SynthesisJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2015
Improving the Efficiency and Quality of the Value Assessment Process for Companion Diagnostic Tests: The Companion test Assessment Tool (CAT).
Synthesis in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- How is genetic testing evaluated? A systematic review of the literature.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Pooled it
- Clinical Utility of Pharmacogenetic Testing and a Clinical Decision Support Tool to Enhance the Identification of Drug Therapy Problems Through Medication Therapy Management in Polypharmacy Patients.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Trial
- Consideration for Employer-Based and Geographic Attributes Included in Value Assessment Methods of Next-Generation Sequencing Tests.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompanion diagnostic tests (CDTs) have emerged as a vital technology in the effective use of an increasing number of targeted drug therapies. Although CDTs can offer a multitude of potential benefits, assessing their value within a health technology appraisal process can be challenging because of a complex array of factors that influence clinical and economic outcomes.
objectiveTo develop a user-friendly tool to assist managed care and other health care decision makers in screening companion tests and determining whether an intensive technology review is necessary and, if so, where the review should be focused to improve efficiency.
methodsFirst, we conducted a systematic literature review of CDT cost-effectiveness studies to identify value drivers. Second, we conducted key informant interviews with a diverse group of stakeholders to elicit feedback and solicit any additional value drivers and identify desirable attributes for an evidence review tool. A draft tool was developed based on this information that captured value drivers, usability features, and had a particular focus on practical use by nonexperts. Finally, the tool was pilot tested with test developers and managed care evidence evaluators to assess face-validity and usability. The tool was also evaluated using several diverse examples of existing companion diagnostics and refined accordingly.
resultsWe identified 65 cost-effectiveness studies of companion diagnostic technologies. The following factors were most commonly identified as value drivers from our literature review: clinical validity of testing; efficacy, safety, and cost of baseline and alternative treatments; cost and mortality of health states; and biomarker prevalence and testing cost. Stakeholders identified the following additional factors that they believed influenced the overall value of a companion test: regulatory status, actionability, utility, and market penetration. These factors were used to maximize the efficiency of the evidence review process. Stakeholders also stated that a tool should be easy to use and time efficient. Cognitive interviews with stakeholders led to minor changes in the draft tool to improve usability and relevance. The final tool consisted of 4 sections: (1) eligibility for review (2 questions), (2) prioritization of review (3 questions), (3) clinical review (3 questions), and (4) economic review (5 questions).
conclusionsAlthough the evaluation of CDTs can be challenging because of limited evidence and the added complexity of incorporating a diagnostic test into drug treatment decisions, using a pragmatic tool to identify tests that do not need extensive evaluation may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of CDT value assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.