Dataset Information

How are Companion Diagnostics Considered in Economic Evaluations of Oncology Treatments? A Review of Health Technology Assessments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Companion diagnostic (CDx) testing is increasingly used to identify eligible patients for targeted treatments. Guidance on how CDx testing should be incorporated into cost-effectiveness models (CEM) is limited. This review evaluated how health technology assessment bodies and research organizations considered CDx in CEMs of targeted therapies in oncology and whether this ultimately impacted their decisions or time from regulatory approval to recommendations.

Methods

An exhaustive list of approved CDx tests in oncology was compiled. For corresponding indications and treatments, NICE appraisals published between 2016 and 2019 were identified. Then, assessments for the same treatments issued from 11 other agencies were reviewed. Data extracted included background and CDx information, CDx's role in the CEM, and recommendations.

Results

Twenty-seven NICE appraisals were identified; 15 considered CDx testing in the CEM, while 12 did not, mainly because testing had already been established for the comparators within the same class or in clinical practice from a prior treatment line. Both testing costs and mutation prevalence drove CDx testing costs per patient. The cross-comparison of assessments showed that CDx test characteristics were inconsistently reported. Time from regulatory approval to recommendations was not impacted by CDx cost inclusion in CEMs.

Conclusion

CDx testing was included in cost-effectiveness models whenever mutation testing was required solely for patients receiving targeted treatment; cost per patient was based on test costs and mutation prevalence. It is unclear if expanded reliance on CDx testing will impact future assessments of targeted therapies. A future update is warranted to track trends over time.

SUBMITTER: Gomez Montero M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9440183 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How are Companion Diagnostics Considered in Economic Evaluations of Oncology Treatments? A Review of Health Technology Assessments.

Gomez Montero Melissa M El Alili Houcine H Hashim Mahmoud M Wigfield Peter P Dimova Mariya M Riley Ralph R Pascoe Katie K

PharmacoEconomics - open 20220706 5

<h4>Background</h4>Companion diagnostic (CDx) testing is increasingly used to identify eligible patients for targeted treatments. Guidance on how CDx testing should be incorporated into cost-effectiveness models (CEM) is limited. This review evaluated how health technology assessment bodies and research organizations considered CDx in CEMs of targeted therapies in oncology and whether this ultimately impacted their decisions or time from regulatory approval to recommendations.<h4>Methods</h4>An ...[more]

PMID: 35790681

Similar Datasets

Project description:Publicly funded healthcare systems, including those in Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), and Australia, often use health technology assessment (HTA) to inform drug reimbursement decision-making, based on dossiers submitted by manufacturers, and HTA agencies issue publicly available reports to support funding recommendations. However, the level of information reported by HTA agencies in these reports may vary. To provide insights on this issue, we describe and assess the reporting of economic methods in recent oncology HTA recommendations from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Publicly available HTA recommendations and reports for oncology drugs issued by CADTH over a 2-year period, 2019-2020, were identified and compared with the corresponding HTA documents from NICE and the PBAC. Reporting of key model characteristics and attributes, survival analysis methods, methodological criticisms, and re-assessment of the economic results were characterized using descriptive statistics. Dichotomous differences in the methodological criticisms observed between the three agencies were assessed using Cochran's Q tests and substantiated using pairwise McNemar tests. Chi-squared tests were used to assess the dichotomous differences in the reporting of methods and explore the potential relationships between categorical variables, where appropriate. HTAs published by CADTH, NICE, and the PBAC consistently reported a broad spectrum of descriptive information on the economic models submitted by manufacturers. While common economic evaluation attributes were well-reported across the three HTA agencies, significant differences in the reporting of survival analysis methods and methodological criticisms were observed. NICE consistently reported more comprehensive information, compared to either CADTH or PBAC. Despite these differences, broadly similar recommendation rates were observed between CADTH and NICE. The PBAC was found to be more restrictive. Based on our 2-year sample of oncology, the HTAs published by CADTH matched with the corresponding HTAs from NICE and PBAC; we observed important variations in the reporting of economic evidence, especially technical aspects, such as survival analysis, across the three agencies. In addition to guidelines for HTA submissions by manufacturers, the community of HTA agencies should also have common standards for reporting the results of their assessments, though the information and opinions reported may differ.

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.

Project description:Objectives: As the initial crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, healthcare decision makers are likely to want to make rational evidence-guided choices between the many interventions now available. We sought to update a systematic review to provide an up-to-date summary of the cost-effectiveness evidence regarding tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19. Methods: Key databases, including MEDLINE, EconLit and Embase, were searched on 3 July 2023, 2 years on from the first iteration of this review in July 2021. We also examined health technology assessment (HTA) reports and the citations of included studies and reviews. Peer-reviewed studies reporting full health economic evaluations of tests or treatments in English were included. Studies were quality assessed using an established checklist, and those with very serious limitations were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted into predefined tables. Results: The database search identified 8,287 unique records, of which 54 full texts were reviewed, 28 proceeded for quality assessment, and 15 were included. Three further studies were included through HTA sources and citation checking. Of the 18 studies ultimately included, 17 evaluated treatments including corticosteroids, antivirals and immunotherapies. In most studies, the comparator was standard care. Two studies in lower-income settings evaluated the cost effectiveness of rapid antigen tests and critical care provision. There were 17 modelling analyses and 1 trial-based evaluation. Conclusion: A large number of economic evaluations of interventions for COVID-19 have been published since July 2021. Their findings can help decision makers to prioritise between competing interventions, such as the repurposed antivirals and immunotherapies now available to treat COVID-19. However, some evidence gaps remain present, including head-to-head analyses, disease-specific utility values, and consideration of different disease variants. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021272219], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021272219].

Project description:BackgroundMedication-related harm, including adverse drug events (ADEs) and medication errors, represents a significant iatrogenic burden in clinical care. Digital health technology (DHT) interventions can significantly enhance medication safety outcomes. Although the clinical effectiveness of DHT for medication safety has been relatively well studied, much less is known about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions.ObjectiveThis study aimed to systematically review the economic impact of DHT interventions on medication safety and examine methodological challenges to inform future research directions.MethodsA systematic search was conducted across 3 major electronic databases (ie, PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost). The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for this systematic review. Two independent investigators conducted a full-text review after screening preliminary titles and abstracts. We adopted recommendations from the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine for data extraction. A narrative analysis was conducted to synthesize clinical and economic outcomes. The quality of reporting for the included studies was assessed using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) guidelines.ResultsWe included 13 studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness (n=9, 69.2%), cost-benefit (n=3, 23.1%), and cost-utility (n=1, 7.7%) of DHT for medication safety. Of the included studies, more than half (n=7, 53.9%) evaluated a clinical decision support system (CDSS)/computerized provider order entry (CPOE), 4 (30.8%) examined automated medication-dispensing systems, and 2 (15.4%) focused on pharmacist-led outreach programs targeting health care professionals. In 12 (92.3% ) studies, DHT was either cost-effective or cost beneficial compared to standard care. On average, DHT interventions reduced ADEs by 37.12% (range 8.2%-66.5%) and medication errors by 54.38% (range 24%-83%). The key drivers of cost-effectiveness included reductions in outcomes, the proportion of errors resulting in ADEs, and implementation costs. Despite a significant upfront cost, DHT showed a return on investment within 3-4.25 years due to lower cost related with ADE treatment and improved workflow efficiency. In terms of reporting quality, the studies were classified as good (n=10, 76.9%) and moderate (n=3, 23.1%). Key methodological challenges included short follow-up periods, the absence of alert compliance tracking, the lack of ADE and error severity categorization, and omission of indirect costs.ConclusionsDHT interventions are economically viable to improve medication safety, with a substantial reduction in ADEs and medication errors. Future studies should prioritize incorporating alert compliance tracking, ADE and error severity classification, and evaluation of indirect costs, thereby increasing clinical benefits and economic viability.

Project description:BackgroundThe number of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies increases. One component of HTAs are economic aspects. To incorporate economic aspects commonly economic evaluations are performed. A convergence of recommendations for methods of health economic evaluations between international HTA agencies would facilitate the adaption of results to different settings and avoid unnecessary expense. A first step in this direction is a detailed analysis of existing similarities and differences in recommendations to identify potential for harmonization. The objective is to provide an overview and comparison of the methodological recommendations of international HTA agencies for economic evaluations.MethodsThe webpages of 127 international HTA agencies were searched for guidelines containing recommendations on methods for the preparation of economic evaluations. Additionally, the HTA agencies were requested information on methods for economic evaluations. Recommendations of the included guidelines were extracted in standardized tables according to 13 methodological aspects. All process steps were performed independently by two reviewers.ResultsFinally 25 publications of 14 HTA agencies were included in the analysis. Methods for economic evaluations vary widely. The greatest accordance could be found for the type of analysis and comparator. Cost-utility-analyses or cost-effectiveness-analyses are recommended. The comparator should continuously be usual care. Again the greatest differences were shown in the recommendations on the measurement/sources of effects, discounting and in the analysis of sensitivity. The main difference regarding effects is the focus either on efficacy or effectiveness. Recommended discounting rates range from 1.5%-5% for effects and 3%-5% for costs whereby it is mostly recommended to use the same rate for costs and effects. With respect to the analysis of sensitivity the main difference is that oftentimes the probabilistic or deterministic approach is recommended exclusively. Methods for modeling are only described vaguely and mainly with the rational that the "appropriate model" depends on the decision problem. Considering all other aspects a comparison is challenging as recommendations vary regarding detailedness and addressed issues.ConclusionThere is a considerable unexplainable variance in recommendations. Further effort is needed to harmonize methods for preparing economic evaluations.

Dataset Information

How are Companion Diagnostics Considered in Economic Evaluations of Oncology Treatments? A Review of Health Technology Assessments.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

How are Companion Diagnostics Considered in Economic Evaluations of Oncology Treatments? A Review of Health Technology Assessments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets