{"title":"比较有效性研究背景下的个体化医疗","authors":"A. Basu","doi":"10.1515/fhep-2013-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The world of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) seems to bridge the previously disjointed worlds of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and personalized medicine (PM). Indeed, theoretical reasoning on how information on medical quality should inform decision making, both at the individual and the policy level, reveals that personalized information on the value of medical products is critical for improving decision making at all levels. However, challenges to generating, evaluating and translating evidence that might lead to personalization need to be critically assessed. In this paper, I discuss two different concepts of personalized medicine – passive personalization (PPM) and active personalization (APM) that are important to distinguish in order to invest efficiently in PCOR and develop objective evidence on the value of personalization that will aid in its translation. APM constitutes the process of actively seeking identifiers, which can be genotypical, phenotypical or even environmental, that can be used to differentiate between the marginal benefits of treatment across patients. In contrast, PPM involves a passive approach to personalization where, in the absence of explicit research to discover identifiers, patients and physicians “learn by doing” mostly due to the repeated use of similar products on similar patients. Benchmarking the current state of PPM sets the bar to which the expected value of any new APM agenda should be evaluated. Exploring processes that enable PPM in practice can help discover new APM agendas, such as those based on developing predictive algorithms based on clinical, phenotypical and preference data, which may be more efficient that trying to develop expensive genetic tests. It can also identify scenarios or subgroups of patients where genomic research would be most valuable since alternative prediction algorithms were difficult to develop in those settings. Two clinical scenarios are discussed where PPM was explored through novel econometric methods. Related discussions around exploring PPM processes, multi-dimensionality of outcomes, and a balanced agenda for future research on personalization follow.","PeriodicalId":38039,"journal":{"name":"Forum for Health Economics and Policy","volume":"85 1","pages":"S73 - S86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Personalized Medicine in the Context of Comparative Effectiveness Research\",\"authors\":\"A. Basu\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/fhep-2013-0009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The world of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) seems to bridge the previously disjointed worlds of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and personalized medicine (PM). Indeed, theoretical reasoning on how information on medical quality should inform decision making, both at the individual and the policy level, reveals that personalized information on the value of medical products is critical for improving decision making at all levels. However, challenges to generating, evaluating and translating evidence that might lead to personalization need to be critically assessed. In this paper, I discuss two different concepts of personalized medicine – passive personalization (PPM) and active personalization (APM) that are important to distinguish in order to invest efficiently in PCOR and develop objective evidence on the value of personalization that will aid in its translation. APM constitutes the process of actively seeking identifiers, which can be genotypical, phenotypical or even environmental, that can be used to differentiate between the marginal benefits of treatment across patients. In contrast, PPM involves a passive approach to personalization where, in the absence of explicit research to discover identifiers, patients and physicians “learn by doing” mostly due to the repeated use of similar products on similar patients. Benchmarking the current state of PPM sets the bar to which the expected value of any new APM agenda should be evaluated. Exploring processes that enable PPM in practice can help discover new APM agendas, such as those based on developing predictive algorithms based on clinical, phenotypical and preference data, which may be more efficient that trying to develop expensive genetic tests. It can also identify scenarios or subgroups of patients where genomic research would be most valuable since alternative prediction algorithms were difficult to develop in those settings. Two clinical scenarios are discussed where PPM was explored through novel econometric methods. Related discussions around exploring PPM processes, multi-dimensionality of outcomes, and a balanced agenda for future research on personalization follow.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38039,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forum for Health Economics and Policy\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"S73 - S86\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forum for Health Economics and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/fhep-2013-0009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forum for Health Economics and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/fhep-2013-0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
Personalized Medicine in the Context of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Abstract The world of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) seems to bridge the previously disjointed worlds of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and personalized medicine (PM). Indeed, theoretical reasoning on how information on medical quality should inform decision making, both at the individual and the policy level, reveals that personalized information on the value of medical products is critical for improving decision making at all levels. However, challenges to generating, evaluating and translating evidence that might lead to personalization need to be critically assessed. In this paper, I discuss two different concepts of personalized medicine – passive personalization (PPM) and active personalization (APM) that are important to distinguish in order to invest efficiently in PCOR and develop objective evidence on the value of personalization that will aid in its translation. APM constitutes the process of actively seeking identifiers, which can be genotypical, phenotypical or even environmental, that can be used to differentiate between the marginal benefits of treatment across patients. In contrast, PPM involves a passive approach to personalization where, in the absence of explicit research to discover identifiers, patients and physicians “learn by doing” mostly due to the repeated use of similar products on similar patients. Benchmarking the current state of PPM sets the bar to which the expected value of any new APM agenda should be evaluated. Exploring processes that enable PPM in practice can help discover new APM agendas, such as those based on developing predictive algorithms based on clinical, phenotypical and preference data, which may be more efficient that trying to develop expensive genetic tests. It can also identify scenarios or subgroups of patients where genomic research would be most valuable since alternative prediction algorithms were difficult to develop in those settings. Two clinical scenarios are discussed where PPM was explored through novel econometric methods. Related discussions around exploring PPM processes, multi-dimensionality of outcomes, and a balanced agenda for future research on personalization follow.
期刊介绍:
Forum for Health Economics & Policy (FHEP) showcases articles in key substantive areas that lie at the intersection of health economics and health policy. The journal uses an innovative structure of forums to promote discourse on the most pressing and timely subjects in health economics and health policy, such as biomedical research and the economy, and aging and medical care costs. Forums are chosen by the Editorial Board to reflect topics where additional research is needed by economists and where the field is advancing rapidly. The journal is edited by Katherine Baicker, David Cutler and Alan Garber of Harvard University, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Dana Goldman of the University of Southern California and RAND Corporation, Neeraj Sood of the University of Southern California, Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson of University of Chicago, Pinar Karaca Mandic of the University of Minnesota, and John Romley of the University of Southern California. FHEP is sponsored by the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California. A subscription to the journal also includes the proceedings from the National Bureau of Economic Research''s annual Frontiers in Health Policy Research Conference. Topics: Economics, Political economics, Biomedical research and the economy, Aging and medical care costs, Nursing, Cancer studies, Medical treatment, Others related.