Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:27:22.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic evaluation of genomic/genetic tests: a review and future directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2022

Janet Bouttell Open the ORCID record for Janet Bouttell [Opens in a new window] ,
Robert Heggie ,
Karin Oien ,
Amy Romaniuk ,
Harper VanSteenhouse ,
Stephan von Delft  and
Neil Hawkins
Janet Bouttell*
Affiliation:
Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Robert Heggie
Affiliation:
Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Karin Oien
Affiliation:
Institute of Cancer Sciences – Pathology, Wolfson Wohl Cancer Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Amy Romaniuk
Affiliation:
BioClavis Limited, Teaching and Learning Centre, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Harper VanSteenhouse
Affiliation:
BioClavis Limited, Teaching and Learning Centre, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Stephan von Delft
Affiliation:
Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom REACH EUREGIO Start-Up Center, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
Neil Hawkins
Affiliation:
Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
*
*Author for correspondence: Janet Bouttell, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been suggested that health economists need to improve their methods in order to meet the challenges of evaluating genomic/genetic tests. In this article, we set out twelve challenges identified from a rapid review of the literature and suggest solutions to the challenges identified. Two challenges were common to all economic evaluations: choice of perspective and time-horizon. Five challenges were relevant for all diagnostic technologies: complexity of analysis; range of costs; under-developed evidence base; behavioral aspects; and choice of outcome metrics. The final five challenges were pertinent for genomic tests and only these may require methodological development: heterogeneity of tests and platforms, increasing stratification, capturing personal utility; incidental findings; and spillover effects. Current methods of economic evaluation are generally able to cope with genomic/genetic tests, although a renewed focus on specific decision-makers’ needs and a willingness to move away from cost-utility analysis may be required. Certain analysts may be constrained by reference cases developed primarily for the assessment of pharmaceuticals. The combined impact of multiple challenges may require analysts to be particularly careful in setting the scope of their analysis in order to ensure that feasibility is balanced with usefulness to the decision maker. A key issue is the under-developed evidence-base and it may be necessary to rethink translation processes to ensure sufficient, relevant evidence is available to support economic evaluation and adoption of genomic/genetic tests.

Type
Article Commentary
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , 2022 , e67
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buchanan, J, Wordsworth, S, Schuh, A (2013) Issues surrounding the health economic evaluation of genomic technologies. Pharmacogenom. 14, 1833–1847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Payne, K, Gavan, SP, Wright, SJ, Thompson, AJ (2018) Cost-effectiveness analyses of genetic and genomic diagnostic tests. Nat Rev Genet. 19, 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2017.108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, KA, Deverka, PA, Marshall, DA, et al (2018) Methodological issues in assessing the economic value of next-generation sequencing tests: Many challenges and not enough solutions. Value Health. 21, 1033–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Cancer Institute (NCI) NCI Dictionaries [Internet]; [cited 5 Apr 2022]. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/companion-diagnostic-test.Google Scholar
Fugel, HJ, Nuijten, M, Postma, M, Redekop, K (2016) Economic evaluation in stratified medicine: Methodological issues and challenges. Front Pharmacol. 7, 113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2016.00113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oosterhoff, M, van der Maas, ME, Steuten, LMG (2016) A systematic review of health economic evaluations of diagnostic biomarkers. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 14, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-015-0198-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, MR, Spencer, SJ (2019) Consideration for employer-based and geographic attributes included in value assessment methods of next-generation sequencing tests. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 25, 936–940. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.8.936Google ScholarPubMed
Doble, B, Harris, A, Thomas, DM, Fox, S, Lorgelly, P (2013) Multiomics medicine in oncology: Assessing effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and future research priorities for the molecularly unique individual. Pharmacogenom. 14, 1405–1417. https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs.13.142CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleeman, N, Payne, K, Newman, WG, Howell, SJ, Boland, A, et al (2013) Are health technology assessments of pharmacogenetic tests feasible? A case study of CYP2D6 testing in the treatment of breast cancer with tamoxifen. Pers Med., 10, 601–611. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.13.60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Annemans, L, Redekop, K, Payne, K (2013) Current methodological issues in the economic assessment of personalized medicine. Value Health. 16, S20–S26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doble, B (2016) Budget impact and cost-effectiveness: Can we afford precision medicine in oncology? Scand J Clin Lab Invest., 245, S6–S11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2016.1206437CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Andrea, E, Marzuillo, C, Pelone, F, De Vito, C, Villari, P (2015) Genetic testing and economic evaluations: A systematic review of the literature. Epidemiol Prev. 39, 45–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Payne, K, Eden, M, Davison, N, Bakker, E (2017) Toward health technology assessment of whole-genome sequencing diagnostic tests: Challenges and solutions. Pers Med. 14, 235–247. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2016-0089CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mistry, H, Mason, J (2018) Diagnostic assessment reviews: Is cost-effectiveness analysis helpful or necessary? J Health Serv Res Policy. 23, 222–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Payne, K, McAllister, M, Davies, LM (2013) Valuing the economic benefits of complex interventions: When maximising health is not sufficient. Health Econ. 22, 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfield, S, Polisena, J, Spinner, DS, et al (2016) Health technology assessment for molecular diagnostics: Practices, challenges, and recommendations from the medical devices and diagnostics special interest group. Value Health. 19, 577–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gavan, SP, Thompson, AJ, Payne, K (2018) The economic case for precision medicine. Exp Rev Precis Med Drug Dev. 3, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grosse, SD (2014) Economic analyses of genetic tests in personalized medicine: Clinical utility first, then cost utility. Genet Med. 16, 225–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, A, Newman, W, Elliott, R, et al (2014 ) The cost-effectiveness of a pharmacogenetic test: A trial-based evaluation of TPMT genotyping for azathioprine. Value Health. 17, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burris, HA, Saltz, LB, Yu, PP (2018) Assessing the value of next-generation sequencing tests in a dynamic environment. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 38, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alam, K, Schofield, D (2018) Economic evaluation of genomic sequencing in the paediatric population: A critical review. Eur J Human Genet. 26, 1241–1247. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0175-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siamoglou, S, Karamperis, K, Mitropoulou, C, Patrinos, GP (2020) Costing methods as a means to measure the costs of pharmacogenomics testing. J Appl Lab Med., 5, 1005–1016. https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfaa113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Nimwegen, KJ, van Soest, RA, Veltman, JA,et al(2016) Is the $1000 genome as near as we think? A cost analysis of next-generation sequencing. Clin Chem. 62, 1458–1464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitarelli-Kiehl, M, Macedo, GS, Schlatter, RP, et al (2016) Comparison of multiple genotyping methods for the identification of the cancer predisposing founder mutation p.R337H in TP53. Genet Mol Biol. 39, 203–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, N, Ferns, BR, Nastouli, E, et al (2016) Cost analysis of standard Sanger sequencing versus next generation sequencing in the ICONIC study. Lancet. 388, S86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marino, P, Touzani, R, Perrier, L, et al (2018) Cost of cancer diagnosis using next-generation sequencing targeted gene panels in routine practice: A nationwide French study. Eur J Human Genet. 26, 314–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mollison, L, O’Daniel, JM, Henderson, GE, Berg, JS, Skinner, D (2020) Parents’ perceptions of personal utility of exome sequencing results. Genet Med. 1, 752–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regier, DA, Weymann, D, Buchanan, J, Marshall, DA, Wordsworth, S (2018) Valuation of health and non health outcomes from next-generation sequencing: Approaches, challenges, and solutions. Value Health. 21, 1043–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.06.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuppermann, M, Wang, G, Wong, S, et al (2013) Preferences for outcomes associated with decisions to undergo or forgo genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. Cancer. 119, 215–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayeems, RZ, Luca, S, Pullenayegum, E, Stephen Meyn, M, Ungar, WJ (2019) Genome diagnostics: Novel strategies for measuring value. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 25, 1096–1101. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.10.1096Google ScholarPubMed
National Health Service (NHS) Draft terms of reference; Genomic test evaluation working groups [Internet]; [cited 22 Jan 2022]. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2021/01/DRAFT-Terms-of-Reference-Test-Evaluation-Working-Groups-v0.3.pdf.Google Scholar
Phillips, KA, Douglas, MP, Trosman, JR, Marshall, DA (2017) “What goes around comes around”: Lessons learned from economic evaluations of personalized medicine applied to digital medicine. Value Health 20, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.08.736CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, KA, Pletcher, MJ, Ladabaum, U (2015) Is the “$1000 Genome” really $1000? Understanding the full benefits and costs of genomic sequencing. Technol Health Care. 23, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennette, CS, Trinidad, SB, Fullerton, SM, et al (2013) Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: Measuring what patients value-development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT). Genet Med. 15, 873–881. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennette, CS, Gallego, CJ, Burke, W, Jarvik, GP, Veenstra, DL (2015) The cost-effectiveness of returning incidental findings from next-generation genomic sequencing. Genet Med. 17, 587–595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plumpton, CO, Pirmohamed, M, Hughes, DA (2019) Cost‐effectiveness of panel tests for multiple pharmacogenes associated with adverse drug reactions: An evaluation framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 105, 1429–1438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallego, CJ, Shirts, BH, Bennette, CS, et al (2015) Next-generation sequencing panels for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes: A cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol. 33, 2084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Reviewing our process for health technology evaluation: Consultation. [Internet]; [cited 22 Jan 2022]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/reviewing-our-process-for-health-technology-evaluation--consultation.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bouttell et al. supplementary material

Bouttell et al. supplementary material

Download Bouttell et al. supplementary material(File)
File 646.4 KB