比较有效性研究背景下的个体化医疗

Q3 Economics, Econometrics and Finance Forum for Health Economics and Policy Pub Date : 2013-09-01 DOI:10.1515/fhep-2013-0009
A. Basu
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 3

摘要

以患者为中心的结果研究(PCOR)的世界似乎连接了以前脱节的比较有效性研究(CER)和个性化医疗(PM)的世界。事实上,关于医疗质量信息应如何在个人和政策层面为决策提供信息的理论推理表明,关于医疗产品价值的个性化信息对于改善各级决策至关重要。然而,需要对可能导致个性化的证据的生成、评估和翻译所面临的挑战进行批判性评估。在本文中,我讨论了个性化医疗的两个不同概念-被动个性化(PPM)和主动个性化(APM),这对于区分有效地投资于PCOR和开发个性化价值的客观证据非常重要,这将有助于其翻译。APM构成了积极寻找标识符的过程,这些标识符可以是基因型的、表型的,甚至是环境的,可以用来区分不同患者治疗的边际效益。相比之下,PPM涉及一种被动的个性化方法,在缺乏明确的研究来发现标识符的情况下,患者和医生“边做边学”,主要是因为在类似的患者身上重复使用类似的产品。对PPM的当前状态进行基准测试为任何新的APM议程的期望值设定了标准。探索在实践中实现PPM的流程可以帮助发现新的APM议程,例如基于临床、表型和偏好数据开发预测算法的议程,这可能比开发昂贵的基因测试更有效。它还可以确定基因组研究最有价值的情景或患者亚组,因为在这些情况下很难开发替代预测算法。讨论了两种临床情况,其中PPM通过新颖的计量经济学方法进行了探索。接下来将围绕探索PPM过程、结果的多维性以及个性化未来研究的平衡议程进行相关讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forum for Health Economics and Policy
Forum for Health Economics and Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
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.
期刊最新文献
Optimal Taxation of Cigarettes and E-Cigarettes: Principles for Taxing Reduced-Harm Tobacco Products. Self-Reported Mental Health and the Demand for Mental Health Care After a Labor Market Shock: Evidence from the Spanish Great Recession. California Hospitals' Rapidly Declining Traditional Medicare Operating Margins. Benefits of Adopting by Reference Portions of Clinical Protocols. Frontmatter
×
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