Issues surrounding the health economic evaluation of genomic technologies

被引:85
作者
Buchanan, James [1 ]
Wordsworth, Sarah [1 ]
Schuh, Anna [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oxford, Hlth Econ Res Ctr, Nuffield Dept Populat Hlth, Oxford OX3 7LF, Oxon, England
[2] Churchill Hosp, Oxford Canc & Haematol Ctr, Oxford OX3 7LE, Oxon, England
基金
英国惠康基金;
关键词
cost-benefit analysis; cost-effectiveness analysis; costs; economic evaluation; effectiveness; extra-welfarism; genetics; genomics; outcomes; review; welfarism; COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; POSITIVE BREAST-CANCER; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; CLINICAL-PRACTICE; COLORECTAL-CANCER; DECISION-MAKING; LYNCH SYNDROME; GENETIC TESTS; INFORMATION; CHALLENGES;
D O I
10.2217/pgs.13.183
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Aim: Genomic interventions could enable improved disease stratification and individually tailored therapies. However, they have had a limited impact on clinical practice to date due to a lack of evidence, particularly economic evidence. This is partly because health economists are yet to reach consensus on whether existing methods are sufficient to evaluate genomic technologies. As different approaches may produce conflicting adoption decisions, clarification is urgently required. This article summarizes the methodological issues associated with conducting economic evaluations of genomic interventions. Materials & methods: A structured literature review was conducted to identify references that considered the methodological challenges faced when conducting economic evaluations of genomic interventions. Results: Methodological challenges related to the analytical approach included the choice of comparator, perspective and timeframe. Challenges in costing centered around the need to collect a broad range of costs, frequently, in a data-limited environment. Measuring outcomes is problematic as standard measures have limited applicability, however, alternative metrics (e.g., personal utility) are underdeveloped and alternative approaches (e.g., cost-benefit analysis) underused. Effectiveness data quality is weak and challenging to incorporate into standard economic analyses, while little is known about patient and clinician behavior in this context. Comprehensive value of information analyses are likely to be helpful. Conclusion: Economic evaluations of genomic technologies present a particular challenge for health economists. New methods may be required to resolve these issues, but the evidence to justify alternative approaches is yet to be produced. This should be the focus of future work in this field. Original submitted 30 July 2013; Revision submitted 12 September 2013
引用
收藏
页码:1833 / 1847
页数:15
相关论文
共 76 条
[1]   Real-world comparative economics of a 12-gene assay for prognosis in stage II colon cancer [J].
Alberts, Steven R. ;
Yu, Tiffany ;
Behrens, Robert J. ;
Renfro, Lindsay Anne ;
Srivastava, Geetika ;
Soori, Gamini S. ;
Dakhil, Shaker R. ;
Mowat, Rex Bradford ;
Kuebler, J. Phillip ;
Kim, George P. ;
Mazurczak, Miroslaw ;
Hornberger, John C. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 31 (04)
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2011, GENOME ASSEMBLY NEXT
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2006, FAM BREAST CANC CLAS
[4]  
[Anonymous], REAL POT STRAT MED
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2009, GEN MED
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2012, GEN TEST
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2012, ANN REPORT
[8]   Genetic screening for reproductive planning: Methodological and conceptual issues in policy analysis [J].
Asch, DA ;
Hershey, JC ;
Pauly, MV ;
Patton, JP ;
Jedrziewski, MK ;
Mennuti, MT .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 1996, 86 (05) :684-690
[9]   A risk-benefit analysis of factor V Leiden testing to improve pregnancy outcomes: a case study of the capabilities of decision modeling in genomics [J].
Bajaj, Preeti S. ;
Veenstra, David L. .
GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2013, 15 (05) :374-381
[10]   Molecular Genetics and Economics [J].
Beauchamp, Jonathan P. ;
Cesarini, David ;
Johannesson, Magnus ;
van der Loos, Matthijs J. H. M. ;
Koellinger, Philipp D. ;
Groenen, Patrick J. F. ;
Fowler, James H. ;
Rosenquist, J. Niels ;
Thurik, A. Roy ;
Christakis, Nicholas A. .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 2011, 25 (04) :57-82