Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32389218›Full record

ReviewValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2020

Use of Real-World Evidence in US Payer Coverage Decision-Making for Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Tests: Challenges, Opportunities, and Potential Solutions.

Patricia A Deverka, Michael P Douglas, Kathryn A Phillips

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Real-world data: a comprehensive literature review on the barriers, challenges, and opportunities associated with their inclusion in the health technology assessment process.Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The use of real-world evidence among healthcare payers: a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Patricia A DeverkaDeverka Consulting, LLC, Apex, NC, USA. Electronic address: pdeverka@gmail.com.
Michael P DouglasCenter for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Kathryn A PhillipsCenter for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

Sharing Aggregate Genomics Research Findings with Diverse Participants: A Pilot Study of an Innovative Design StrategyU01HG009599 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KOENIG, BARBARA A., KWOK, PUI-YAN · 2017 to 2021
$16.3M
Coverage, Price, and Reimbursement for Multigene Tests for Cancer and Related ConditionsR01CA221870 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI PHILLIPS, KATHRYN A · 2018 to 2020
$2.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA221870NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG009599
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesGiven the potential of real-world evidence (RWE) to inform understanding of the risk-benefit profile of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based testing, we undertook a study to describe the current landscape of whether and how payers use RWE as part of their coverage decision making and potential solutions for overcoming barriers.

methodsWe performed a scoping literature review of existing RWE evidentiary frameworks for evaluating new technologies and identified barriers to clinical integration and evidence gaps for NGS. We synthesized findings as potential solutions for improving the relevance and utility of RWE for payer decision-making.

resultsPayers require evidence of clinical utility to inform coverage decisions, yet we found a relatively small number of published RWE studies, and these are predominately focused on oncology, pharmacogenomics, and perinatal/pediatric testing. We identified 3 categories of innovation that may help address the current undersupply of RWE studies for NGS: (1) increasing use of RWE to inform outcomes-based contracting for new technologies, (2) precision medicine initiatives that integrate clinical and genomic data and enable data sharing, and (3) Food and Drug Administration reforms to encourage the use of RWE. Potential solutions include development of data and evidence review standards, payer engagement in RWE study design, use of incentives and partnerships to lower the barriers to RWE generation, education of payers and providers concerning the use of RWE and NGS, and frameworks for conducting outcomes-based contracting for NGS.

conclusionsWe provide numerous suggestions to overcome the data, methodologic, infrastructure, and policy challenges constraining greater integration of RWE in assessments of NGS.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalEconomics, PharmaceuticalEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInsurance, Health, ReimbursementMedical OncologyStakeholder ParticipationUnited Statescoverage policiesdecision makingnext-generation sequencingpayersreal-world datareal-world evidencereimbursement

Identifiers

PMID32389218
PMCPMC7219085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.