Developing new frameworks to value genomic information: accounting for complexity.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Personalized medicine Pub Date : 2021-07-01 Epub Date: 2021-05-11 DOI:10.2217/pme-2021-0023
Martin Eden
{"title":"Developing new frameworks to value genomic information: accounting for complexity.","authors":"Martin Eden","doi":"10.2217/pme-2021-0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Current frameworks & their limitations Decisions have to be made about how to allocate the finite resources available to healthcare systems. Frameworks exist that can aid decisions about whether a new healthcare intervention should be approved for use in a healthcare system. These frameworks are typically underpinned by a formal approach to economic evaluation called cost– effectiveness analysis (CEA) and are primarily driven by the tenet that population health should be maximized. In a CEA, two or more interventions are assessed in terms of their costs and outcomes to determine the relative cost–effectiveness of an intervention compared with its alternatives. To enable comparisons between different types of healthcare interventions in a CEA, it is preferable to use a standard, common outcome measure: the qualityadjusted life-year (QALY). Mortality effects and quality of life attributable to ‘health’ are captured by the QALY with ‘health’ being narrowly defined by the scope of recommended survey tools such as the EQ-5D [1]. Generally speaking, the frameworks have proved useful for resource allocation decision making and have been successfully adopted in a number of jurisdictions across the world. There are, however, specific situations in which QALY-based frameworks, as currently applied, are inadequate. Notably, limitations have been identified where genomic information forms part of a complex intervention, for example, in precision medicine initiatives [2,3]. Interventions which utilize genomic information are complex, in that multiple elements combine to produce multifaceted outcomes. Importantly, these outcomes can extend beyond the confines of ‘health’ as conceptualized in the QALY.","PeriodicalId":19753,"journal":{"name":"Personalized medicine","volume":"18 4","pages":"329-332"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e6/c2/pme-18-329.PMC8242980.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personalized medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2021-0023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Current frameworks & their limitations Decisions have to be made about how to allocate the finite resources available to healthcare systems. Frameworks exist that can aid decisions about whether a new healthcare intervention should be approved for use in a healthcare system. These frameworks are typically underpinned by a formal approach to economic evaluation called cost– effectiveness analysis (CEA) and are primarily driven by the tenet that population health should be maximized. In a CEA, two or more interventions are assessed in terms of their costs and outcomes to determine the relative cost–effectiveness of an intervention compared with its alternatives. To enable comparisons between different types of healthcare interventions in a CEA, it is preferable to use a standard, common outcome measure: the qualityadjusted life-year (QALY). Mortality effects and quality of life attributable to ‘health’ are captured by the QALY with ‘health’ being narrowly defined by the scope of recommended survey tools such as the EQ-5D [1]. Generally speaking, the frameworks have proved useful for resource allocation decision making and have been successfully adopted in a number of jurisdictions across the world. There are, however, specific situations in which QALY-based frameworks, as currently applied, are inadequate. Notably, limitations have been identified where genomic information forms part of a complex intervention, for example, in precision medicine initiatives [2,3]. Interventions which utilize genomic information are complex, in that multiple elements combine to produce multifaceted outcomes. Importantly, these outcomes can extend beyond the confines of ‘health’ as conceptualized in the QALY.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开发新的框架来评估基因组信息:计算复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Personalized medicine
Personalized medicine 医学-药学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Personalized Medicine (ISSN 1741-0541) translates recent genomic, genetic and proteomic advances into the clinical context. The journal provides an integrated forum for all players involved - academic and clinical researchers, pharmaceutical companies, regulatory authorities, healthcare management organizations, patient organizations and others in the healthcare community. Personalized Medicine assists these parties to shape thefuture of medicine by providing a platform for expert commentary and analysis. The journal addresses scientific, commercial and policy issues in the field of precision medicine and includes news and views, current awareness regarding new biomarkers, concise commentary and analysis, reports from the conference circuit and full review articles.
期刊最新文献
Challenges and opportunities in building a health economic framework for personalized medicine in oncology. Developing and validating noninvasive prenatal testing for de novo autosomal dominant monogenic diseases in Vietnam. Budget impact and transferability of cost-effectiveness of DPYD testing in metastatic breast cancer in three health systems. Financial incentives to promote personalized medicine in Europe: an overview and guidance for implementation. Cost-effectiveness of extended DPYD testing before fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer in the UK.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1