Objectives

The objective of this article is to describe the unique challenges and present potential solutions and approaches for economic evaluations of precision medicine (PM) interventions using simulation modeling methods.

Methods

Given the large and growing number of PM interventions and applications, methods are needed for economic evaluation of PM that can handle the complexity of cascading decisions and patient-specific heterogeneity reflected in the myriad testing and treatment pathways. Traditional approaches (eg, Markov models) have limitations, and other modeling techniques may be required to overcome these challenges. Dynamic simulation models, such as discrete event simulation and agent-based models, are used to design and develop mathematical representations of complex systems and intervention scenarios to evaluate the consequence of interventions over time from a systems perspective.

Results

Some of the methodological challenges of modeling PM can be addressed using dynamic simulation models. For example, issues regarding companion diagnostics, combining and sequencing of tests, and diagnostic performance of tests can be addressed by capturing patient-specific pathways in the context of care delivery. Issues regarding patient heterogeneity can be addressed by using patient-level simulation models.

Conclusion

The economic evaluation of PM interventions poses unique methodological challenges that might require new solutions. Simulation models are well suited for economic evaluation in PM because they enable patient-level analyses and can capture the dynamics of interventions in complex systems specific to the context of healthcare service delivery.

Context

Several liquid- and tissue-based biomarker tests (LTBTs) are available to inform the need for prostate biopsies and treatment of localised prostate cancer (PCa) through risk stratification, but translation into routine practice requires evidence of their clinical utility and economic impact.

Objective

To review and summarise the health economic evidence on the ability of LTBTs to inform decisions on prostate biopsies and treatment of localised PCa through risk stratification.

Evidence acquisition

A systematic search was performed in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Health Technology Assessment, and National Health Service Health Economic Evaluation databases. Eligible publications were those presenting health economic evaluations of an LTBT to select individuals for biopsy or risk-stratify PCa patients for treatment. Data on the study objectives, context, methodology, clinical utility, and outcomes were extracted and summarised.

Evidence synthesis

Of the 22 studies included, 14 were focused on test-informed biopsies and eight on treatment selection. Most studies performed cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 7), followed by costing (n = 4) or budget impact analyses (n = 3). Most (18 of 22) studies concluded that biomarker tests could decrease health care costs or would be cost-effective. However, downstream consequences and long-term outcomes were typically not included in studies that evaluated LTBT to inform biopsies. Long-term effectiveness was modelled by linking evidence from different sources instead of using data from prospective studies.

Conclusions

Although studies concluded that LTBTs would probably be cost-saving or -effective, the strength of this evidence is disputable because of concerns around the validity and transparency of the assumptions made. This warrants prospective interventional trials to inform health economic analyses to ensure collection of direct evidence of clinical outcomes based on LTBT use.

Patient summary

We reviewed studies that evaluated whether blood, urine, and tissue tests can reduce the health and economic burden of prostate cancer. Results indicate that these tests could be cost-effective, but clinical studies of long-term outcomes are needed to confirm the findings.

Despite the emerging evidence in recent years, successful implementation of clinical genomic sequencing (CGS) remains limited and is challenged by a range of barriers. These include a lack of standardized practices, limited economic assessments for specific indications, limited meaningful patient engagement in health policy decision-making, and the associated costs and resource demand for implementation. Although CGS is gradually becoming more available and accessible worldwide, large variations and disparities remain, and reflections on the lessons learned for successful implementation are sparse. In this commentary, members of the Global Economics and Evaluation of Clinical Genomics Sequencing Working Group (GEECS) describe the global landscape of CGS in the context of health economics and policy and propose evidence-based solutions to address existing and future barriers to CGS implementation. The topics discussed are reflected as two overarching themes: (1) system readiness for CGS and (2) evidence, assessments, and approval processes. These themes highlight the need for health economics, public health, and infrastructure and operational considerations; a robust patient- and family-centered evidence base on CGS outcomes; and a comprehensive, collaborative, interdisciplinary approach.