Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Some economics on personalized and predictive medicine

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gibson, W.M.: Can personalized medicine survive? Can Fam Physician 17(8), 29–88 (1971)

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Antoñanzas, F., Rodríguez-Ibeas, R., Hutter, M.F., Lorente, R., Juárez, C., Pinillos, M.: Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter? Eur J Health Econ 12(5), 651–662 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Payne, K.A., Frueh, F.W., Sohal, J.: Enhancing the health economic value of retrospective and prospective real-world studies with pharmacogenomic testing: opportunities and challenges associated with an integrated personalized medicine approach. Value Health 15(4), A159–A160 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lester, D.S.: Will personalized medicine help in ‘transforming’ the business of healthcare? Pers Med 6(5), 555–565 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lewis, J.R.R., Lipworth, W.L., Kerridge, I.H., Day, R.O.: The economic evaluation of personalised oncology medicines: ethical challenges. Med J Aust 199(7), 471–473 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schildmann, J., Marckmann, G., Vollmann, J.: Personalized medicine. medical, ethical, legal, and economic analysis. Ethik in Der Med 25(3), 169–172 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Redekop, W.K., Mladsi, D.: The faces of personalized medicine: a framework for understanding its meaning and scope. Value Health 16, 54–59 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Trusheim, M.R., Berndt, E.R., Douglas, F.L.: Stratified medicine: strategic and economic implications of combining drugs and clinical biomarkers. Nat Rev Drug Discov 6(4), 287–293 (2007)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kalia, M.: Personalized oncology: recent advances and future challenges. Metabolism 62(1), S11–S14 (2013)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Meckley, L.M., Neumann, P.J.: Personalized medicine: factors influencing reimbursement. Health Policy 94(2), 91–100 (2010)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Greeley, S.A.W., John, P.M., Winn, A.N., Ornelas, J., Lipton, R.B., Philpson, L.H., et al.: The cost-effectiveness of personalized genetic medicine the case of genetic testing in neonatal diabetes. Diabetes Care 34(3), 622–627 (2011)

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Postma, M.J., Boersma, C., Vandijck, D., Vegter, S., Le, H.H., Annemans, L.: Health technology assessments in personalized medicine: illustrations for cost-effectiveness analysis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11(4), 367–369 (2011)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Annemans, L., Redekop, K., Payne, K.: Current methodological issues in the economic assessment of personalized medicine. Value Health 16(6), S20–S26 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sahlin, N., Hermeren, G.: Personalised, predictive and preventive medicine: a decision-theoretic perspective. J Risk Res 15(5), 453–457 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chiappori, P.A.: The Welfare of Predictive Medicine, in Competitive Failures in Insurances Markets: Theory and Policy Implications, pp. 55–78. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Ervik, M., Dikshit, R., Eser, S., Mathers, C., Rebelo, M., Parkin, D.M., Forman, D., Bray, F.: GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC cancerbase no. 11. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer 2013. http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 29 May 2014

  17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): KRAS Mutation testing of tumours in adults with metastatic colorectal cancer: diagnostic assessment report. (2013). http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13937/65373/65373.pdf. Accessed 05 July 2014

  18. Behl, A.S., et al.: Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for KRAS and BRAF mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 104(23), 1785–1795 (2012)

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Thierry, A.R., et al.: Clinical validation of the detection of KRAS and BRAF mutations from circulating tumor DNA. Nat Med 20, 430–435 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Prostate Cancer Research Institute: PCA3: A genetic marker of prostate cancer. http://prostate-cancer.org/pca3-a-genetic-marker-of-prostate-cancer. Accessed 02 June 2014

  21. Barbera, M., Pepe, P., Paola, Q., Aragona, F.: PCA3 score accuracy in diagnosing prostate cancer at repeat biopsy: our experience in 177 patients. Arch Ital Urol Androl 84(4), 227–229 (2012)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bradley, L.A., Palomaki, G.E., Gutman, S., Samson, D., Aronson, N.: Comparative effectiveness review: prostate cancer antigen 3 testing for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. J Urol 190(2), 389–398 (2013)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Federación Española del Síndrome X Frágil:  ¿Qué es el Sindrome X-frágil? http://www.xfragil.com/sin.htm. Accessed 06 Feb 2014

  24. Weck, K.E., Zehnbauer, B., Datto, M., Schrijver, I.: Molecular genetic testing for fragile X syndrome: laboratory performance on the College of American Pathologists proficiency surveys (2001–2009). Genet Med 14(3), 306–312 (2012)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Towse, A., Garrison, L.P.: Economic incentives for evidence generation: promoting an efficient path to personalized medicine. Value Health 16(6), S39–S43 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. O’Donnell, J.C.: Personalized medicine and the role of health economics and outcomes research: issues, applications, emerging trends, and future research. Value Health 16(6), S1–S3 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rogowski, W., Payne, K., Schnell-Inderst, P., Manca, A., Rochau, U., Jahn, B., et al.: Concepts of "Personalization" in personalized medicine: implications for economic evaluation. PharmacoEconomics. (2014). doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0211-5

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank two anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Antoñanzas.

Appendix

Appendix

Let us assume that the test classifies a patient as being of type 1. Then, she receives treatment A and her expected net benefit is

$$- C_{\text{A}} + { \Pr }\left( {1 |t1} \right)b_{1} + { \Pr }\left( {2 |t1} \right)\beta b_{2} - h$$
(7)

where \({ \Pr }\left( {j |t1} \right)\) is the posterior probability that the patient is of type j, j = 1, 2, given that the test identified the patient as being of type 1.

$$\begin{gathered} {\text{Pr }}\left( {1 |t1} \right) = \frac{{\Pr \left( 1 \right){ \Pr }\left( {t1 |1} \right)}}{{\Pr \left( 1 \right){ \Pr }\left( {t1 |1} \right) + \Pr \left( 2 \right){ \Pr }\left( {t1 |2} \right)}} = \frac{\pi s}{{\pi s + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)\left( {1 - e} \right)}} \hfill \\ \Pr \left( {2 |t1} \right) = \frac{{\Pr \left( 2 \right){ \Pr }\left( {t1 |2} \right)}}{{{ \Pr }\left( 2 \right){ \Pr }\left( {t1 |2} \right) + \Pr \left( { 1} \right){ \Pr }\left( {t1 |1} \right)}} = \frac{{\left( {1 - \pi } \right)(1 - e)}}{{\pi s + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)\left( {1 - e} \right)}} \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$

where \({ \Pr }\left( {t1 |j} \right)\) is the probability that the test identifies a patient as being of type 1 when she is of type j, j = 1, 2.

By plugging these expressions into (7), we have that the net expected benefit of a patient identified as being of type 1 is

$$\Pi \left( {t1} \right) = \frac{{\pi sb_{1} + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)\left( {1 - e} \right)\beta b_{2} }}{\pi s + (1 - \pi )(1 - e)} - \left( {C_{\text{A}} + h} \right)$$

The probability that the test identifies a patient as being of type 1 is result of the test is \(\Pr \left( {t1} \right) = \pi s \, + \, (1 - \pi )(1 - e)\).

Let us assume that the test classifies a patient as being of type 2. Then, she receives treatment B and her expected net benefit is

$$- C_{\text{B}} + { \Pr }\left( {2 |t2} \right)b_{2} + { \Pr }\left( {1 |t2} \right)\alpha b_{1} - h$$
(8)

where \({ \Pr }\left( {j |t2} \right)\) is the probability that the test identifies a patient as being of type 2 when she is of type j, j = 1, 2. Following Bayes, we have

$$\begin{gathered} {\text{Pr }}\left( {1 |t2} \right) = \frac{{\Pr \left( 1 \right){ \Pr }\left( {t2 |1} \right)}}{{\Pr \left( 1 \right){ \Pr }\left( {t2 |1} \right) + \Pr \left( 2 \right){ \Pr }\left( {t2 |2} \right)}} = \frac{\pi (1 - s)}{{\pi (1 - s) + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)e}} \hfill \\ \Pr \left( {2 |t2} \right) = \frac{{\Pr \left( 2 \right){ \Pr }\left( {t2 |2} \right)}}{{{ \Pr }\left( 2 \right){ \Pr }\left( {t2 |2} \right) + \Pr \left( { 1} \right){ \Pr }\left( {t2 |1} \right)}} = \frac{{\left( {1 - \pi } \right)e}}{{\pi (1 - s) + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)e}} \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$

where \({ \Pr }\left( {t2 |j} \right)\) is the probability that the test identifies a patient as being of type 2 when she is of type j, j = 1, 2.

By plugging these expressions into (8), we have that the net expected benefit of a patient identified as being of type 2 is:

$$\Pi \left( {t2} \right) = \frac{{\pi \left( {1 - s} \right)\alpha b_{1} + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)eb_{2} }}{\pi (1 - s) + (1 - \pi )e} - \left( {C_{\text{B}} + h} \right)$$

The probability that the test identifies a patient as being of type 1 is result of the test is \(\Pr \left( {t2} \right) = \pi \left( {1 - s} \right) + \,\left( {1 - \pi } \right)e\).

Therefore, if the test is administered, the expected net benefit \(\Pi (T,h)\) is:

$$\begin{aligned} \Pi \left( {T,h} \right) & = \Pr \left( {t1} \right)\Pi \left( {t1} \right) + \Pr \left( {t2} \right)\Pi \left( {t2} \right) \\ & = \left[ {\pi s + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)\left( {1 - e} \right)} \right]\left[ {\frac{{\pi sb_{1} + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)\left( {1 - e} \right)\beta b_{2} }}{\pi s + (1 - \pi )(1 - e)} - \left( {C_{\text{A}} + h} \right)} \right] \\ & \quad + \left[ {\pi \left( {1 - s} \right) + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)e} \right]\left[ {\frac{{\pi \left( {1 - s} \right)\alpha b_{1} + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)eb_{2} }}{\pi (1 - s) + (1 - \pi )e} - \left( {C_{\text{B}} + h} \right)} \right] \\ & = \pi b_{1} \left[ {s + \alpha (1 - s)} \right] + (1 - \pi )b_{2} \left[ {e + \beta (1 - e)} \right] - C_{\text{A}} + \Delta C\left[ {\pi \left( {1 - s} \right) + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)e} \right] - h \\ \end{aligned}$$

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antoñanzas, F., Juárez-Castelló, C.A. & Rodríguez-Ibeas, R. Some economics on personalized and predictive medicine. Eur J Health Econ 16, 985–994 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0647-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0647-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation