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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gibson, W.M.: Can personalized medicine survive? Can Fam Physician 17(8), 29–88 (1971)
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)
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)
Lester, D.S.: Will personalized medicine help in ‘transforming’ the business of healthcare? Pers Med 6(5), 555–565 (2009)
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)
Schildmann, J., Marckmann, G., Vollmann, J.: Personalized medicine. medical, ethical, legal, and economic analysis. Ethik in Der Med 25(3), 169–172 (2013)
Redekop, W.K., Mladsi, D.: The faces of personalized medicine: a framework for understanding its meaning and scope. Value Health 16, 54–59 (2013)
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)
Kalia, M.: Personalized oncology: recent advances and future challenges. Metabolism 62(1), S11–S14 (2013)
Meckley, L.M., Neumann, P.J.: Personalized medicine: factors influencing reimbursement. Health Policy 94(2), 91–100 (2010)
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)
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)
Annemans, L., Redekop, K., Payne, K.: Current methodological issues in the economic assessment of personalized medicine. Value Health 16(6), S20–S26 (2013)
Sahlin, N., Hermeren, G.: Personalised, predictive and preventive medicine: a decision-theoretic perspective. J Risk Res 15(5), 453–457 (2012)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Federación Española del Síndrome X Frágil: ¿Qué es el Sindrome X-frágil? http://www.xfragil.com/sin.htm. Accessed 06 Feb 2014
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)
Towse, A., Garrison, L.P.: Economic incentives for evidence generation: promoting an efficient path to personalized medicine. Value Health 16(6), S39–S43 (2013)
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)
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
Acknowledgments
The authors thank two anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
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:
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0647-8