Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Genet Med. 2014 Mar;16(3):251-7. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.122. Epub 2013 Oct 17.

The economic value of personalized medicine tests: what we know and what we need to know.

Author information

1
1] Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA [2] UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy, San Francisco, California, USA [3] UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California, USA [4] UCSF Institute for Human Genetics, Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
2
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
3
1] Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA [2] UCSF Institute for Human Genetics, Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
4
1] Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA [2] McKing Consulting Corporation, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
5
1] Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA [2] Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, USA.
6
Center for Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

There is uncertainty about when personalized medicine tests provide economic value. We assessed evidence on the economic value of personalized medicine tests and gaps in the evidence base.

METHODS:

We created a unique evidence base by linking data on published cost-utility analyses from the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry with data measuring test characteristics and reflecting where value analyses may be most needed: (i) tests currently available or in advanced development, (ii) tests for drugs with Food and Drug Administration labels with genetic information, (iii) tests with demonstrated or likely clinical utility, (iv) tests for conditions with high mortality, and (v) tests for conditions with high expenditures.

RESULTS:

We identified 59 cost-utility analyses studies that examined personalized medicine tests (1998-2011). A majority (72%) of the cost/quality-adjusted life year ratios indicate that testing provides better health although at higher cost, with almost half of the ratios falling below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-fifth of the results indicate that tests may save money.

CONCLUSION:

Many personalized medicine tests have been found to be relatively cost-effective, although fewer have been found to be cost saving, and many available or emerging medicine tests have not been evaluated. More evidence on value will be needed to inform decision making and assessment of genomic priorities.

PMID:
24232413
PMCID:
PMC3949119
DOI:
10.1038/gim.2013.122
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Nature Publishing Group Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center