Economic Evaluations of Pathology Tests, 2010-2015: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Concerns about pathology testing such as the value provided by new tests and the potential for inappropriate utilization have led to a greater need to assess costs and benefits. Economic evaluations are a formal method of analyzing costs and benefits, yet for pathology tests, questions remain about the scope and quality of the economic evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the extent and quality of published evidence provided by economic evaluations of pathology tests from 2010 to 2015.

METHODS

Economic evaluations relating to pathology tests from 2010 to 2015 were reviewed. Eight databases were searched for published studies, and details recorded for the country, clinical focus, type of testing, and consideration of sensitivity, specificity, and false test results. The reporting quality of studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and cost-effectiveness ratios were analyzed for publication bias.

RESULTS

We found 356 economic evaluations of pathology tests, most of which regarded developed countries. The most common economic evaluations were cost-utility analyses and the most common clinical focus was infectious diseases. More than half of the studies considered sensitivity and specificity, but few studies considered the impact of false test results. The average Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist score was 17 out of 24. Cost-utility ratios were commonly less than $10,000/quality-adjusted life-year or more than $200,000/quality-adjusted life-year.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of economic evaluations of pathology tests has increased in recent years, but the rate of increase has plateaued. Furthermore, the quality of studies in the past 5 years was highly variable, and there is some question of publication bias in reporting cost-effectiveness ratios.

Assessing the value of cardiac biomarkers: going beyond diagnostic accuracy?

In this era of scrutinized resource utilization, providers and payers are focused on the value of healthcare interventions more than ever. Cost-effectiveness evaluations are required by some health authorities and requested by others in order to guide budget allocation decisions. In the past, these evaluations did not methodologically consider laboratory diagnostics. We set out to explore the current requirements of health technology agencies that include laboratory diagnostics and describe, through a review of the literature, alternative methods for establishing the value of a biomarker or labroatory diagnostic beyond assay specifications and performance. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current use of a linked evidence approach in cost-effectiveness studies for cardiac laboratory tests in the last 5 years.

The economic evaluation of medical devices: challenges ahead

The economic evaluation of medical technology has evolved as a key element in supporting health budget allocation decisions. Among suppliers of innovation, the medical device industry is one of the most dynamic fields of medical progress with thousands of new products marketed every year. Accordingly, the broad variety of technologies covered by the umbrella term 'medical devices' have come under increasing scrutiny regarding their cost effectiveness. In the process, a number of device-specific factors have become apparent, each of which can complicate a thorough economic evaluation and limit its informative value. Some of these factors relate to specific characteristics of device functioning. Examples of such factors include the fact that most technologies require, or form part of, a procedure and that many devices have multiple indications or purposes. Others in turn reflect external conditions and are more general in character, such as the regulatory framework that a medical device manufacturer faces prior to market approval and the structure of the medical device industry. Drawing on the available literature, these complicating factors and their practical implications are discussed and used as a basis to elaborate on the emerging challenges for the economic evaluation of medical devices.

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.

Cost-utility analyses of diagnostic laboratory tests: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review and evaluate the literature of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) regarding diagnostic laboratory testing.

METHODS

We reviewed all articles related to diagnostic laboratory testing in the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org), which contains detailed information on over 2000 published CUAs through 2008. We analyzed the extent to which the studies adhered to recommended practices for conducting and reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. We also recorded whether the studies contained information on diagnostic test accuracy and costs, and whether any account was taken of potential benefits or harms of testing that are unrelated to subsequent treatment, such as the reassurance value of testing.

RESULTS

We identified 141 published CUAs pertaining to diagnostic laboratory testing published through 2008 which contained 433 separate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Prior to 2000, there were only 20 CUAs published, but the number averaged 13.4 annually thereafter. Most studies focused on hematology/oncology (n = 42, 30%) and obstetrics/gynecology (n = 36, 26%) applications. Approximately 63% (n = 89) of studies clearly reported information about the accuracy of the test, but only 10% (n = 14) mentioned test safety or possible risks. A small number (n = 10, 7%) mentioned or considered the potential value or harm of testing unrelated to treatment consequences. Over 55% of the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were either dominant (more quality-adjusted life years for less cost), or below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life years gained (in 2008 US dollars).

CONCLUSION

The number of CUAs investigating laboratory diagnostic testing has increased substantially with applications to diverse clinical areas. The literature reveals many areas in which testing represents good value for money. The vast majority of studies have not considered preferences for test information unrelated to treatment consequences.