IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i10d10.1007_s40273-022-01176-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tools for the Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine: A Scoping Review of Frameworks for Valuing Heterogeneity-Informed Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Reka E. Pataky

    (BC Cancer Research Centre
    University of British Columbia)

  • Stirling Bryan

    (University of British Columbia
    Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute)

  • Mohsen Sadatsafavi

    (University of British Columbia)

  • Stuart Peacock

    (BC Cancer Research Centre
    Simon Fraser University)

  • Dean A. Regier

    (BC Cancer Research Centre
    University of British Columbia)

Abstract

Background and Objective Precision medicine highlights the importance of exploring heterogeneity in the effectiveness and costs of interventions. Our objective was to identify and compare frameworks for valuing heterogeneity-informed decisions, and consider their strengths and weaknesses for application to precision medicine. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify papers that proposed an analytical framework to place a value, in terms of costs and health benefits, on using heterogeneity to inform treatment selection. The search included English-language papers indexed in MEDLINE, Embase or EconLit, and a manual review of references and citations. We compared the frameworks qualitatively considering: the purpose and setting of the analysis; the types of precision medicine interventions where the framework could be applied; and the framework’s ability to address the methodological challenges of evaluating precision medicine. Results Four analytical frameworks were identified: value of stratification, value of heterogeneity, expected value of individualised care and loss with respect to efficient diffusion. Each framework is suited to slightly different settings and research questions. All focus on maximising net benefit, and quantify the opportunity cost of ignoring heterogeneity by comparing individualised or stratified decisions to a means-based population-wide decision. Where the frameworks differ is in their approaches to uncertainty, and in the additional metrics they consider. Conclusions Identifying and utilising heterogeneity is at the core of precision medicine, and the ability to quantify the value of heterogeneity-informed decisions is critical. Using an analytical framework to value heterogeneity will help provide evidence to inform investment in precision medicine interventions, appropriately capturing the value of targeted health interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Reka E. Pataky & Stirling Bryan & Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Stuart Peacock & Dean A. Regier, 2022. "Tools for the Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine: A Scoping Review of Frameworks for Valuing Heterogeneity-Informed Decisions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(10), pages 931-941, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01176-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01176-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01176-0
    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/s40273-022-01176-0?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. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    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. David Glynn & John Giardina & Julia Hatamyar & Ankur Pandya & Marta Soares & Noemi Kreif, 2024. "Integrating decision modeling and machine learning to inform treatment stratification," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(8), pages 1772-1792, August.

    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. Zachary Tirrell & Alicia Norman & Martin Hoyle & Sean Lybrand & Bonny Parkinson, 2024. "Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(11), pages 1287-1300, November.
    2. Banke-Thomas, Aduragbemi & Nieuwenhuis, Sonja & Ologun, Adesoji & Mortimore, Gordon & Mpakateni, Martin, 2019. "Embedding value-for-money in practice: a case study of a health pooled fund programme implemented in conflict-affected South Sudan," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101766, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Susanne Mayer & Noemi Kiss & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon, 2017. "Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    4. Alessandro G. Campolina & Luciana M. Rozman & Tassia C. Decimoni & Roseli Leandro & Hillegonda M. D. Novaes & Patrícia Coelho De Soárez, 2017. "Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 163-172, April.
    5. Banke-Thomas, Aduragbemi & Nieuwenhuis, Sonja & Ologun, Adesoji & Mortimore, Gordon & Mpakateni, Martin, 2019. "Embedding value-for-money in practice: A case study of a health pooled fund programme implemented in conflict-affected South Sudan," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    6. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    7. Lawrence Mwenge & Linda Sande & Collin Mangenah & Nurilign Ahmed & Sarah Kanema & Marc d’Elbée & Euphemia Sibanda & Thokozani Kalua & Gertrude Ncube & Cheryl C Johnson & Karin Hatzold & Frances M Cowa, 2017. "Costs of facility-based HIV testing in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, October.
    8. Valentin Brodszky & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Petra Baji & Fanni Rencz & Márta Péntek & Alexandru Rotar & Konstantin Tachkov & Susanne Mayer & Judit Simon & Maciej Niewada & Rok Hren & László Gulácsi, 2019. "Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 155-172, June.
    9. Andronis, Lazaros & Morgan, Cameron & Donaldson, Cam & Lancsar, Emily & Petrou, Stavros, 2023. "Views, obstacles, and uncertainties around the inclusion of children and young people's time in economic evaluations: Findings from an international survey of health economists," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 333(C).
    10. Jacob Smith, 2023. "Considering Risk Aversion in Economic Evaluation: A Rank Dependent Approach," Papers 2311.07905, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    11. Ulla Kou Griffiths & Rosa Legood & Catherine Pitt, 2016. "Comparison of Economic Evaluation Methods Across Low‐income, Middle‐income and High‐income Countries: What are the Differences and Why?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 29-41, February.
    12. Jonas Steel & Lode Godderis & Jeroen Luyten, 2018. "Methodological Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Occupational Health and Safety Programmes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-12, November.
    13. Gemma E. Shields & Paul Clarkson & Ash Bullement & Warren Stevens & Mark Wilberforce & Tracey Farragher & Arpana Verma & Linda M. Davies, 2024. "Advances in Addressing Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation: A Review of the Methods Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(7), pages 737-749, July.
    14. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & William Hollingworth & Joanna C. Thorn & Sian Noble & Judit Simon & Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Luis Salvador-, 2023. "Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 155-166, March.
    15. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    16. Paal Joranger & Arild Nesbakken & Halfdan Sorbye & Geir Hoff & Arne Oshaug & Eline Aas, 2020. "Survival and costs of colorectal cancer treatment and effects of changing treatment strategies: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 321-334, April.
    17. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    18. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    19. Laurence M. Djatche & Stefan Varga & Robert D. Lieberthal, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Aspirin Adherence for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 371-380, December.
    20. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.

    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:40:y:2022:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01176-0. 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.