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

ObjectiveThis study aimed to quantify heterogeneity in the value for money of precision medicine (PM) by application types across contexts and conditions and to quantify sources of heterogeneity to areas of particular promises or concerns as the field of PM moves forward.MethodsA systemic search was performed in Embase, Medline, EconLit, and CRD databases for studies published between 2011 and 2021 on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of PM interventions. Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time GDP per capita of each study country, the net monetary benefit (NMB) of PM was pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Sources of heterogeneity and study biases were examined using random-effects meta-regressions, jackknife sensitivity analysis, and the biases in economic studies checklist.ResultsAmong the 275 unique CEAs of PM, publicly sponsored studies found neither genetic testing nor gene therapy cost-effective in general, which was contradictory to studies funded by commercial entities and early stage evaluations. Evidence of PM being cost-effective was concentrated in a genetic test for screening, diagnosis, or as companion diagnostics (pooled NMBs, $48,152,$8,869, 5,693, p < 0.001), in the form of multigene panel testing (pooled NMBs = 31,026, p &lt; 0.001), which only applied to a few disease areas such as cancer and high-income countries. Incremental effectiveness was an essential value driver for varied genetic tests but not gene therapy.ConclusionPrecision medicine’s value for money across application types and contexts was difficult to conclude from published studies, which might be subject to systematic bias. The conducting and reporting of CEA of PM should be locally based and standardized for meaningful comparisons

Effectiveness of initiating biologics in severe asthma patients with high steroid exposure

Peer reviewedPostprin

Characterization of patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry with high steroid exposure who did or did not initiate biologic therapy

Peer reviewedPostprin

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Evaluating the value for money of precision medicine from early cycle to market access : a comprehensive review of approaches and challenges

Objectives: This study aimed to perform a comprehensive review of modeling approaches and methodological and policy challenges in the economic evaluation (EE) of precision medicine (PM) across clinical stages. Methods: First, a systematic review was performed to assess the approaches of EEs in the past 10 years. Next, a targeted review of methodological articles was conducted for methodological and policy challenges in performing EEs of PM. All findings were synthesized into a structured framework that focused on patient population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Time, Equity and ethics, Adaptability and Modeling aspects, named the “PICOTEAM” framework. Finally, a stakeholder consultation was conducted to understand the major determinants of decision making in PM investment. Results: In 39 methodological articles, we identified major challenges to the EE of PM. These challenges include that PM applications involve complex and evolving clinical decision space, that clinical evidence is sparse because of small subgroups and complex pathways in PM settings, a one-time PM application may have lifetime or intergenerational impacts but long-term evidence is often unavailable, and that equity and ethics concerns are exceptional. In 275 EEs of PM, current approaches did not sufficiently capture the value of PM compared with targeted therapies, nor did they differentiate Early EEs from Conventional EEs. Finally, policy makers perceived the budget impact, cost savings, and cost-effectiveness of PM as the most important determinants in decision making. Conclusions: There is an urgent need to modify existing guidelines or develop a new reference case that fits into the new healthcare paradigm of PM to guide decision making in research and development and market access

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of precision medicine: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057537BMJ OPEN12

Data_Sheet_2_Mapping the value for money of precision medicine: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.DOCX

ObjectiveThis study aimed to quantify heterogeneity in the value for money of precision medicine (PM) by application types across contexts and conditions and to quantify sources of heterogeneity to areas of particular promises or concerns as the field of PM moves forward.MethodsA systemic search was performed in Embase, Medline, EconLit, and CRD databases for studies published between 2011 and 2021 on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of PM interventions. Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time GDP per capita of each study country, the net monetary benefit (NMB) of PM was pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Sources of heterogeneity and study biases were examined using random-effects meta-regressions, jackknife sensitivity analysis, and the biases in economic studies checklist.ResultsAmong the 275 unique CEAs of PM, publicly sponsored studies found neither genetic testing nor gene therapy cost-effective in general, which was contradictory to studies funded by commercial entities and early stage evaluations. Evidence of PM being cost-effective was concentrated in a genetic test for screening, diagnosis, or as companion diagnostics (pooled NMBs, $48,152,$8,869, $5,693, p ConclusionPrecision medicine’s value for money across application types and contexts was difficult to conclude from published studies, which might be subject to systematic bias. The conducting and reporting of CEA of PM should be locally based and standardized for meaningful comparisons.</p

Table_4_Mapping the value for money of precision medicine: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.DOCX

ObjectiveThis study aimed to quantify heterogeneity in the value for money of precision medicine (PM) by application types across contexts and conditions and to quantify sources of heterogeneity to areas of particular promises or concerns as the field of PM moves forward.MethodsA systemic search was performed in Embase, Medline, EconLit, and CRD databases for studies published between 2011 and 2021 on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of PM interventions. Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time GDP per capita of each study country, the net monetary benefit (NMB) of PM was pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Sources of heterogeneity and study biases were examined using random-effects meta-regressions, jackknife sensitivity analysis, and the biases in economic studies checklist.ResultsAmong the 275 unique CEAs of PM, publicly sponsored studies found neither genetic testing nor gene therapy cost-effective in general, which was contradictory to studies funded by commercial entities and early stage evaluations. Evidence of PM being cost-effective was concentrated in a genetic test for screening, diagnosis, or as companion diagnostics (pooled NMBs, $48,152,$8,869, $5,693, p ConclusionPrecision medicine’s value for money across application types and contexts was difficult to conclude from published studies, which might be subject to systematic bias. The conducting and reporting of CEA of PM should be locally based and standardized for meaningful comparisons.</p

Table_5_Mapping the value for money of precision medicine: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.DOCX

ObjectiveThis study aimed to quantify heterogeneity in the value for money of precision medicine (PM) by application types across contexts and conditions and to quantify sources of heterogeneity to areas of particular promises or concerns as the field of PM moves forward.MethodsA systemic search was performed in Embase, Medline, EconLit, and CRD databases for studies published between 2011 and 2021 on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of PM interventions. Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time GDP per capita of each study country, the net monetary benefit (NMB) of PM was pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Sources of heterogeneity and study biases were examined using random-effects meta-regressions, jackknife sensitivity analysis, and the biases in economic studies checklist.ResultsAmong the 275 unique CEAs of PM, publicly sponsored studies found neither genetic testing nor gene therapy cost-effective in general, which was contradictory to studies funded by commercial entities and early stage evaluations. Evidence of PM being cost-effective was concentrated in a genetic test for screening, diagnosis, or as companion diagnostics (pooled NMBs, $48,152,$8,869, $5,693, p ConclusionPrecision medicine’s value for money across application types and contexts was difficult to conclude from published studies, which might be subject to systematic bias. The conducting and reporting of CEA of PM should be locally based and standardized for meaningful comparisons.</p

Image_1_Mapping the value for money of precision medicine: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.PDF

ObjectiveThis study aimed to quantify heterogeneity in the value for money of precision medicine (PM) by application types across contexts and conditions and to quantify sources of heterogeneity to areas of particular promises or concerns as the field of PM moves forward.MethodsA systemic search was performed in Embase, Medline, EconLit, and CRD databases for studies published between 2011 and 2021 on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of PM interventions. Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time GDP per capita of each study country, the net monetary benefit (NMB) of PM was pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Sources of heterogeneity and study biases were examined using random-effects meta-regressions, jackknife sensitivity analysis, and the biases in economic studies checklist.ResultsAmong the 275 unique CEAs of PM, publicly sponsored studies found neither genetic testing nor gene therapy cost-effective in general, which was contradictory to studies funded by commercial entities and early stage evaluations. Evidence of PM being cost-effective was concentrated in a genetic test for screening, diagnosis, or as companion diagnostics (pooled NMBs, $48,152,$8,869, $5,693, p ConclusionPrecision medicine’s value for money across application types and contexts was difficult to conclude from published studies, which might be subject to systematic bias. The conducting and reporting of CEA of PM should be locally based and standardized for meaningful comparisons.</p