. DOI: 10.1186/s40545-023-00643-z.

References

Berm E, de Looff M, Wilffert B, Boersma C, Annemans L, Vegter S . Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature. PLoS One. 2016; 11(1):e0146262. PMC: 4709231. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146262. View

Vellekoop H, Huygens S, Versteegh M, Szilberhorn L, Zelei T, Nagy B . Guidance for the Harmonisation and Improvement of Economic Evaluations of Personalised Medicine. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021; 39(7):771-788. PMC: 8200346. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01010-z. View

DAndrea E, Marzuillo C, Pelone F, De Vito C, Villari P . Genetic testing and economic evaluations: a systematic review of the literature. Epidemiol Prev. 2015; 39(4 Suppl 1):45-50. View

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015; 350:g7647. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7647. View

Bucher H, Guyatt G, Griffith L, Walter S . The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50(6):683-91. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00049-8. View

Wright S, Paulden M, Payne K . Implementing Interventions with Varying Marginal Cost-Effectiveness: An Application in Precision Medicine. Med Decis Making. 2020; 40(7):924-938. PMC: 7583450. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20954391. View

Schleidgen S, Klingler C, Bertram T, Rogowski W, Marckmann G . What is personalized medicine: sharpening a vague term based on a systematic literature review. BMC Med Ethics. 2013; 14:55. PMC: 3878093. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-55. View

Adarkwah C, van Gils P, Hiligsmann M, Evers S . Risk of bias in model-based economic evaluations: the ECOBIAS checklist. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015; 16(4):513-23. DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2015.1103185. View

Ginsburg G, Phillips K . Precision Medicine: From Science To Value. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018; 37(5):694-701. PMC: 5989714. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1624. View

10.

Chae Y, Arya A, Chiec L, Shah H, Rosenberg A, Patel S . Challenges and future of biomarker tests in the era of precision oncology: Can we rely on immunohistochemistry (IHC) or fluorescence hybridization (FISH) to select the optimal patients for matched therapy?. Oncotarget. 2017; 8(59):100863-100898. PMC: 5725070. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.19809. View

11.

Plothner M, Ribbentrop D, Hartman J, Frank M . Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomic and Pharmacogenetic Test-Guided Personalized Therapies: A Systematic Review of the Approved Active Substances for Personalized Medicine in Germany. Adv Ther. 2016; 33(9):1461-80. PMC: 5020122. DOI: 10.1007/s12325-016-0376-8. View

12.

IJzerman M, Koffijberg H, Fenwick E, Krahn M . Emerging Use of Early Health Technology Assessment in Medical Product Development: A Scoping Review of the Literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017; 35(7):727-740. PMC: 5488152. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0509-1. View

13.

Crespo C, Monleon A, Diaz W, Rios M . Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14:139. PMC: 4292992. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-139. View

14.

Yan S, Liu R, Jin H, Liu X, Ye J, Shan L . "Omics" in pharmaceutical research: overview, applications, challenges, and future perspectives. Chin J Nat Med. 2015; 13(1):3-21. DOI: 10.1016/S1875-5364(15)60002-4. View

15.

Payne K, Eden M, Davison N, Bakker E . Toward health technology assessment of whole-genome sequencing diagnostic tests: challenges and solutions. Per Med. 2018; 14(3):235-247. DOI: 10.2217/pme-2016-0089. View

16.

Silver E, Niell-Swiller M . Should all patients undergoing genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer syndromes be offered a multigene panel?. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 34(1):36-40. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000764. View

17.

DerSimonian R, Laird N . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3):177-88. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. View

18.

Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D . Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013; 346:f1049. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f1049. View

19.

Wang Y, Rattanavipapong W, Teerawattananon Y . Using health technology assessment to set priority, inform target product profiles, and design clinical study for health innovation. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2021; 172:121000. PMC: 8524319. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121000. View