Cargando…

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

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. Th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wright, Stuart J., Newman, William G., Payne, Katherine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6597608/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31087278
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00801-9
_version_ 1783430616344166400
author Wright, Stuart J.
Newman, William G.
Payne, Katherine
author_facet Wright, Stuart J.
Newman, William G.
Payne, Katherine
author_sort Wright, Stuart J.
collection PubMed
description 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-019-00801-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6597608
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65976082019-07-18 Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review Wright, Stuart J. Newman, William G. Payne, Katherine Pharmacoeconomics Systematic Review 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-019-00801-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2019-05-13 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6597608/ /pubmed/31087278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00801-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Wright, Stuart J.
Newman, William G.
Payne, Katherine
Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review
title Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review
title_full Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review
title_short Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review
title_sort accounting for capacity constraints in economic evaluations of precision medicine: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6597608/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31087278
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00801-9
work_keys_str_mv AT wrightstuartj accountingforcapacityconstraintsineconomicevaluationsofprecisionmedicineasystematicreview
AT newmanwilliamg accountingforcapacityconstraintsineconomicevaluationsofprecisionmedicineasystematicreview
AT paynekatherine accountingforcapacityconstraintsineconomicevaluationsofprecisionmedicineasystematicreview