Cargando…

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

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 or...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gomez Montero, Melissa, El Alili, Houcine, Hashim, Mahmoud, Wigfield, Peter, Dimova, Mariya, Riley, Ralph, Pascoe, Katie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9440183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35790681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-022-00350-6
_version_ 1784782280346042368
author Gomez Montero, Melissa
El Alili, Houcine
Hashim, Mahmoud
Wigfield, Peter
Dimova, Mariya
Riley, Ralph
Pascoe, Katie
author_facet Gomez Montero, Melissa
El Alili, Houcine
Hashim, Mahmoud
Wigfield, Peter
Dimova, Mariya
Riley, Ralph
Pascoe, Katie
author_sort Gomez Montero, Melissa
collection PubMed
description 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-022-00350-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9440183
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94401832022-09-04 How are Companion Diagnostics Considered in Economic Evaluations of Oncology Treatments? A Review of Health Technology Assessments Gomez Montero, Melissa El Alili, Houcine Hashim, Mahmoud Wigfield, Peter Dimova, Mariya Riley, Ralph Pascoe, Katie Pharmacoecon Open Review Article 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-022-00350-6. Springer International Publishing 2022-07-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9440183/ /pubmed/35790681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-022-00350-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Gomez Montero, Melissa
El Alili, Houcine
Hashim, Mahmoud
Wigfield, Peter
Dimova, Mariya
Riley, Ralph
Pascoe, Katie
How are Companion Diagnostics Considered in Economic Evaluations of Oncology Treatments? A Review of Health Technology Assessments
title How are Companion Diagnostics Considered in Economic Evaluations of Oncology Treatments? A Review of Health Technology Assessments
title_full How are Companion Diagnostics Considered in Economic Evaluations of Oncology Treatments? A Review of Health Technology Assessments
title_fullStr How are Companion Diagnostics Considered in Economic Evaluations of Oncology Treatments? A Review of Health Technology Assessments
title_full_unstemmed How are Companion Diagnostics Considered in Economic Evaluations of Oncology Treatments? A Review of Health Technology Assessments
title_short How are Companion Diagnostics Considered in Economic Evaluations of Oncology Treatments? A Review of Health Technology Assessments
title_sort how are companion diagnostics considered in economic evaluations of oncology treatments? a review of health technology assessments
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9440183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35790681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-022-00350-6
work_keys_str_mv AT gomezmonteromelissa howarecompaniondiagnosticsconsideredineconomicevaluationsofoncologytreatmentsareviewofhealthtechnologyassessments
AT elalilihoucine howarecompaniondiagnosticsconsideredineconomicevaluationsofoncologytreatmentsareviewofhealthtechnologyassessments
AT hashimmahmoud howarecompaniondiagnosticsconsideredineconomicevaluationsofoncologytreatmentsareviewofhealthtechnologyassessments
AT wigfieldpeter howarecompaniondiagnosticsconsideredineconomicevaluationsofoncologytreatmentsareviewofhealthtechnologyassessments
AT dimovamariya howarecompaniondiagnosticsconsideredineconomicevaluationsofoncologytreatmentsareviewofhealthtechnologyassessments
AT rileyralph howarecompaniondiagnosticsconsideredineconomicevaluationsofoncologytreatmentsareviewofhealthtechnologyassessments
AT pascoekatie howarecompaniondiagnosticsconsideredineconomicevaluationsofoncologytreatmentsareviewofhealthtechnologyassessments