How are Companion Diagnostics Considered in Economic Evaluations of Oncology Treatments? A Review of Health Technology Assessments

Melissa Gomez Montero, Houcine El Alili, Mahmoud Hashim, Peter Wigfield, Mariya Dimova, Ralph Riley and Katie Pascoe ()
Additional contact information
Melissa Gomez Montero: Ingress-Health
Houcine El Alili: Ingress-Health
Mahmoud Hashim: Ingress-Health
Peter Wigfield: Ingress-Health
Mariya Dimova: Janssen Global Services Inc
Ralph Riley: Janssen Global Services Inc
Katie Pascoe: Global Commercial Strategy Organization

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2022, vol. 6, issue 5, No 2, 637-646

Abstract: Abstract Background Companion diagnostic (CDx) testing is increasingly used to identify eligible patients for targeted treatments. Guidance on how CDx testing should be incorporated into cost-effectiveness models (CEM) is limited. This review evaluated how health technology assessment bodies and research organizations considered CDx in CEMs of targeted therapies in oncology and whether this ultimately impacted their decisions or time from regulatory approval to recommendations. Methods An exhaustive list of approved CDx tests in oncology was compiled. For corresponding indications and treatments, NICE appraisals published between 2016 and 2019 were identified. Then, assessments for the same treatments issued from 11 other agencies were reviewed. Data extracted included background and CDx information, CDx's role in the CEM, and recommendations. Results Twenty-seven NICE appraisals were identified; 15 considered CDx testing in the CEM, while 12 did not, mainly because testing had already been established for the comparators within the same class or in clinical practice from a prior treatment line. Both testing costs and mutation prevalence drove CDx testing costs per patient. The cross-comparison of assessments showed that CDx test characteristics were inconsistently reported. Time from regulatory approval to recommendations was not impacted by CDx cost inclusion in CEMs. Conclusion CDx testing was included in cost-effectiveness models whenever mutation testing was required solely for patients receiving targeted treatment; cost per patient was based on test costs and mutation prevalence. It is unclear if expanded reliance on CDx testing will impact future assessments of targeted therapies. A future update is warranted to track trends over time.

Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-022-00350-6 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:6:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s41669-022-00350-6

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-022-00350-6

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics - Open from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().