Guidance for the Harmonisation and Improvement of Economic Evaluations of Personalised Medicine

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to develop guidance contributing to improved consistency and quality in economic evaluations of personalised medicine (PM), given current ambiguity about how to measure the value of PM as well as considerable variation in the methodology and reporting in economic evaluations of PM. Methods A targeted literature review of methodological papers was performed for an overview of modelling challenges in PM. Expert interviews were held to discuss best modelling practice. A systematic literature review of economic evaluations of PM was conducted to gain insight into current modelling practice. The findings were synthesised and used to develop a set of draft recommendations. The draft recommendations were discussed at a stakeholder workshop and subsequently finalised. Results Twenty-two methodological papers were identified. Some argued that the challenges in modelling PM can be addressed within existing methodological frameworks, others disagreed. Eighteen experts were interviewed. They believed large uncertainty to be a key concern. Out of 195 economic evaluations of PM identified, 56% addressed none of the identified modelling challenges. A set of 23 recommendations was developed. Eight recommendations focus on the modelling of test-treatment pathways. The use of non-randomised controlled trial data is discouraged but several recommendations are provided in case randomised controlled trial data are unavailable. The parameterisation of structural uncertainty is recommended. Other recommendations consider perspective and discounting; premature survival data; additional value elements; patient and clinician compliance; and managed entry agreements. Conclusions This study provides a comprehensive list of recommendations to modellers of PM and to evaluators and reviewers of PM models. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-021-01010-z.

Cost‐effectiveness of precision diagnostic testing for precision medicine approaches against non‐small‐cell lung cancer: A systematic review

“…For PM RCT, the small patient populations and more complex clinical pathways may increase uncertainty in CEA modelling results. Adding CEA of real‐world data as an adjunct to RCT data would improve confidence in a treatment’s effectiveness [ 48 ].…”

The Net Benefit of Personalized Medicine: A Systematic Literature Review and Regression Analysis

“…Studies of cascade screening often add the health benefit of family members that are identified after an initial index patient tests positive to the health benefit of the index patient, resulting in a single QALY value "per index patient." 36 A single value combining the health gains of multiple patients is likely higher than the benefit "per patient who tested positive." Therefore, there may be some inconsistency in what is captured in the DQALY values that we extracted from the selected studies.…”

Perspectives, Expectations, and Concerns of European Patient Advocates on Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products

“…Interviewees expressed different opinions commenting on the innovative agreements recently signed between industries and payers to enable access to ATMPs. These innovative agreements include several different schemes designed to find a balance between the high cost of ATMPs and the uncertainty on their efficacy, including their long-lasting effectiveness; such schemes are generally referred to as Outcome Based Managed Entry Agreement, Risk Sharing Agreements, Value based price and Delay payment (20,(39)(40)(41). Managed entry agreements can facilitate patient access to treatments and are especially important for life-saving treatments where patients with high unmet needs should have early access.…”