Dataset Information

Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Precision (stratified or personalised) medicine is underpinned by the premise that it is feasible to identify known heterogeneity using a specific test or algorithm in patient populations and to use this information to guide patient care to improve health and well-being. This study aimed to understand if, and how, previous economic evaluations of precision medicine had taken account of the impact of capacity constraints. METHODS:A meta-review was conducted of published systematic reviews of economic evaluations of precision medicine (test-treat interventions) and individual studies included in these reviews. Due to the volume of studies identified, a sample of papers published from 2007 to 2015 was collated. A narrative analysis identified whether potential capacity constraints were discussed qualitatively in the studies and, if relevant, which quantitative methods were used to account for capacity constraints. RESULTS:A total of 45 systematic reviews of economic evaluations of precision medicine were identified, from which 222 studies focusing on test-treat interventions, published between 2007 and 2015, were extracted. Of these studies, 33 (15%) qualitatively discussed the potential impact of capacity constraints, including budget constraints; quality of tests and the testing process; ease of use of tests in clinical practice; and decision uncertainty. Quantitative methods (nine studies) to account for capacity constraints included static methods such as capturing inefficiencies in trials or models and sensitivity analysis around model parameters; and dynamic methods, which allow the impact of capacity constraints on cost effectiveness to change over time. CONCLUSIONS:Understanding the cost effectiveness of precision medicine is necessary, but not sufficient, evidence for its successful implementation. There are currently few examples of evaluations that have quantified the impact of capacity constraints, which suggests an area of focus for future research.

SUBMITTER: Wright SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6597608 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review.

Wright Stuart J SJ Newman William G WG Payne Katherine K

PharmacoEconomics 20190801 8

<h4>Background and objective</h4>Precision (stratified or personalised) medicine is underpinned by the premise that it is feasible to identify known heterogeneity using a specific test or algorithm in patient populations and to use this information to guide patient care to improve health and well-being. This study aimed to understand if, and how, previous economic evaluations of precision medicine had taken account of the impact of capacity constraints.<h4>Methods</h4>A meta-review was conducted ...[more]

PMID: 31087278

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExamples of precision medicine are complex interventions featuring both testing and treatment components. Because of this complexity, there are often barriers to the introduction of such interventions. Few economic evaluations attempt to determine the impact of these barriers on the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. This study presents a case study economic evaluation that illustrates how the value of implementation methods may be used to quantify the impact of capacity constraints in a decision-analytic model.MethodsA baseline decision-analytic model-based economic evaluation of ALK mutation testing was reproduced from a published technology appraisal. Three constraints (commissioning awareness, localization of testing, and pathology laboratory capacity) were identified using qualitative interviews, parameterized, and incorporated into the model. Value of implementation methods were used alongside incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to quantify the impact on the cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit (NMB) of each capacity constraint and from the 3 constraints combined.ResultsEach of the 3 capacity constraints resulted in a loss of NMB ranging from £7773 (0.1% of the total) per year for localized testing to £4,907,893 (77%) for a lack of awareness about commissioning ALK testing. When combined, the constraints resulted in a loss of NMB of £5,289,414 (83%). The localization and limited pathology capacity constraints slightly increased the ICER, but the lack of commissioning awareness constraint did not change the ICER.ConclusionsCapacity constraints may have a significant impact on the NMB produced by examples of precision medicine. Value of implementation methods can be used to quantify the impact of such constraints by combining the impact of the constraints on the cost-effectiveness of the intervention with the impact on the number of patients receiving the intervention.HighlightsWhile capacity constraints may prevent the use of precision medicine in clinical practice, economic evaluations rarely account for the impact of such barriers.This study demonstrates how constraints can be identified using qualitative methods and subsequently incorporated into decision-analytic models using quantitative value of implementation methods.In addition, this article demonstrates how value of implementation methods can be used to account for the impact of capacity constraints on the costs and benefits of an intervention as well as the number of patients receiving the intervention.In the case study presented herein, a capacity constraint reducing patient access to an example of precision medicine caused the biggest loss of net monetary benefit.Health economists should consider moving beyond incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to measures of total net monetary benefit to fully capture the impact of implementing precision medicine.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac rehabilitation (CR), a multidisciplinary program consisting of exercise, risk factor modification and psychosocial intervention, forms an integral part of managing patients after myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization surgery and percutaneous coronary interventions, as well as patients with heart failure (HF). This systematic review seeks to examine the cost-effectiveness of CR for patients with MI or HF and inform policy makers in Singapore on published cost-effectiveness studies on CR.MethodsElectronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, NHS EED, PEDro, CINAHL) were searched from inception to May 2010 for published economic studies. Additional references were identified through searching bibliographies of included studies. Two independent reviewers selected eligible publications based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using Drummond's checklist.ResultsA total of 22 articles were selected for review. However five articles were further excluded because they were cost-minimization analyses, whilst one included patients with stroke. Of the final 16 articles, one article addressed both centre-based cardiac rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation, as well as home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation. Therefore, nine studies compared cost-effectiveness between centre-based supervised CR and no CR; three studies examined that between centre- and home based CR; one between inpatient and outpatient CR; and four between home-based CR and no CR. These studies were characterized by differences in the study perspectives, economic study designs and time frames, as well as variability in clinical data and assumptions made on costs. Overall, the studies suggested that: (1) supervised centre-based CR was highly cost-effective and the dominant strategy when compared to no CR; (2) home-based CR was no different from centre-based CR; (3) no difference existed between inpatient and outpatient CR; and (4) home-based programs were generally cost-saving compared to no CR.ConclusionsOverall, all the studies supported the implementation of CR for MI and HF. However, comparison across studies highlighted wide variability of CR program design and delivery. Policy makers need to exercise caution when generalizing these findings to the Singapore context.

Project description:BackgroundThe economic burden of musculoskeletal diseases is substantial and growing. Economic evaluations compare costs and health benefits of interventions simultaneously to help inform value-based care; thus, it is crucial to ensure that studies are using appropriate methodology to provide valid evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions. This is particularly the case in orthopaedic sports medicine, where several interventions of varying costs are available to treat common hip and knee conditions.PurposeTo summarize and evaluate the quality of economic evaluations in orthopaedic sports medicine for knee and hip interventions and identify areas for quality improvement.Study designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsThe Medline, AMED, OVID Health Star, and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to March 1, 2020, to identify economic evaluations that compared ≥2 interventions for hip and/or knee conditions in orthopaedic sports medicine. We assessed the quality of full economic evaluations using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool, which consists of 16 questions for a total score of 100. We classified studies into quartiles based on QHES score (extremely poor quality to high quality) and we evaluated the frequency of studies that addressed each of the 16 QHES questions.ResultsA total of 93 studies were included in the systematic review. There were 41 (44%) cost analyses, of which 21 (51%) inappropriately concluded interventions were cost-effective. Only 52 (56%) of the included studies were full economic evaluations, although 40 of these (77%) fell in the high-quality quartile. The mean QHES score was 83.2 ± 19. Authors consistently addressed 12 of the QHES questions; questions that were missed or unclear were related to statistical uncertainty, appropriateness of costing methodology, and discussion of potential biases. The most frequently missed question was whether the cost perspective of the analysis was stated and justified.ConclusionThe number of studies in orthopaedic sports medicine is small, despite their overall good quality. Yet, there are still many highly cited studies based on low-quality or partial economic evaluations that are being used to influence clinical decision-making. Investigators should follow international health economic guidelines for study design and critical appraisal of studies to further improve quality.

Project description:ObjectiveThe main objective of this study was to identify, describe, classify and analyze the scientific health economic evidence of VL-related technologies.MethodsA web search of combinations of free text and Mesh terms related to the economic evaluation of visceral leishmaniasis was conducted on scientific publication databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Medline via the Pubmed and Lilacs). A manual search of references lists of articles previously identified by the authors was also included. Articles written in English, Portuguese, Spanish or French were considered suitable for inclusion. Articles that matched the inclusion criteria were screened by at least two researchers, who extracted information regarding the epidemiologic scenario and methodological issues on a standardized form.ResultsThe initial search retrieved 107 articles, whose abstracts were inspected according to the inclusion criteria leading to a first selection of 49 (46%) articles. After the elimination of duplicates, the list was reduced to 21 (20%) articles. After careful reading and application of exclusion criteria, 14 papers were eligible according to the description, classification and analysis process proposed by the study. When classified by type of economic evaluation, articles were 7 (50%) cost-effectiveness, 5 (36%) cost-minimization, 1(7%) cost-benefit, and 1(7%) budget impact. When classified by methodology, studies were mainly nested to clinical-trials ("piggy back") 8(57%). Discount rates for outcomes and costs were present in 3 (43%) of the cost-effectiveness studies, and according to WHO's recommendations, the discount rate of 3% was used in all studies.ConclusionsThis article showed that health economic evaluations on visceral leishmaniasis used a wide range of technologies and methods. Nevertheless it is important to point out the geographic concentration of studies, which makes their transferability uncertain to different epidemiological scenarios, especially those concerning visceral leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania infantum.

Dataset Information

Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets