IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v36y2018i12d10.1007_s40273-018-0686-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Future of Precision Medicine: Potential Impacts for Health Technology Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • James Love-Koh

    (University of York
    University of York)

  • Alison Peel

    (University of York)

  • Juan Carlos Rejon-Parrilla

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • Kate Ennis

    (University of York
    University of Liverpool)

  • Rosemary Lovett

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • Andrea Manca

    (University of York
    Luxembourg Institute of Health)

  • Anastasia Chalkidou

    (Kings Technology Evaluation Centre)

  • Hannah Wood

    (University of York)

  • Matthew Taylor

    (University of York)

Abstract

Objective Precision medicine allows healthcare interventions to be tailored to groups of patients based on their disease susceptibility, diagnostic or prognostic information, or treatment response. We analysed what developments are expected in precision medicine over the next decade and considered the implications for health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Methods We performed a pragmatic literature search to account for the large size and wide scope of the precision medicine literature. We refined and enriched these results with a series of expert interviews up to 1 h in length, including representatives from HTA agencies, research councils and researchers designed to cover a wide spectrum of precision medicine applications and research. Results We identified 31 relevant papers and interviewed 13 experts. We found that three types of precision medicine are expected to emerge in clinical practice: complex algorithms, digital health applications and ‘omics’-based tests. These are expected to impact upon each stage of the HTA process, from scoping and modelling through to decision-making and review. The complex and uncertain treatment pathways associated with patient stratification and fast-paced technological innovation are central to these effects. Discussion Innovation in precision medicine promises substantial benefits but will change the way in which some health services are delivered and evaluated. The shelf life of guidance may decrease, structural uncertainty may increase and new equity considerations will emerge. As biomarker discovery accelerates and artificial intelligence-based technologies emerge, refinements to the methods and processes of evidence assessments will help to adapt and maintain the objective of investing in healthcare that is value for money.

Suggested Citation

  • James Love-Koh & Alison Peel & Juan Carlos Rejon-Parrilla & Kate Ennis & Rosemary Lovett & Andrea Manca & Anastasia Chalkidou & Hannah Wood & Matthew Taylor, 2018. "The Future of Precision Medicine: Potential Impacts for Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(12), pages 1439-1451, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0686-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0686-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0686-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-018-0686-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emma Cowles & Grace Marsden & Amanda Cole & Nancy Devlin, 2017. "A Review of NICE Methods and Processes Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Why the Differences and What is the Impact?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 469-477, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Junyi Wu & Shari Shang, 2020. "Managing Uncertainty in AI-Enabled Decision Making and Achieving Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Denicolai, Stefano & Previtali, Pietro, 2020. "Precision Medicine: Implications for value chains and business models in life sciences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    3. Doyeon Lee & Keunhwan Kim, 2022. "Public R&D Projects-Based Investment and Collaboration Framework for an Overarching South Korean National Strategy of Personalized Medicine," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-25, January.
    4. Li, Munan & Wang, Wenshu & Zhou, Keyu, 2021. "Exploring the technology emergence related to artificial intelligence: A perspective of coupling analyses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    5. Ioana Andreea Bogoslov & Sorina Corman & Anca Elena Lungu, 2024. "Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence Adoption for European Union Elderly in the Context of Digital Skills Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-34, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eve Wittenberg & Lyndon P. James & Lisa A. Prosser, 2019. "Spillover Effects on Caregivers’ and Family Members’ Utility: A Systematic Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 475-499, April.
    2. Dale, Elina & Evans, David B. & Gopinathan, Unni & Kurowski, Christoph & Norheim, Ole F. & Ottersen, Trygve & Voorhoeve, Alex, 2023. "Open and inclusive: fair processes for financing universal health coverage," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119795, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Francisca Crispi & Huseyin Naci & Eva Barkauskaite & Leeza Osipenko & Elias Mossialos, 2019. "Assessment of Devices, Diagnostics and Digital Technologies: A Review of NICE Medical Technologies Guidance," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 189-211, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0686-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.