Dataset Information

Health economic evidence for the use of molecular biomarker tests in hematological malignancies: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Molecular biomarker tests can inform the clinical management of genomic heterogeneous hematological malignancies, yet their availability in routine care largely depends on the supporting health economic evidence. This study aims to systematically review the economic evidence for recent molecular biomarker tests in hematological malignancies.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in five electronic databases for studies published between January 2010 and October 2020. Publications were independently screened by two reviewers. Clinical study characteristics, economic methodology, and results were extracted, and reporting quality was assessed.

Results

Fourteen studies were identified, of which half (n = 7; 50%) were full economic evaluations examining both health and economic outcomes. Studies were predominantly conducted in a first-line treatment setting (n = 7; 50%) and adopted a non-lifetime time horizon to measure health outcomes and costs (n = 7; 50%). Five studies reported that companion diagnostics for associated therapies were likely cost-effective for acute myeloid leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Four studies suggested molecular biomarker tests for treatment monitoring in chronic myeloid leukemia were likely cost-saving.

Conclusions

Although there is initial confirmation of the promising health economic results, the present research for molecular biomarker tests in hematological malignancies is sparse with many applications of technological advances yet to be evaluated.

SUBMITTER: Vu M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9310724 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with lower survival and greater unmet need compared with some other hematologic malignancies (HMs). Despite differences in acuteness between AML and other HMs, the burden of family caregivers (FCs) of patients with these malignancies offer similar patient experiences. A targeted literature review was conducted to explore FC burden of patients with AML and HM with and without hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). Instruments to measure and interventions to address FC burden were identified.MethodsStudies on economic burden and compromised health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with FC burden, family affairs, and childcare from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2019 were identified through database and hand searches. Published English articles on randomized controlled trials or standardized qualitative or quantitative observational studies were included. FCs were those in close familial proximity to the patient (i.e., spouse, parents, children, relatives, other family members, significant others).ResultsSeventy-one publications were identified (AML, n = 3; HM, n = 29; HSCT, n = 39). Predominant burden categories included humanistic (n = 33), economic (n = 17), and interventions (n = 22); one study was classified as humanistic and economic. FCs lack sufficient resources to manage stressors and experience negative psychological, behavioral, and physiological effects. FCs of patients with HMs reported post-traumatic stress disorder, significant sleep problems, moderate-to-poor HRQoL, and negative impacts on family relationships. Instruments designed to measure caregiver burden were generic and symptom-specific. Educational, expressional, and self-adjustment interventions were used to improve FC burden.ConclusionFindings indicate a need for additional research, public health approaches to support FCs, and effective interventions to address FC burden. Minimizing FC burden and improving quality of life may reduce the overall healthcare service use and allow FCs to more effectively fulfill caregiver tasks. Support systems to alleviate caregiver burden may create reinforced integrators, thus positively affecting quality of life and possibly the outcomes of patients.

Project description:ContextSeveral liquid- and tissue-based biomarker tests (LTBTs) are available to inform the need for prostate biopsies and treatment of localised prostate cancer (PCa) through risk stratification, but translation into routine practice requires evidence of their clinical utility and economic impact.ObjectiveTo review and summarise the health economic evidence on the ability of LTBTs to inform decisions on prostate biopsies and treatment of localised PCa through risk stratification.Evidence acquisitionA systematic search was performed in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Health Technology Assessment, and National Health Service Health Economic Evaluation databases. Eligible publications were those presenting health economic evaluations of an LTBT to select individuals for biopsy or risk-stratify PCa patients for treatment. Data on the study objectives, context, methodology, clinical utility, and outcomes were extracted and summarised.Evidence synthesisOf the 22 studies included, 14 were focused on test-informed biopsies and eight on treatment selection. Most studies performed cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 7), followed by costing (n = 4) or budget impact analyses (n = 3). Most (18 of 22) studies concluded that biomarker tests could decrease health care costs or would be cost-effective. However, downstream consequences and long-term outcomes were typically not included in studies that evaluated LTBT to inform biopsies. Long-term effectiveness was modelled by linking evidence from different sources instead of using data from prospective studies.ConclusionsAlthough studies concluded that LTBTs would probably be cost-saving or -effective, the strength of this evidence is disputable because of concerns around the validity and transparency of the assumptions made. This warrants prospective interventional trials to inform health economic analyses to ensure collection of direct evidence of clinical outcomes based on LTBT use.Patient summaryWe reviewed studies that evaluated whether blood, urine, and tissue tests can reduce the health and economic burden of prostate cancer. Results indicate that these tests could be cost-effective, but clinical studies of long-term outcomes are needed to confirm the findings.

Project description:ObjectivePoint-of-care testing (POCT) has become an essential diagnostic technology for optimal patient care. Its implementation, however, still falls behind. This paper reviews the available evidence on the health economic impact of introducing POCT to assess if poor POCT uptake may be related to lacking evidence.Study designThe Scopus and PubMed databases were searched to identify publications describing a health economic evaluation of a point-of-care (POC) test. Data were extracted from the included publications, including general and methodological characteristics as well as the study results summarized in either cost, effects or an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results were sorted into six groups according to the POC test's purpose (diagnosis, screening or monitoring) and care setting (primary care or secondary care). The reporting quality of the publications was determined using the CHEERS checklist.ResultsThe initial search resulted in 396 publications, of which 44 met the inclusion criteria. Most of the evaluations were performed in a primary care setting (n = 31; 70.5%) compared with a secondary care setting (n = 13; 29.5%). About two thirds of the evaluations were on POC tests implemented with a diagnostic purpose (n = 28; 63.6%). More than 75% of evaluations concluded that POCT is recommended for implementation, although in some cases only under specific circumstances and conditions. Compliance with the CHEERS checklist items ranged from 20.8% to 100%, with an average reporting quality of 72.0%.ConclusionThere were very few evaluations in this review that advised against the implementation of POCT. However, the uptake of POCT in many countries remains low. Even though the evaluations included in this review did not always include the full long-term benefits of POCT, it is clear that health economic evidence across a few dimensions of value already indicate the benefits of POCT. This suggests that the lack of evidence on POCT is not the primary barrier to its implementation and that the low uptake of these tests in clinical practice is due to (a combination of) other barriers. In this context, aspects around organization of care, support of clinicians and quality management may be crucial in the widespread implementation of POCT.