Personalized medicine: factors influencing reimbursement

One Step Ahead in Realizing Pharmacogenetics in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: What Should We Do?

Pharmacogenetics is a promising approach in future personalized medicine. This field holds excellent prospects for healthcare quality acceleration. It promotes the transition to the precision medicine era, whereby a health treatment is driven by a deeper understanding of individual characteristics by interpreting the underlying genomic variation. Pharmacogenetics has been developing rapidly since the human genome project. Many pharmacogenetics studies have shown the association between genetic variants and therapy outcomes. Several pharmacogenetics working groups have recommended guidelines for the clinical application of pharmacogenetics. However, the development of pharmacogenetics in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is still retarded behind. The problems mainly include clinical evidence, technology, policy and regulation, and human resources. Currently, available genome and drug effect data in LMICs are scarce. Pharmacogenetics development should be escalated with evidence proof through research collaboration across countries. The challenges of pharmacogenetics implementation are discussed comprehensively in this article, along with the prospect of pharmacogenetics-guided personalized medicine in developed countries. Stepwise is expected to help the researchers and stakeholders define the problem that hindered the pharmacogenetics application.

Association between Health Insurance Type and Genetic Testing and/or Counseling for Breast and Ovarian Cancer

As genetic testing becomes increasingly incorporated into clinical practice to aid in both the diagnosis and risk assessment of genetic diseases, patients benefit from genetic counseling to support their understanding of test results either before and/or after genetic testing. Therefore, access to genetic testing and counseling is imperative for patient care. It is well established that health insurance coverage is a major determinant of access to health care in the United States as individuals without insurance are less likely to have a regular source of health care than their insured counterparts. Different health insurance plans and benefits also influence patients’ access to health care. Data on the association of health insurance and the uptake of genetic testing and/or counseling for cancer risk are limited. Using data from the National Health Interview Survey, we examined the uptake of genetic testing and/or counseling for breast/ovarian cancer risk by health insurance type. We found that only a small proportion of women undergo genetic testing and/or counseling for breast/ovarian cancer risk (2.3%), even among subgroups of women at risk due to family or personal history (6.5%). Women with health insurance were more likely to undergo genetic testing and/or counseling for breast/ovarian cancer risk, particularly those with military and private insurance plans, than those without health insurance after adjusting for various demographic, socioeconomic, and health risk covariates. Further investigations are needed to examine potential disparities in access and health inequities.

Genetic Testing and/or Counseling for Colorectal Cancer by Health Insurance Type

Genetic testing is increasingly used in clinical practice to assist with the diagnosis of genetic diseases and/or provide information about disease risk, and genetic counseling supports patient understanding of test results before and/or after genetic testing. Therefore, access to genetic testing and counseling is important for patient care. Health insurance coverage is a major determinant of access to health care in the United States. Uninsured individuals are less likely to have a regular source of health care than their insured counterparts. Different health insurance types and benefits also influence access to health care. Data on the association of health insurance and uptake of genetic testing and/or counseling for cancer risk are limited. Using data from the National Health Interview Survey, we examined the uptake of genetic testing and/or counseling for colorectal cancer (CRC) risk by health insurance type. We found that only a small proportion of individuals undergo genetic testing and/or counseling for CRC risk (0.8%), even among subgroups of individuals at risk due to family or personal history (3.7%). Insured individuals were more likely to undergo genetic testing and/or counseling for CRC risk, particularly those with Military and Private insurance plans, after adjusting for various demographic, socioeconomic, and health risk covariates. Further investigations are warranted to examine potential disparities in access and health inequities.

The Consultant's intermediary role in the regulation of molecular diagnostics in the US

Molecular diagnostics are fast becoming a big business, with the promise of personalized medicine fueling the growth of "blockbuster" tests with high expectations for health system impact and commercial success. We investigate the polycentric regulatory regime for molecular diagnostics in the US, drawing attention to the prominent role of coverage and reimbursement systems in setting regulatory standards for this industry. We hone in on the private consultants who assist molecular diagnostics companies to gain broad clinical uptake of their products. Through a web-based search of consulting companies, analysis of their online materials, and 13 qualitative interviews with consultants, we describe the role of these actors in the coverage and reimbursement of novel diagnostics and highlight the production of evidence as a critical part of the process. We argue that consultants operate as regulatory intermediaries, helping to develop the evidentiary standards for payment decisions that ultimately benefit their clients, the manufacturers. We suggest that public policy discussions over how best to realize the promise of personalized medicine should be re-oriented to consider whose interests are represented in the regulatory regime governing access to these technologies.

Financing and Reimbursement Models for Personalised Medicine: A Systematic Review to Identify Current Models and Future Options

BACKGROUND

The number of healthcare interventions described as 'personalised medicine' (PM) is increasing rapidly. As healthcare systems struggle to decide whether to fund PM innovations, it is unclear what models for financing and reimbursement are appropriate to apply in this context.

OBJECTIVE

To review financing and reimbursement models for PM, summarise their key characteristics, and describe whether they can influence the development and uptake of PM.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Econlit to identify studies published in English between 2009 and 2021, and reviews published before 2009. Grey literature was identified through Google Scholar, Google and subject-specific webpages. Articles that described financing and reimbursement of PM, and financing of non-PM were included. Data were extracted and synthesised narratively to report on the models, as well as facilitators, incentives, barriers and disincentives that could influence PM development and uptake.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-three papers were included. Research and development of PM was financed through both public and private sources and reimbursed largely through traditional models such as single fees, Diagnosis-Related Groups, and bundled payments. Financial-based reimbursement, including rebates and price-volume agreements, was mainly applied to targeted therapies. Performance-based reimbursement was identified mainly for gene and targeted therapies, and some companion diagnostics. Gene therapy manufacturers offered outcome-based rebates for treatment failure for interventions including Luxturna®, Kymriah®, Yescarta®, Zynteglo®, Zolgensma® and Strimvelis®, and coverage with evidence development for Kymriah® and Yescarta®. Targeted testing with OncotypeDX® was granted value-based reimbursement through initial coverage with evidence development. The main barriers and disincentives to PM financing and reimbursement were the lack of strong links between stakeholders and the lack of demonstrable benefit and value of PM.

CONCLUSIONS

Public-private financing agreements and performance-based reimbursement models could help facilitate the development and uptake of PM interventions with proven clinical benefit.

The Value of Pharmacogenetics to Reduce Drug-Related Toxicity in Cancer Patients

Many anticancer drugs cause adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that negatively impact safety and reduce quality of life. The typical narrow therapeutic range and exposure-response relationships described for anticancer drugs make precision dosing critical to ensure safe and effective drug exposure. Germline mutations in pharmacogenes contribute to inter-patient variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anticancer drugs. Patients carrying reduced-activity or loss-of-function alleles are at increased risk for ADRs. Pretreatment genotyping offers a proactive approach to identify these high-risk patients, administer an individualized dose, and minimize the risk of ADRs. In the field of oncology, the most well-studied gene-drug pairs for which pharmacogenetic dosing recommendations have been published to improve safety are DPYD-fluoropyrimidines, TPMT/NUDT15-thiopurines, and UGT1A1-irinotecan. Despite the presence of these guidelines, the scientific evidence showing the benefits of pharmacogenetic testing (e.g., improved safety and cost-effectiveness) and the development of efficient multi-gene genotyping panels, routine pretreatment testing for these gene-drug pairs has not been implemented widely in the clinic. Important considerations required for widespread clinical implementation include pharmacogenetic education of physicians, availability or allocation of institutional resources to build an efficient clinical infrastructure, international standardization of guidelines, uniform adoption of guidelines by regulatory agencies leading to genotyping requirements in drug labels, and development of cohesive reimbursement policies for pretreatment genotyping. Without clinical implementation, the potential of pharmacogenetics to improve patient safety remains unfulfilled.

Personalized Cancer Medicine in the Media: Sensationalism or Realistic Reporting?

BACKGROUND

Given that media coverage can shape healthcare expectations, it is essential that we understand how the media frames "personalized medicine" (PM) in oncology, and whether information about unproven technologies is widely disseminated.

METHODS

We conducted a content analysis of 396 news reports related to cancer and PM published between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2011. Two coders independently coded all the reports using a pre-defined framework. Determination of coverage of "standard" and "non-standard" therapies and tests was made by comparing the media print/broadcast date to the date of Federal Drug Administration approval or incorporation into clinical guidelines.

RESULTS

Although the term "personalized medicine" appeared in all reports, it was clearly defined only 27% of the time. Stories more frequently reported PM benefits than challenges (96% vs. 48%, p < 0.001). Commonly reported benefits included improved treatment (89%), prediction of side effects (30%), disease risk prediction (33%), and lower cost (19%). Commonly reported challenges included high cost (28%), potential for discrimination (29%), and concerns over privacy and regulation (21%). Coverage of inherited DNA testing was more common than coverage of tumor testing (79% vs. 25%, p < 0.001). Media reports of standard tests and treatments were common; however, 8% included information about non-standard technologies, such as experimental medications and gene therapy.

CONCLUSION

Confusion about personalized cancer medicine may be exacerbated by media reports that fail to clearly define the term. While most media stories reported on standard tests and treatments, an emphasis on the benefits of PM may lead to unrealistic expectations for cancer genomic care.

Governing Personalized Health: A Scoping Review

Genetic research is advancing rapidly. One important area for the application of the results from this work is personalized health. These are treatments and preventive interventions tailored to the genetic profile of specific groups or individuals. The inclusion of personalized health in existing health systems is a challenge for policymakers. In this article, we present the results of a thematic scoping review of the literature dealing with governance and policy of personalized health. Our analysis points to four governance challenges that decisionmakers face against the background of personalized health. First, researchers have highlighted the need to further extend and harmonize existing research infrastructures in order to combine different types of genetic data. Second, decisionmakers face the challenge to create trust in personalized health applications, such as genetic tests. Third, scholars have pointed to the importance of the regulation of data production and sharing to avoid discrimination of disadvantaged groups and to facilitate collaboration. Fourth, researchers have discussed the challenge to integrate personalized health into regulatory-, financing-, and service provision structures of existing health systems. Our findings summarize existing research and help to guide further policymaking and research in the field of personalized health governance.

Access to precision medicine in Thailand: a comparative study

Purpose

This study explored health insurance coverage of genetic testing and potential factors associated with precision medicine (PM) reimbursement in Thailand.

Design/methodology/approach

The study employed a targeted review method. Thirteen PMs were selected to represent four PM categories: targeted cancer therapy candidate, prediction of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), dose adjustment and cancer risk prediction. Content analysis was performed to compare access to PMs among three health insurance schemes in Thailand. The primary outcome of the study was evaluating PM test reimbursement status. Secondary outcomes included clinical practice guidelines, PMs statement in FDA-approved leaflet and economic evaluation.

Findings

Civil Servant Medical Benefits Scheme (CSMBS) provided more generous access to PM than Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) and Social Security Scheme (SSS). Evidence of economic evaluations likely impacted the reimbursement decisions of SSS and UCS, while the information provided in FDA-approved leaflets seemed to impact the reimbursement decisions of CSMBS. Three health insurance schemes provided adequate access to PM tests for some cancer-targeted therapies, while gaps existed for access to PM tests for serious ADRs prevention, dose adjustment and cancer risk prediction.

Originality/value

This was the first study to explore the situation of access to PMs in Thailand. The evidence alerts public health insurance schemes to reconsider access to PMs. Development of health technology assessment guidelines for PM test reimbursement decisions should be prioritized.

Integrating Genomics into Psychiatric Practice: Ethical and Legal Challenges for Clinicians

Psychiatric genomics is a rapidly growing field that holds much promise for improving risk prediction, prevention, diagnosis, treatment selection, and understanding of the pathogenesis of patients' symptoms. The field of psychiatry (i.e., professional organizations, mental health clinicians, educational institutions), however, needs to address numerous challenges to promote the responsible translation of genomic technologies and knowledge into psychiatric practice. The goal of this article is to review how clinicians currently encounter and use genomics in the clinic, to summarize the existing literature on how clinicians feel about the use of genomics in psychiatry, and to analyze foreseeable ethical and legal challenges for the responsible integration of genomics into psychiatric care at the structural and clinic levels. Structural challenges are defined as aspects of the larger system of psychiatric practice that constitute potential barriers to the responsible integration of genomics for the purposes of psychiatric care and prevention. These structural challenges exist at a level where professional groups can intervene to set standards and regulate the practice of psychiatry and genomics. Clinic-level challenges are day-to-day issues clinicians face when managing genomic tests in the clinic. We discuss the need for action to mitigate these challenges and maximize the clinical and social utility of psychiatric genomics, including the following: expanding genomics training among mental health clinicians; establishing practice guidelines that consider potential clinical, psychological, and social implications of psychiatric genomics; promoting an integrated care model for managing genomics in psychiatry; emphasizing patient engagement and informed consent when managing genomic testing in psychiatric care.

Accessibility of cancer drugs in Switzerland: Time from approval to pricing decision between 2009 and 2018

BACKGROUND

Approved drugs must be included on the so-called "special list" (SL) by the Federal Office for Public Health (FOPH) to be reimbursed by the social health insurance in Switzerland. The FOPH decides whether a drug may be included on SL and if so, negotiates the maximum price with the manufacturer. Time period between approval and inclusion on SL is important to evaluate accessibility of patients to drugs.

METHODS

We identified all approved cancer drugs for first indication between 2009-2018 in Switzerland and determined whether they have been included on SL, and if so, how many days passed between approval and reimbursement, i.e., inclusion on SL. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed by using R.

RESULTS

70 cancer drugs have been approved between 2009 and 2018. Among this sample, 56 (80 %) are on SL. Average time from drug approval to inclusion date on SL increased from 234 days in 2009 to 463 days in 2018, with an average time of 352 days over the full analysis period.

CONCLUSION

Time period between approval and inclusion on SL has prolonged over the past years. This impedes patients' access to cancer drugs. Prioritizing HTA and price negotiation of cancer drugs with high clinical benefit or implement a regulation that sets a maximum time period for HTA and price negotiation are possible policy implications.

Coverage of pharmacogenetic tests by private health insurance companies

OBJECTIVE

To assess the coverage of clinically relevant pharmacogenetic tests by the top 41 private insurance companies in the United States.

DESIGN

Websites of insurance companies were searched for medical policies addressing 34 common and clinically relevant pharmacogenetic tests referenced by the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium, PharmGKB, and Food and Drug Administration product labeling. Those policies were subsequently reviewed for the coverage of the tests by gene-drug pair and by company. Policies were subsequently reviewed to determine coverage of pharmacogenetic tests by gene-drug indication group (GDIG) and an insurance company.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Within unique policy sets, the following were analyzed: (1) the number of times each GDIG was mentioned; (2) the percentage of times each GDIG was mentioned; (3) when mentioned, the number of times each GDIG was covered; (4) when mentioned, the percentage of times each GDIG was covered; and (5) regardless of being mentioned, the percentage of times each GDIG was covered.

RESULTS

A total of 223 medical policies mentioning pharmacogenetic tests were retrieved, representing 34 unique policy sets from 41 companies. Thirty-three companies had their policies accessible on their website. Approximately 50% of GDIGs were unanimously mentioned in all policies but were covered only < 20% of the time. When mentioned in a policy, 7 GDIGs were uniformly covered, and 11 GDIGs were uniformly not covered. Overall, insurance companies covered approximately 40% of GDIGs mentioned in their policies.

CONCLUSION

The medical policies addressing recommended pharmacogenetic tests were not readily accessible on websites of the top private health insurance companies. The coverage and payments of the tests varied by the company and gene-drug pairs and remain suboptimal.

Pre-approval incentives to promote adoption of personalized medicine: a theoretical approach

BACKGROUND

Currently, personalised medicine is becoming more frequently used and many drug companies are including this strategy to gain market access for very specialized therapies. In this article, in order to understand the relationships between the health authority and the drug company when deciding upon the implementation of personalized medicines, we take a theoretical perspective to model it when the price and reimbursement policy follows a pay-for-performance scheme. During the development of a new drug, the firm must decide whether to generate additional knowledge by investing in additional resources to stratify the target population based on a biomarker or directly apply for marketing authorization for the new treatment without information on the characteristics of patients who could respond to it. In this context, we assume that the pricing policy is set by the health authority, and then we characterize the pricing and investment decisions contingent on the rate of response to the treatment.

RESULTS

We find that the price when the firm carries out R&D leading to the personalized treatments is not necessarily higher than the price if the firm does not carry out the R&D investment. When the rate of response to the treatment is too low, then the new drug is not marketed. If the rate of response is too high, personalized medicine is not implemented. For intermediate values of the rate of response, the adoption of personalized medicine may occur if the investment costs are sufficiently low; otherwise, the treatment is given to all patients without additional information on their characteristics. The higher the quality of the genetic test (in terms of its sensitivity and specificity), the wider the interval for the values of the proportional responders for which personalized medicine may be implemented.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that pre-approval incentives (prices) to promote the personalized treatments depend on the specific characteristics of the disease and the efficacy of the treatment. The model gives an intuitive idea about what to expect in terms of price incentives when the possibility of personalizing treatments becomes a strategic decision for the stakeholders.

Current Status and Future Opportunities in Lung Precision Medicine Research with a Focus on Biomarkers. An American Thoracic Society/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Research Statement

BACKGROUND

Thousands of biomarker tests are either available or under development for lung diseases. In many cases, adoption of these tests into clinical practice is outpacing the generation and evaluation of sufficient data to determine clinical utility and ability to improve health outcomes. There is a need for a systematically organized report that provides guidance on how to understand and evaluate use of biomarker tests for lung diseases.

METHODS

We assembled a diverse group of clinicians and researchers from the American Thoracic Society and leaders from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute with expertise in various aspects of precision medicine to review the current status of biomarker tests in lung diseases. Experts summarized existing biomarker tests that are available for lung cancer, pulmonary arterial hypertension, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cystic fibrosis, and other rare lung diseases. The group identified knowledge gaps that future research studies can address to efficiently translate biomarker tests into clinical practice, assess their cost-effectiveness, and ensure they apply to diverse, real-life populations.

RESULTS

We found that the status of biomarker tests in lung diseases is highly variable depending on the disease. Nevertheless, biomarker tests in lung diseases show great promise in improving clinical care. To efficiently translate biomarkers into tests used widely in clinical practice, researchers need to address specific clinical unmet needs, secure support for biomarker discovery efforts, conduct analytical and clinical validation studies, ensure tests have clinical utility, and facilitate appropriate adoption into routine clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Although progress has been made toward implementation of precision medicine for lung diseases in clinical practice in certain settings, additional studies focused on addressing specific unmet clinical needs are required to evaluate the clinical utility of biomarkers; ensure their generalizability to diverse, real-life populations; and determine their cost-effectiveness.

Application of Economic Evaluation to Assess Feasibility for Reimbursement of Genomic Testing as Part of Personalized Medicine Interventions

Background: The incorporation of genomic testing into clinical practice constitutes an opportunity to improve patients' lives, as it makes possible the implementation of innovative, individualized clinical interventions that maximize efficacy and/or minimize the risk of adverse drug reactions. In order to ensure equal access to genomic testing for all patients, the costs associated with these tests should be reimbursed by their respective national healthcare systems. Given that funding for the public health sector is decreasing in real terms, it is of paramount importance that the emerging interventions are thoroughly evaluated both in terms of their clinical effectiveness and their full economic cost. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify those genome-guided interventions that could be adopted and reimbursed by national healthcare systems. Further, we recorded the underlying factors determining the broad adoption of genome-guided interventions in clinical practice, in order to identify potential reimbursement criteria. Methods: We performed a systematic review of published (PubMed-listed) scientific articles on the economic evaluation of those individualized clinical interventions that include genomic tests. Information on genomic tests reimbursed by the US Medicare program was also included. Subsequently, we correlated the regulatory guidance given for the interventions collated in our systematic review with the corresponding economic evaluation results and policies of the Medicare program. Regulatory guidance information was collected from the PharmGKB online knowledgebase and the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). Results: Most of the included studies constitute cost-utility analyses, in which the outcome of the interventions has been measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) whereas an estimate of the total cost has been based upon direct medical cost data. Favorable economic evaluation results, as well as concrete evidence demonstrating the clinical utility of pre-emptive genotyping, are considered as prerequisites for the broad adoption and reimbursement of the costs incurred during genomic testing. Indicatively, pre-emptive HLA-B*5701 and TPMT testing before administration of abacavir and azathioprine, respectively, is reimbursed by Medicare based on both economic and efficacy evidence. Likewise, the medical necessary screening for MMR and BRCA1/2 genes are reimbursed for high-risk populations. Conclusions: Our findings further underline the need for further cost-utility analyses within different national healthcare systems, in order to promote the reimbursement of the cost of innovative genome-guided therapeutic interventions.

The Genotype for DPYD Risk Variants in Patients With Colorectal Cancer and the Related Toxicity Management Costs in Clinical Practice

Lack of information on the clinical utility of preemptive DPYD screening before fluoropyrimidine treatment is a major barrier preventing its use in clinical practice. This study aimed to define the association between DPYD variants and fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity management costs. A cost analysis was conducted on the toxicities experienced by 550 patients with colorectal cancer treated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. Genotyping for DPYD*2A, DPYD*13, DPYDc. 2846A>T, DPYD-HapB3, and UGT1A1*28 was done retrospectively and did not affect patients' treatments. Carriers of at least one DPYD variant experienced higher toxicity management costs (€2,972; 95% confidence interval (CI), €2,456-€3,505) than noncarriers (€825; 95% CI, €785-€864) (P < 0.0001) and had a higher risk for toxicity requiring hospitalization (odds ratio, 4.14; 95% CI, 1.87-9.14). In patients receiving fluoropyrimidine/irinotecan, the incremental cost between DPYD variant and UGT1A1*28/*28 carriers and noncarriers was €2,975. This study suggests that the toxicity management costs during fluoropyrimidine-based therapy are associated with DPYD and UGT1A1*28 variants and supports the utility of genotyping.

Health economic impact of liquid biopsies in cancer management

INTRODUCTION

Liquid biopsies (LBs) are referred to as the sampling and analysis of non-solid tissue, primarily blood, as a diagnostic and monitoring tool for cancer. Because LBs are largely non-invasive, they are a less-costly alternative for serial analysis of tumor progression and heterogeneity to facilitate clinical management. Although a variety of tumor markers are proposed (e.g., free-circulating DNA), the clinical evidence for Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) is currently the most developed. Areas covered: This paper presents a health economic perspective of LBs in cancer management. We first briefly introduce the requirements in biomarker development and validation, illustrated for CTCs. Second, we discuss the state-of-art on the clinical utility of LBs in breast cancer in more detail. We conclude with a future perspective on the clinical use and reimbursement of LBs Expert commentary: A significant increase in clinical research on LBs can be observed and the results suggest a rapid change of cancer management. In addition to studies evaluating clinical utility of LBs, a smooth translation into clinical practice requires systematic assessment of the health economic benefits. This paper argues that (early stage) health economic research is required to facilitate its clinical use and to prioritize further evidence development.

Insurance Coverage Policies for Pharmacogenomic and Multi-Gene Testing for Cancer

Insurance coverage policies are a major determinant of patient access to genomic tests. The objective of this study was to examine differences in coverage policies for guideline-recommended pharmacogenomic tests that inform cancer treatment. We analyzed coverage policies from eight Medicare contractors and 10 private payers for 23 biomarkers (e.g., HER2 and EGFR) and multi-gene tests. We extracted policy coverage and criteria, prior authorization requirements, and an evidence basis for coverage. We reviewed professional society guidelines and their recommendations for use of pharmacogenomic tests. Coverage for KRAS, EGFR, and BRAF tests were common across Medicare contractors and private payers, but few policies covered PML/RARA, CD25, or G6PD. Twelve payers cover at least one multi-gene test for nonsmall cell lung cancer, citing emerging clinical recommendations. Coverage policies for single and multi-gene tests for cancer treatments are relatively consistent among Medicare contractors despite the lack of national coverage determinations. In contrast, coverage for these tests varied across private payers. Patient access to tests is governed by prior authorization among eight private payers. Substantial variations in how payers address guideline-recommended pharmacogenomic tests and the common use of prior authorization underscore the need for additional studies of the effects of coverage variation on cancer care and patient outcomes.

Establishing the Value of Diagnostic and Prognostic Tests in Health Technology Assessment

In recent years, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) processes specific to diagnostics and prognostic tests have been created in response to the increased pressure on health systems to decide not only which tests should be used in practice but also the best way to proceed, clinically, from the information they provide. These technologies differ in the way value is accrued to the population of users, depending critically on the value of downstream health care choices. This paper defines an analytical framework for establishing the value of diagnostic and prognostic tests for HTA in a way that is consistent with methods used for the evaluation of other health care technologies. It assumes a linked-evidence approach where modeling is required, and incorporates considerations regarding several different areas of policy, such as personalized medicine. We initially focus on diagnostic technologies with dichotomous results, and then extend the framework by considering diagnostic tests that provide more complex information, such as continuous measures (for example, blood glucose measurements) or multiple categories (such as tumor classification systems). We also consider how the methods of assessment differ for prognostic information or for diagnostics without a reference standard. Throughout, we propose innovative graphical ways of summarizing the results of such complex assessments of value.

Pharmacogenetic analysis of high-dose methotrexate treatment in children with osteosarcoma

Inter-individual differences in toxic symptoms and pharmacokinetics of high-dose methotrexate (MTX) treatment may be caused by genetic variants in the MTX pathway. Correlations between polymorphisms and pharmacokinetic parameters and the occurrence of hepato- and myelotoxicity were studied. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of the ABCB1, ABCC1, ABCC2, ABCC3, ABCC10, ABCG2, GGH, SLC19A1 and NR1I2 genes were analyzed in 59 patients with osteosarcoma. Univariate association analysis and Bayesian network-based Bayesian univariate and multilevel analysis of relevance (BN-BMLA) were applied. Rare alleles of 10 SNPs of ABCB1, ABCC2, ABCC3, ABCG2 and NR1I2 genes showed a correlation with the pharmacokinetic values and univariate association analysis. The risk of toxicity was associated with five SNPs in the ABCC2 and NR1I2 genes. Pharmacokinetic parameters were associated with four SNPs of the ABCB1, ABCC3, NR1I2, and GGH genes, and toxicity was shown to be associated with ABCC1 rs246219 and ABCC2 rs717620 using the univariate and BN-BMLA method. BN-BMLA analysis detected relevant effects on the AUC_0-48 in the following SNPs: ABCB1 rs928256, ABCC3 rs4793665, and GGH rs3758149. In both univariate and multivariate analyses the SNPs ABCB1 rs928256, ABCC3 rs4793665, GGH rs3758149, and NR1I2 rs3814058 SNPs were relevant. These SNPs should be considered in future dose individualization during treatment.

Preemptive pharmacogenetic testing: exploring the knowledge and perspectives of US payers

PURPOSE

Preemptive pharmacogenetic testing aims to optimize medication use by having genetic information at the point of prescribing. Payers’ decisions influence implementation of this technology. We investigated U.S. payers’ knowledge, awareness, and perspectives on preemptive pharmacogenetic testing.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews. Participants were screened for eligibility through an online survey. A blended inductive and deductive approach was used to analyze the transcripts. Two authors conducted an iterative reading process to code and categorize the data.

RESULTS

Medical or pharmacy directors from 14 payer organizations covering 122 million U.S. lives were interviewed. Three concept domains and ten dimensions were developed. Key findings include: clinical utility concerns and limited exposure to preemptive germline testing, continued preference for outcomes from randomized controlled trials, interest in guideline development, importance of demonstrating an impact on clinical decision making, concerns of downstream costs and benefit predictability, and the impact of public stakeholders such as the FDA and CMS.

CONCLUSION

Both barriers and potential facilitators exist to developing cohesive reimbursement policy for pharmacogenetics, and there are unique challenges for the preemptive testing model. Prospective outcome studies, more precisely defining target populations, and predictive economic models are important considerations for future research.

A review of international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs

BACKGROUND

Personalized medicine and orphan drugs share many characteristics-both target small patient populations, have uncertainties regarding efficacy and safety at payer submission, and frequently have high prices. Given personalized medicine's rising importance, this review summarizes international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs as well as their impact on therapy development incentives, payer budgets, and therapy access and utilization.

METHODS

PubMed, Health Policy Reference Center, EconLit, Google Scholar, and references were searched through February 2017 for articles presenting primary data.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine articles summarizing 42 countries' strategies were included. Therapy evaluation criteria varied between countries, as did patient cost-share. Payers primarily valued clinical effectiveness; cost was only considered by some. These differences result in inequities in orphan drug access, particularly in smaller and lower-income countries. The uncertain reimbursement process hinders diagnostic testing. Payer surveys identified lack of comparative effectiveness evidence as a chief complaint, while manufacturers sought more clarity on payer evidence requirements. Despite lack of strong evidence, orphan drugs largely receive positive coverage decisions, while personalized medicine diagnostics do not.

CONCLUSIONS

As more personalized medicine and orphan drugs enter the market, registries can provide better quality evidence on their efficacy and safety. Payers need systematic assessment strategies that are communicated with more transparency. Further studies are necessary to compare the implications of different payer approaches.

Variation in Private Payer Coverage of Rheumatoid Arthritis Drugs

BACKGROUND

Payers in the United States issue coverage determinations to guide how their enrolled beneficiaries use prescription drugs. Because payers create their own coverage policies, how they cover drugs can vary, which in turn can affect access to care by beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE

To examine how the largest private payers based on membership cover drugs indicated for rheumatoid arthritis and to determine what evidence the payers reported reviewing when formulating their coverage policies.

METHODS

Coverage policies issued by the 10 largest private payers that make their policies publicly available were identified for rheumatoid arthritis drugs. Each coverage determination was compared with the drug's corresponding FDA label and categorized according to the following: (a) consistent with the label, (b) more restrictive than the label, (c) less restrictive than the label, or (d) mixed (i.e., more restrictive than the label in one way but less restrictive in another). Each coverage determination was also compared with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2012 treatment recommendations and categorized using the same relative restrictiveness criteria. The policies were then reviewed to identify the evidence that the payers reported reviewing. The identified evidence was divided into the following 6 categories: randomized controlled trials; other clinical studies (e.g., observational studies); health technology assessments; clinical reviews; cost-effectiveness analyses; and clinical guidelines.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine percent of coverage determinations were more restrictive than the corresponding FDA label; 15% were consistent; 3% were less restrictive; and 13% were mixed. Thirty-four percent of coverage determinations were consistent with the ACR recommendations, 33% were more restrictive; 17% were less restrictive; and 17% were mixed. Payers most often reported reviewing randomized controlled trials for their coverage policies (an average of 2.3 per policy). The payers reported reviewing an average of 1.4 clinical guidelines, 1.1 clinical reviews, 0.8 other clinical studies, and 0.5 technology assessments per policy. Only 1 payer reported reviewing cost-effectiveness analyses. The evidence base that the payers reported reviewing varied in terms of volume and composition.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers most often covered rheumatoid arthritis drugs more restrictively than the corresponding FDA label indication and the ACR treatment recommendations. Payers reported reviewing a varied evidence base in their coverage policies.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this study was provided by Genentech. Chambers has participated in a Sanofi advisory board, unrelated to this study. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest. Study concept and design were contributed by Chambers. Anderson, Wilkinson, and Chenoweth collected the data, assisted by Chambers, and data interpretation was primarily performed by Chambers, along with Anderson and with assistance from Wilkinson and Chenoweth. The manuscript was written primarily by Chambers, along with Wilkinson and with assistance from Anderson and Chenoweth. Chambers, Chenoweth, Wilkinson, and Anderson revised the manuscript.

Warfarin genotyping with hybridization-induced aggregation on a poly(ethylene terephthalate) microdevice

A novel genotyping method is established, using allele-specific PCR followed by hybridization-induced aggregation (HIA) of microbeads on a multiplexed microdevice.

Clinical Genomic Profiling of a Diverse Array of Oncology Specimens at a Large Academic Cancer Center: Identification of Targetable Variants and Experience with Reimbursement

Large cancer panels are being increasingly used in the practice of precision medicine to generate genomic profiles of tumors with the goal of identifying targetable variants and guiding eligibility for clinical trials. To facilitate identification of mutations in a broad range of solid and hematological malignancies, a 467-gene oncology panel (Columbia Combined Cancer Panel) was developed in collaboration with pathologists and oncologists and is currently available and in use for clinical diagnostics. Herein, we share our experience with this testing in an academic medical center. Of 255 submitted specimens, which encompassed a diverse range of tumor types, we were able to successfully sequence 92%. The Columbia Combined Cancer Panel assay led to the detection of a targetable variant in 48.7% of cases. However, although we show good clinical performance and diagnostic yield, third-party reimbursement has been poor. Reimbursement from government and third-party payers using the 81455 Current Procedural Terminology code was at 19.4% of billed costs, and 55% of cases were rejected on first submission. Likely contributing factors to this low level of reimbursement are the delays in valuation of the 81455 Current Procedural Terminology code and in establishing national or local coverage determinations. In the absence of additional demonstrations of clinical utility and improved patient outcomes, we expect the reimbursement environment will continue to limit the availability of this testing more broadly.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN ON PHARMACEUTICALS REQUIRING COMPANION DIAGNOSTICS

OBJECTIVES

Companion diagnostic tests (CDx) are used to measure an individual's protein or gene expression (biomarkers) to inform choice of therapy. The increasing number of drugs requiring CDx poses challenges for regulatory and reimbursement policies. To better understand this issue, an environmental scan was conducted by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH).

METHODS

The environmental scan was based on a focused literature search and feedback solicited from targeted stakeholders.

RESULTS

The global market for CDx is expected to grow considerably until the end of this decade, with compound annual growth rate around 20 percent. Several factors may impact the adoption of CDx, including the potential cost-savings associated with reduced treatment failures and adverse reactions. Anticipating an expansion in drugs with CDx, some countries have updated their regulatory frameworks, including the United States where the FDA released new guidance in 2014. With respect to reimbursement, both the United Kingdom and Australia updated their evaluation frameworks to inform reimbursement decisions; however, several countries, including Canada, have not published policies for co-dependent technology.

CONCLUSION

The market size for CDx is expected to considerably expand in the future. The drive in uptake may be influenced by many factors including an increased knowledge of biomarkers and molecular drivers of disease and the potential cost-savings associated with fewer treatment failures and adverse reactions. Assessing whether such benefits materialize is important. Health technology assessment will play an important role in informing policies regarding the clinical use and funding of pharmaceuticals with CDx.

Implementing personalized medicine with asymmetric information on prevalence rates

Although personalized medicine is becoming the new paradigm to manage some diseases, the economics of personalized medicine have only focused on assessing the efficiency of specific treatments, lacking a theoretical framework analyzing the interactions between pharmaceutical firms and healthcare systems leading to the implementation of personalized treatments. We model the interaction between the hospitals and the manufacturer of a new treatment as an adverse selection problem where the firm does not have perfect information on the prevalence across hospitals of the genetic characteristics of the patients making them eligible to receive a new treatment. As a result of the model, hospitals with high prevalence rates benefit from the information asymmetry only when the standard treatment is inefficient when applied to the patients eligible to receive the new treatment. Otherwise, information asymmetry has no value. Personalized medicine may be fully or partially implemented depending on the proportion of high prevalence hospitals.

Pharmacokinetic Pharmacogenetic Prescribing Guidelines for Antidepressants: A Template for Psychiatric Precision Medicine

Antidepressants are commonly prescribed medications in the United States, and there is increasing interest in individualizing treatment selection for more than 20 US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments for major depressive disorder. Providing greater precision to pharmacotherapeutic recommendations for individual patients beyond the large-scale clinical trials evidence base can potentially reduce adverse effect toxicity profiles and increase response rates and overall effectiveness. It is increasingly recognized that genetic variation may contribute to this differential risk to benefit ratio and thus provides a unique opportunity to develop pharmacogenetic guidelines for psychiatry. Key studies and concepts that review the rationale for cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) and cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) genetic testing can be delineated by serum levels, adverse events, and clinical outcome measures (eg, antidepressant response). In this article, we report the evidence that contributed to the implementation of pharmacokinetic pharmacogenetic guidelines for antidepressants primarily metabolized by CYP2D6 and CYP2C19.

Overcoming regulatory challenges in the development of companion diagnostics for monitoring and safety

Concurrent development and co-approval of a companion diagnostic (CDx) with a corresponding drug is ideal, but often unfeasible. Because of limited exposure to a drug in clinical trials, crucial information on safety is sometimes revealed only after approval. Therefore, a CDx for monitoring/safety is often developed after approval of a corresponding drug. However, regulatory guidance is insufficient if contemporaneous development is not possible, thereby leaving plenty of opportunities for improvement with respect to pharmacovigilance and retrospective validation of the CDx. Furthermore, global harmonization of guidance on how to incorporate new scientific information from retrospective analyses of biomarkers should lead to the establishment of more evidence for the development of CDx for approved drugs.

The effect of pharmacogenetic profiling with a clinical decision support tool on healthcare resource utilization and estimated costs in the elderly exposed to polypharmacy

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and clinical decision-making for elderly patients based on cytochrome P450 (CYP) pharmacogenetic testing and the use of a comprehensive medication management clinical decision support tool (CDST), to a cohort of similar non-tested patients.

METHODS

An observational study compared a prospective cohort of patients ≥65 years subjected to pharmacogenetic testing to a propensity score (PS) matched historical cohort of untested patients in a claims database. Patients had a prescribed medication or dose change of at least one of 61 oral drugs or combinations of ≥3 drugs at enrollment. Four-month HRU outcomes examined included hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) and outpatient visits and provider acceptance of test recommendations. Costs were estimated using national data sources.

RESULTS

There were 205 tested patients PS matched to 820 untested patients. Hospitalization rate was 9.8% in the tested group vs. 16.1% in the untested group (RR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.39-0.95, p = 0.027), ED visit rate was 4.4% in the tested group vs. 15.4% in the untested group (RR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.15-0.55, p = 0.0002) and outpatient visit rate was 71.7% in the tested group vs. 36.5% in the untested group (RR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.74-2.23, p < 0.0001). The rate of overall HRU was 72.2% in the tested group vs. 49.0% in the untested group (RR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.32-1.64, p < 0.0001). Potential cost savings were estimated at $218 (mean) in the tested group. The provider majority (95%) considered the test helpful and 46% followed CDST provided recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Patients CYP DNA tested and treated according to the personalized prescribing system had a significant decrease in hospitalizations and emergency department visits, resulting in potential cost savings. Providers had a high satisfaction rate with the clinical utility of the system and followed recommendations when appropriate.

Pharmacogenetics-Based versus Conventional Dosing of Warfarin: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Recently, using the patient’s genotype to guide warfarin dosing has gained interest; however, whether pharmacogenetics-based dosing (PD) improves clinical outcomes compared to conventional dosing (CD) remains unclear. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate these two strategies.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese VIP and Chinese Wan-fang databases were searched. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was time within the therapeutic range (TTR); the secondary end points were the time to maintenance dose and time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR), an INR greater than 4, adverse events, major bleeding, thromboembolism and death from any cause.

Results

A total of 11 trials involving 2,678 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The results showed that PD did not improve the TTR compared to CD, although PD significantly shortened the time to maintenance dose (MD = -8.80; 95% CI: -11.99 to -5.60; P<0.00001) and the time to first therapeutic INR (MD = -2.80; 95% CI: -3.45 to -2.15; P<0.00001). Additionally, PD significantly reduced the risk of adverse events (RR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03) and major bleeding (RR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.89, P = 0.03), although it did not reduce the percentage of INR greater than 4, the risk of thromboembolic events and death from any cause. Subgroup analysis showed that PD resulted in a better improvement in the endpoints of TTR and over-anticoagulation at a fixed initial dosage rather than a non-fixed initial dosage.

Conclusions

The use of genotype testing in the management of warfarin anticoagulation was associated with significant improvements in INR-related and clinical outcomes. Thus, genotype-based regimens can be considered a reliable and accurate method to determine warfarin dosing and may be preferred over fixed-dose regimens.

Trial Registration PROSPERO

Database registration: CRD42015024127.

Some economics on personalized and predictive medicine

OBJECTIVE

To contribute to the theoretical literature on personalized medicine, analyzing and integrating in an economic model, the decision a health authority faces when it must decide on the implementation of personalized medicine in a context of uncertainty.

METHODS

We carry out a stylized model to analyze the decision health authorities face when they do not have perfect information about the best treatment for a population of patients with a given disease. The health authorities decide whether to use a test to match patients with treatments (personalized medicine) to maximize health outcomes. Our model characterizes the situations under which personalized medicine dominates the alternative option of business-as-usual (treatment without previous test). We apply the model to the KRAS test for colorectal cancer, the PCA3 test for prostate cancer and the PCR test for the X-fragile syndrome, to illustrate how the parameters and variables of the model interact.

RESULTS

Implementation of personalized medicine requires, as a necessary condition, having some tests with high discriminatory power. This is not a sufficient condition and expected health outcomes must be taken into account to make a decision. When the specificity and the sensitivity of the test are low, the health authority prefers to apply a treatment to all patients without using the test. When both characteristic of the test are high, the health authorities prefer to personalize the treatments when expected health outcomes are better than those under the standard treatment. When we applied the model to the three aforementioned tests, the results illustrate how decisions are adopted in real world.

CONCLUSIONS

Although promising, the use of personalized medicine is still under scrutiny as there are important issues demanding a response. Personalized medicine may have an impact in the drug development processes, and contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of health care delivery. Nevertheless, more accurate statistical and economic information related to tests results and treatment costs as well as additional medical information on the efficacy of the treatments are needed to adopt decisions that incorporate economic rationality.

Determination of genotypes using a fully automated molecular detection system

CONTEXT

Although the value of pharmacogenomics to improve patient outcomes has become increasingly clear, adoption in medical practice has been slow, which can be attributed to several factors, including complicated and expensive testing procedures and required equipment, lack of training by private practice physicians, and reluctance of both private and commercial payers to reimburse for such testing.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate a fully automated molecular detection system for human genotyping assays, starting with anticoagulated whole blood samples, and to perform all sample preparation, assay, and analysis steps automatically with actionable results reported by the system's software.

DESIGN

The genotypes of 254 random individuals were determined by performing bidirectional DNA sequencing, and that information was used to statistically train the imaging software of the automated molecular detection system to distinguish the 3 possible genotypes (ie, homozygous wild type, heterozygous, and homozygous mutant) at each of 3 different loci (CYP2C9*2, CYP2C9*3, and VKORC1).

RESULTS

The resulting software algorithm was able to correctly identify the genotypes of all 254 individuals (100%) evaluated without any further user analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The EncompassMDx workstation (Rheonix, Inc, Ithaca, New York) is a molecular detection system that can automatically determine the genotypes of individuals in an unattended manner. Considerably less technical expertise was required to achieve results identical to those obtained using more complex, time-consuming, and expensive bidirectional DNA sequencing. This optimized system may dramatically simplify and reduce the costs of pharmacogenomics testing, thus leading to more-widespread use.

Use and Costs for Tumor Gene Expression Profiling Panels in the Management of Breast Cancer From 2006 to 2012: Implications for Genomic Test Adoption Among Private Payers

Gene expression profiling has diffused into clinical practice. Reimbursements by insurers have increased, and average out-of-pocket costs to patients have decreased, seemingly driven by improved coverage for testing over time.

Pharmacogenomic and pharmacogenetic-guided therapy as a tool in precision medicine: current state and factors impacting acceptance by stakeholders

Pharmacogenetic/pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing is currently available for a wide range of health problems including cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, mental health disorders and infectious diseases. PGx contributes important information to the field of precision medicine by clarifying appropriate treatments for specific disease subtypes. Tangible benefits to patients including improved outcomes and reduced total health care costs have been observed. However, PGx-guided therapy faces many barriers to full integration into clinical practice and acceptance by stakeholders, whether practitioner, patient or payer. Each stakeholder has a unique perspective on the role of PGx testing, although all are similarly challenged with demonstrating or appraising its cost-to-benefit value. Coverage by insurers is a critical step in achieving widespread adoption of PGx testing. The acceleration of adoption of precision medicine in general and for PGx testing in particular will be determined by how quickly robust evidence can be accumulated that shows a return on investment for payers in terms of real dollars, for clinicians in terms of patient clinical responses, and for patients in terms of economic, health and quality of life outcomes. Trends in PGx testing utilization and uptake by payers in real-world practice are discussed; the role of pharmacoeconomics in assessing cost-effectiveness is highlighted using a case study in psychiatric care, and several issues that will affect adoption of PGx testing in the United States (US) over the next few years are reviewed.

Personalised medicine as a challenge for public pricing and reimbursement authorities – A survey among 27 European countries on the example of trastuzumab

OBJECTIVES

To survey possible funding models and pricing practices as well as prices for the treatment package of trastuzumab and its accompanying diagnostic test in European countries, as an example of personalised medicines.

METHODS

Qualitative descriptive data on national pharmaceutical pricing and funding policies applied to trastuzumab and its accompanying diagnostic test were obtained from a survey among competent authorities from 27 European countries as of August 2011. Further, price data (for the years 2005-2013) of trastuzumab in the respective European countries were surveyed and analysed.

RESULTS

In 2011, testing and treatment mainly took place in hospitals or in specific day-care ambulatory clinics. In the European countries either both trastuzumab and the accompanying diagnostic test were funded from hospital budgets (n = 13) or only medicines were funded from the third party payers such social insurances and the test from hospital budgets (n = 14). Neither combined funding of both medicine and diagnostic test by third party payers was identified in the surveyed countries nor did the respondents from the competent authorities identify any managed entry agreements. National pricing procedures are different for trastuzumab versus its diagnostic test, as most countries apply price control policies for trastuzumab but have free pricing for the diagnostic test. The ex-factory price is, on average, €609 per 150 mg vial with powder in 2013; in nine countries the price of trastuzumab went down from 2005 till 2013.

CONCLUSION

The example of trastuzumab and its accompanying diagnostic test highlights some problems of the interface between different funding streams (out-patient and hospital) but also with regard to the interface between the medicine applied in combination with a medical device. The findings suggest a need for further developing and refining policy options to address the identified interface issues.

Oral anticoagulation: a critique of recent advances and controversies

There have recently been significant advances in the field of oral anticoagulation, but these have also led to many controversies. Warfarin is still the commonest drug used for clotting disorders but its use is complicated owing to wide inter-individual variability in dose requirement and its narrow therapeutic index. Warfarin dose requirement can be influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Two recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) came to different conclusion regarding the utility of genotype-guided dosing; we critically explore the reasons for the differences. The new generation of oral anticoagulants have been demonstrated to be as efficacious as warfarin, but further work is needed to evaluate their safety in real clinical settings.

[An economic perspective on targeted treatments]

In the current context of crisis in the field of drug research and patients' increasing demand for greater involvement in the decision-making about their treatment, the possibility of a more personal tailored approach to medicine is emerging. This raises questions about the clinical benefits of targeted therapeutic approaches versus the cost of determining which patients are likely to benefit the most, and protecting the others from the toxicity of inappropriate treatments. Although cost-effectiveness studies shed light on this issue, the conclusions to which they point tend to be obscured by interdependence between the pricing of these tests and the cost of the treatments involved. Investigating the societal willingness-to-pay for gains in QALY (quality adjusted life year) should help to disentangle this interdependence and clarify the conclusions of cost-effectiveness studies.

International differences in companion diagnostic approvals: how are we able to manage the differences?

One would expect regulations for drugs and diagnostics not to differ significantly between countries, given that regulatory authorities evaluate the same scientific data generated in an increasingly globally harmonized context. However, studies of our own and others have provided compelling evidence of differences in regulations for drugs and in vitro companion diagnostics in personalized medicine. Differing regulatory processes create hurdles for both pharmaceutical and companion diagnostics companies with different platforms that employ different technologies. The rising cost of healthcare caused by improvements in technology is another issue that faces all advanced countries. To address these issues and to facilitate access to personalized medicine, regulatory authorities, academia and the pharmaceutical industry should increase dialogue on the differences on an international platform.

Personalized medicine in oncology: ethical implications for the delivery of healthcare

While personalized medicine brings benefits for the treatment of cancer, there are still key ethical issues at stake in developing personalized medicine in oncology. We propose an ethical analysis of personalized medicine in oncology that highlights the particularities of cancer care, critically assesses the scientific advances behind personalized medicine in oncology and emphasizes fairness in resource allocation in the delivery of personalized healthcare. This allows for a broader understanding of the real impacts on both recipients and the healthcare system.

The use of the ‘linked evidence approach’ to guide policy on the reimbursement of personalized medicines

It is uncommon to find published clinical trials that measure the health benefits of medical testing. As a consequence, policy makers often have to decide whether access to, or public funding of, medical tests is warranted without knowing the clinical impact of testing on the patient. In the situation where a policy maker is considering a companion genetic test and tailored drug therapy, deficiencies in the evidence base are exacerbated because two technologies need to be assessed and the proposed genetic biomarker needs to be validated. The Linked Evidence Approach (LEA) is a methodology that was developed in 2005 to cope with inadequacies in the evidence supporting medical test evaluations. In 2010 the approach was adapted to the evaluation of pharmacogenetic interventions. This article describes how LEA and similar analytic frameworks are used internationally, highlights particular challenges with the approach, and proposes ways that LEA might be applied to pharmacogenomic interventions.

Personalized medicine, availability, and group disparity: an inquiry into how physicians perceive and rate the elements and barriers of personalized medicine

BACKGROUND

The success of personalized medicine depends on factors influencing the availability and implementation of its new tools to individualize clinical care. However, little is known about physicians' views of the availability of personalized medicine across racial/ethnic groups and the relationship between perceived availability and clinical implementation. This study examines physicians' perceptions of key elements/tools and potential barriers to personalized medicine in connection with their perceptions of the availability of the latter across subpopulations.

METHODS

Study subjects consisted of physicians recruited from Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and UC Health. An electronic survey conducted from September 2012 to November 2012 recruited 104 physicians. Wilcoxon rank sum analysis compared groups.

RESULTS

Physicians were divided about whether personalized medicine contributes to health equality, as 37.4% of them believe that personalized medicine is currently available only for some subpopulations. They also rated the importance of racial/ethnic background almost as high as the importance of genetic information in the delivery of personalized medicine. Actual elements of personalized medicine rated highest include family history, drug-drug interaction alerts in medical records, and biomarker measurements to guide therapy. Costs of gene-based therapies and genetic testing were rated the most significant barriers. The ratings of several elements and barriers were associated with perceived availability of personalized medicine across subpopulations.

CONCLUSION

While physicians hold differing views about the availability and implementation of personalized medicine, they likewise establish complex relationships between race/ethnicity and personalized medicine that may carry serious implications for its clinical success.

Approval gap of pharmacogenomic biomarkers and in vitro companion diagnostics between the United States and Japan

What is known and objectives

In vitro companion diagnostic devices (CDx) provide information on pharmacogenomic biomarkers (PGBMs) to enable the safe and effective use of targeted agents for personalized therapy. These devices require specific regulations that strike a balance between scientific evidence and financial burden. The aims were to compare approval of PGBMs and CDx in the USA and Japan and to help inform current discussions on personalized medicine.

Methods

We analysed published documentation from the USA and Japan for CDx and PGBMs, listed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Aspects evaluated were aim, approval state and therapeutic area. Coverage by the National Health Insurance in Japan was also investigated.

Results and discussion

Thirty-eight PGBMs were listed in the FDA table as of March 2013. In the USA, the aim was efficacy in 55% (21/38). The largest therapeutic area was oncology (39%, 15/38). Fifty-three per cent (20/38) of the PGBMs had a corresponding CDx approved. Of the 38 PGBMs in the FDA table, six had no approved drug in Japan; in 16 of the remaining 32 PGBMs, the aim was efficacy. The largest therapeutic area was oncology (34%, 11/32). Of the 32 PGBMs, 15 were associated with an approved and/or covered CDx, with only 11 having an approved CDx. Four PGBMs had a covered CDx without prior approval in Japan.

What is new and conclusion

Our study confirms that there is still a substantial gap in the approval of PGBMs and CDx between Japan and the USA. Complementary coverage of unapproved CDx by the National Health Insurance, however, is raising access to a similar level in both countries. Because the number of expensive personalized medicines and CDx is increasing, patient access will continue to be an important challenge to healthcare systems in all countries.