Defining the balance of risk and benefit in the era of genomics and proteomics

Challenges in the development and reimbursement of personalized medicine-payer and manufacturer perspectives and implications for health economics and outcomes research: a report of the ISPOR personalized medicine special interest group

BACKGROUND

Personalized medicine technologies can improve individual health by delivering the right dose of the right drug to the right patient at the right time but create challenges in deciding which technologies offer sufficient value to justify widespread diffusion. Personalized medicine technologies, however, do not neatly fit into existing health technology assessment and reimbursement processes.

OBJECTIVES

In this article, the Personalized Medicine Special Interest Group of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research evaluated key development and reimbursement considerations from the payer and manufacturer perspectives.

METHODS

Five key areas in which health economics and outcomes research best practices could be developed to improve value assessment, reimbursement, and patient access decisions for personalized medicine have been identified.

RESULTS

These areas are as follows: 1 research prioritization and early value assessment, 2 best practices for clinical evidence development, 3 best practices for health economic assessment, 4 addressing health technology assessment challenges, and 5 new incentive and reimbursement approaches for personalized medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Key gaps in health economics and outcomes research best practices, decision standards, and value assessment processes are also discussed, along with next steps for evolving health economics and outcomes research practices in personalized medicine.

Ethics and Nanopharmacy: Value Sensitive Design of New Drugs

Although applications are being developed and have reached the market, nanopharmacy to date is generally still conceived as an emerging technology. Its concept is ill-defined. Nanopharmacy can also be construed as a converging technology, which combines features of multiple technologies, ranging from nanotechnology to medicine and ICT. It is still debated whether its features give rise to new ethical issues or that issues associated with nanopharma are merely an extension of existing issues in the underlying fields. We argue here that, regardless of the alleged newness of the ethical issues involved, developments occasioned by technological advances affect the roles played by stakeholders in the field of nanopharmacy to such an extent that this calls for a different approach to responsible innovation in this field. Specific features associated with nanopharmacy itself and features introduced to the associated converging technologies- bring about a shift in the roles of stakeholders that call for a different approach to responsibility. We suggest that Value Sensitive Design is a suitable framework to involve stakeholders in addressing moral issues responsibly at an early stage of development of new nanopharmaceuticals.

A formal risk-benefit framework for genomic tests: facilitating the appropriate translation of genomics into clinical practice

PURPOSE

Evaluation of genomic tests is often challenging because of the lack of direct evidence of clinical benefit compared with usual care and unclear evidence requirements. To address these issues, this study presents a risk-benefit framework for assessing the health-related utility of genomic tests.

METHODS

We incorporated approaches from a variety of established fields including decision science, outcomes research, and health technology assessment to develop the framework. Additionally, we considered genomic test stakeholder perspectives and case studies.

RESULTS

We developed a three-tiered framework: first, we use decision-analytic modeling techniques to synthesize data, project incidence of clinical events, and assess uncertainty. Second, we defined the health-related utility of genomic tests as improvement in health outcomes as measured by clinical event rates, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life-years. Finally, we displayed results using a risk-benefit policy matrix to facilitate the interpretation and implementation of findings from these analyses.

CONCLUSION

A formal risk-benefit framework may accelerate the utilization and practice-based evidence development of genomic tests that pose low risk and offer plausible clinical benefit, while discouraging premature use of tests that provide little benefit or pose significant health risks compared with usual care.

Key aspects of health system change on the path to personalized medicine

The tools and knowledge base for personalized medicine practices are being developed as a major transformation is underway in our health care system. Although the foundation supporting the scientific and technological applications that enable individualized approaches in health care continues to be framed, an uncertain health care delivery landscape lies ahead, driven by economic, quality-of-care, and other policy considerations. There are commonalities in the needs and the opportunities for personalized medicine and health care system change, and these 2 facets can mutually inform one another. Here, we examine this interface in the dimensions of innovation and costs, health information technology, evidence development and comparative effectiveness, clinical data standards, consumer tools, and patient safety and public health. Indeed, personalized medicine must offer solutions for broader health priorities if it is to achieve its potential impact.

Pharmacogenomics, evidence, and the role of payers

Initial enthusiasm for the potential of pharmacogenomics (PGx) to transform medical practice has been tempered by the reality that the process of biomarker discovery, validation, and clinical qualification has been disappointingly slow, with a limited number of PGx tests entering the marketplace since the initial publication of the human genome sequence. Reasons for the delays include the complexity of the underlying science as well as clinical, economic, and organizational barriers to the effective delivery of personalized health care. Nevertheless, payers are interested in using PGx services to ensure that drug use is safer and more effective, particularly in the settings of medications that are widely used, have significant risks of serious adverse events, have poor or highly variable drug response, or are very expensive. However, public and private payers have specific evidence requirements for new health care technologies that must be met prior to obtaining favorable coverage and reimbursement status. These evaluation criteria are frequently more rigorous than the current level of evidence required for regulatory approval of new PGx tests or PGx-related drug labeling. To support payer decision-making, researchers will need to measure the impact of PGx testing on clinical and economic outcomes and demonstrate the net benefit of PGx testing as compared to usual care. By linking payer information needs with the current PGx research agenda, there is the opportunity to develop the data required for informed decision-making. This strategy will increase the likelihood that PGx services will be both reimbursed and used appropriately in clinical practice.

Integrating molecular medicine into the US health-care system: opportunities, barriers, and policy challenges

Scientific support about the concept of using molecular data for risk stratification and tailoring health-care interventions to the individual--a strategy broadly defined as molecular medicine (MM)--is accumulating. Molecular-based health-care technologies are beginning to enter clinical practice, but their use has revealed many scientific, economic, and organizational barriers to the effective delivery of targeted health care. We conducted a qualitative interview study to describe the MM landscape, with an emphasis on eliciting policy recommendations for the field from a broad range of stakeholders in MM and health care. Molecular medicine has widespread support but will require changes in how molecular-based technologies are evaluated, how health care is financed and delivered, and how clinicians and consumers are trained and prepared for its use. In particular, researchers and developers need to become active participants in a variety of clinical integration strategies to realize the promise of MM.

Linking Pharmacogenetics-Based Diagnostics And Drugs For Personalized Medicine

Progress toward personalized medicine in the five years following the sequencing of the human genome has been slower than many expected. We focus on two potential factors that might be important in explaining this disappointing progress: the limitations of genetic prediction and the lack of appropriate economic incentives. Clinical application of DNA-based and other biomarkers is likely to succeed only on a case-by-case basis, depending on such factors as information content of the biomarker, accuracy of current assessment methods, and effectiveness of available interventions. Both strong intellectual property and value-based, flexible pricing systems will be important in making personalized medicine a reality.

Evaluation of diagnostic imaging technologies and therapeutics devices: better information for better decisions: proceedings of a multidisciplinary workshop

We are entering an era in which the success of biomedical science and the increasing understanding of the value of evidence for practice are in a state of tension. This tension is especially notable in the device arena, in which the short life cycles and iterative nature of development are at odds with current design constructs of the types of clinical trials that provide evidence for medical decision making. The financial pressure arising from strained budgets and expanding costs from the aging of the population and the continued development of new technology heightens the need for a focus on new approaches. Given this background, a group of experts representing constituencies with different perspectives were convened for a day and a half to discuss key issues and their potential solutions. Because of the complex and heterogeneous nature of the environments in which devices are used, the meeting focused on 3 broad, general uses of devices: imaging, risk stratification, and therapeutics. The goal of the meeting was to develop a preliminary list of ideas that could be framed as researchable questions or constructs for consideration by policy makers that ultimately might lead to improvements in the current system. Across diagnostic imaging, risk stratification devices, and therapeutic devices, the crosscutting issues can be identified: We need better methods of collaborative funding and priority setting, improved and more flexible methods, and new approaches to the integration of federal agencies in overseeing the system.

A public health approach to pharmacogenomics and gene-based diagnostic tests

While the human genome project is likely to lead to fundamental changes in our understanding of disease causation and our ability to screen for disease predisposition and treatment responsiveness, the current healthcare system is not properly aligned to ensure the proper use of these advances. As the pace of genetic technology development increases and new pharmacogenetic drugs and gene-based diagnostic tests increasingly impact providers, patients, health plans, payers and employers, it will be crucial to develop an evidence-based framework by which to evaluate these new tests and treatments. In order to increase the level of evidence available and allow for informed decisions in the face of strong marketing and advocacy forces, the authors suggest the development of one (or more) large clinical networks with the purpose of systematically evaluating the clinical effectiveness of new genomic applications, including pharmaceuticals and gene-based diagnostic tests, in ‘real world’ settings.

A time of accelerated change in academic cardiovascular medicine

With the vast epidemic of vascular disease predicted to be the leading cause of death and disability by a growing margin over the next 30 years, academic medical centers with cardiology training programs have a special responsibility. Given the dramatic advances of biotechnology in producing highly effective but expensive strategies of prevention and treatment, cardiovascular specialists should assist their academic centers in envisioning the future to prepare trainees for a different environment. Cardiologists of the future must be able to adapt to a societal need for patient-oriented, team-based clinical care and rapidly evolving technology, while maintaining the fundamental skills and knowledge required for individual patient interaction. Academic programs should benchmark their activities to ensure responsible resource allocation so that cardiologists of the future will be trained in an environment stimulating excellence and creativity.