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

Personalized Medicine

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 435-448

  Merlin, Tracy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

biological markers; biomedical; diagnostic test approval; economics; health policy; health services accessibility economics; individualized medicine; molecular targeted therapy; outcome assessment (health care) economics; outcome assessment (health care) methods; pharmaceutical; pharmacogenetics; technology assessment

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL EVALUATION; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LINKED EVIDENCE APPROACH; METHODOLOGY; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PHARMACOGENOMICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW;

EID: 84906234954     PISSN: 17410541     EISSN: 1744828X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/pme.14.28     Document Type: Review

References (73)

1. Wolcott J, Schwartz A, Goodman C. Laboratory Medicine: A National Status Report. Division of Laboratory Systems, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 385, (2008). http://www.futurelabmedicine.org/our-findings/
2. Suthers G. Report of the Australian Genetic Testing Survey 2006. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Adelaide, Australia, 117 (2008).
3. Garrison LP, Austin MJF. The Economics of Personalized Medicine: A Model of Incentives for Value Creation and Capture. Drug Inf. J. 41, 501-509 (2007).
4. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Interim Methods Statement (pilot). Version 8 Final. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence Centre for Health Technology Evaluation, Diagnostics Assessment Programme, Manchester, UK, 46, (2010). http://www.nice.org.uk/media/09E/D5/ DiagnosticsAssessmentProgramme InterimMethodsStatement.pdf
5. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Diagnostics Assessment Programme Manual. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence Centre for Health Technology Evaluation, Diagnostics Assessment Programme, Manchester, UK, 130 (2011).
6. European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model for Diagnostic Technologies. Work Package 4. FinOHTA, Finnish Office for HTA, Finland, 176 (2008).
7. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 12-EC017. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, USA, 188 (2012).
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Office of Public Health Genomics. ACCE Model List of 44 Targeted Questions Aimed at a Comprehensive Review of Genetic Testing. (2010). http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/ACCE/ acce-proj.htm
9. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices: Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, USA, 12 (2011).
10. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Guidelines for the Assessment of Diagnostic Technologies. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 1-93 (2005).
11. Staub L, Dyer S, Lord S, Simes RJ. Linking the Evidence: Intermediate Outcomes in Medical Test Assessments. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 28(1), 52-58 (2012).
12. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group. The EGAPP initiative: lessons learned. Genet. Med. (2013). doi:10.1038/gim.110 (Epub ahead of print).
13. Di Ruffano L, Davenport C, Eising A, Hyde C, Deeks J. A capture-recapture analysis demonstrated that randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of diagnostic tests on patient outcomes are rare. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 65(3), 282-287 (2012).
14. Lord SJ, Irwig L, Bossuyt PM. Using the principles of randomized controlled trial design to guide test evaluation. Med. Decis. Making 29(5), E1-E12 (2009).
15. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med. Decis. Making 11, 88-94 (1991).
16. Harris R, Helfand M, Woolf S et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am. J. Prev. Med. 20(Suppl. 3), 21-35 (2001).
17. Nelson H, Huffman L, Fu R, Harris E. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann. Intern. Med. 143, 362-379 (2005).
18. Nelson H, Pappas M, Zakher B, Mitchell J, Okinaka-Hu L, Fu R. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: a systematic review to update the U.S. preventive services task force recommendation. Ann. Intern. Med. 160, 255-266 (2014).
19. Whitlock E, Garlitz B, Harris E, Bell T, Smith P. Screening for hereditary hemochromatosis: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann. Intern. Med. 145, 209-223 (2006).
20. Merlin T, Lehman S, Hiller JE, Ryan P. The "linked evidence approach" to assess medical tests: a critical analysis. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 29(3), 343-350 (2013).
21. Buckley L, Wang S, Merlin T. Molecular testing for myeloproliferative disease. Part A - Polycythaemia vera, essential thrombocythaemia and primary myelofibrosis. Part B - Systemic mast cell disease, hypereosinophilic syndrome and chronic eosinophilic leukaemia. MSAC application 1125 Assessment report. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 273 (2009).
22. Gillespie J, Guarnieri C, Phillips H, Bhatti T. Urinary metabolic profiling for detection of metabolic disorders. MSAC application 1114 Assessment report. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 168 (2009).
23. Bruel A, Cleemput I, Aertgeerts B, Ramaekers D, Buntinx F. The evaluation of diagnostic tests: evidence on technical and diagnostic accuracy, impact on patient outcome and costeffectiveness is needed. J. Clin. Epidemiol. (11), 1116-1122 (2007).
24. Haddow J, Palomaki G. Population based prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis via carrier testing: ACCE review. Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, 252, (2002). http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/ACCE/ACCE.htm
25. Rowley P, Haddow JE, Palomaki GE. DNA testing strategies aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC): an ACCE mini-review. 42, (2003). Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/ACCE/ACCE.htm
26. McClain M, Palomaki G, Piper M, Haddow J. A rapid-ACCE review of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 alleles testing to inform warfarin dosing in adults at elevated risk for thrombotic events to avoid serious bleeding. Genet. Med. 10(2), 89-98 (2008).
27. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE et al. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet. Med. 11(1), 3-14 (2009).
28. Merlin T, Weston A, Tooher R. Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian 'levels of evidence'. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 9, 34 (2009).
29. Bonis P, Trikalinos T, Chung M et al. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: diagnostic strategies and their implications. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 150 (Prepared by Tufts-New England Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-202-0022). AHRQ Publication No. 07-E008. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, USA, 781 (2007).
30. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet. Med. 11(1), 35-41 (2009).
31. Mina K. Report of the RCPA Genetic Testing Survey 2011. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, 35, (2012). http://www.rcpa.edu.au/Library/ Practising-Pathology/RCPAGenetic-Testing/Docs/RCPA-Genetic-Testing-Survey-Report
32. Terasawa T, Dahabreh I, Castaldi P, Trikalinos T. Systematic Reviews on Selected Pharmacogenetic Tests for Cancer Treatment: CYP2D6 for Tamoxifen in Breast Cancer, KRAS for anti-EGFR antibodies in Colorectal Cancer, and BCR-ABL1 for Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. AHRQ Technology Assessment Report. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, USA, 184 (2010).
33. Laksman Z, Detsky As. Personalized medicine: understanding probabilities and managing expectations. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 26(2), 204-206 (2011).
34. Holmes MV, Shah T, Vickery C, Smeeth L, Hingorani AD, Casas JP. Fulfilling the promise of personalized medicine? Systematic review and field synopsis of pharmacogenetic studies. PLoS ONE 4(12), e7960 (2009).
35. Ioannidis J, Trikalinos T, Ntzani E, Contopoulos-Ioannidis D. Genetic associations in large versus small studies: an empirical assessment. Lancet (361), 567-571 (2003).
36. Colhoun H, Mckeigue P, Davey Smith G. Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. Lancet 361, 865-872 (2003).
37. Van Cutsem E, Kohne CH, Hitre E et al. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 360(14), 1408-1417 (2009).
38. Douillard JY, Oliner KS, Siena S et al. Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 369(11), 1023-1034 (2013).
39. Regan MM, Leyland-Jones B, Bouzyk M et al. CYP2D6 genotype and tamoxifen response in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: the breast international group 1-98 trial. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 104(6), 441-451 (2012).
40. Meckley LM, Neumann PJ. Personalized medicine: factors influencing reimbursement. Health Policy 94(2), 91-100 (2010).
41. Faulkner E, Annemans L, Garrison L et al. Challenges in the development and reimbursement of personalized medicinepayer and manufacturer perspectives and implications for health economics and outcomes research: a report of the ISPOR personalized medicine special interest group. Value Health 15(8), 1162-1171 (2012).
42. Merlin T, Farah C, Schubert C, Mitchell A, Hiller JE, Ryan P. Assessing personalized medicines in Australia: a national framework for reviewing codependent technologies. Med. Decis. Making 33(3), 333-342 (2013).
43. Bradford Hill A. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58, 295-300 (1965).
44. Craig D, Mcdaid C, Fonseca T, Stock C, Duffy S, Woolacott N. Are adverse effects incorporated in economic models? A survey of current practice. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 26(03), 323-329 (2010).
45. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (Egapp) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: testing for cytochrome P450 polymorphisms in adults with nonpsychotic depression treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Genet. Med. 9(12), 819-825 (2007).
46. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (Egapp) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan? Genet. Med. 11(1), 15-20 (2009).
47. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (Egapp) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: routine testing for Factor V Leiden (R506Q) and prothrombin (20210G>A) mutations in adults with a history of idiopathic venous thromboembolism and their adult family members. Genet. Med. 13(1), 67-76 (2011).
48. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can testing of tumor tissue for mutations in EGFR pathway downstream effector genes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer improve health outcomes by guiding decisions regarding anti-EGFR therapy? Genet. Med. 15(7), 517-527 (2013).
49. Payne K, Annemans L. Reflections on market access for personalized medicine: recommendations for Europe. Value Health 16(Suppl. 6), S32-S38 (2013).
50. Fleeman N, Martin Saborido C, Payne K et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of genotyping for CYP2D6 for the management of women with breast cancer treated with tamoxifen: a systematic review. Health Technol. Assess. 15(33), 1-102 (2011).
51. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. EGFRTK mutation testing in adults with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. NICE diagnostics guidance 9, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK, 46, (2013). http://guidance.nice.org.uk/DG9/ Guidance/pdf/English
52. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. ADDENDUM - July 2013. Product: Dabrafenib, capsules,50 mg and 75 mg Tafinlar®. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 3 (2013).
53. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public Summary Document, Product: Gefitinib, tablet, 250mg, Iressa®. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 13 (2013).
54. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public Summary Document, Product: Erlotinib, tablets, 25 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg (as hydrochloride), Tarceva®. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 21 (2013).
55. Hailey D. The history of health technology assessment in Australia. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 25(Suppl. 1), 61-67 (2009).
56. Ginsburg GS, Kuderer NM. Comparative effectiveness research, genomics-enabled personalized medicine, and rapid learning health care: a common bond. J. Clin. Oncol. 30(34), 4233-4242 (2012).
57. Abecasis GR, Auton A, Brooks LD et al. An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes. Nature 491(7422), 56-65 (2012).
58. Becla L, Lunshof JE, Gurwitz D et al. Health technology assessment in the era of personalized health care. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 27(2), 118-126 (2011).
59. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Public Summary Document, Application No. 1207 - Testing for V600 status in patients with locally advanced or metastatic melanoma for eligibility for dabrafenib treatment. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 8 (2013).
60. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Public Summary Document, Application No. 1174. Assessment of viral tropism testing of HIV to inform treatment with maraviroc. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 15 (2012).
61. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public Summary Document, Product: maraviroc, tablets, 150 mg and 300 mg, Celsentri®. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, 10 (2012).
62. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Public Summary Document, Application No. 1163 - Assessment of HER2 gene amplification for use of trastuzumab in gastric cancer. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, 17 (2012).
63. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public Summary Document, Product: Trastuzumab, powder for I.V. infusion, 60 mg and 150 mg, Herceptin®. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 7 (2012).
64. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Public Summary Document, Application 1161 - Gefitinib first line testing for mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 14 (2013).
65. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Public Summary Document, Application No. 1172 - BRAF genetic testing in patients with melanoma for access to proposed PBS-funded vemurafenib. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 8 (2013).
66. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public Summary Document, Product: Vemurafenib; tablet, 240 mg, Zelboraf®. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 7 (2013).
67. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Public Summary Document, Application 1173 - Testing for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status in patients with locally advanced (stage IIIB) or metastatic (stage IV) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for access to erlotinib. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 15 (2013).
68. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Public Summary Document, Application No. 1230 - HER2 ISH testing for access to trastuzumab for neoadjuvant breast cancer. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 4 (2012).
69. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public Summary Document, Product: Trastuzumab, powder for I.V. infusion, 60 mg and 150 mg, Herceptin®. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 11 (2012).
70. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. November 2013 PBAC Meeting Outcomes - Deferrals. Australian Government Department of Health, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 4, (2013). http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/ pbacmeetings/pbac-outcomes/2013-2011
71. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. November 2013 PBAC Meeting Outcomes - Positive Recommendations. Australian Government Department of Health, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 41, (2013). http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/ listing/elements/pbacmeetings/pbac-outcomes/2013-2011
72. CDC. Genomic Tests and Family History by Levels of Evidence. http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/tier.htm
73. IT Future of Medicine. Setting the Scene. http://www.itfom.eu/images/ downloads/ITFoM-fet11-setting%20the%20scene%2017-05-2011.pdf