Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35790681›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics - open2022

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, Katie Pascoe

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Melissa Gomez Montero *Ingress-Health, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Houcine El Alili *Ingress-Health, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mahmoud HashimIngress-Health, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter WigfieldIngress-Health, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mariya DimovaJanssen Global Services Inc, 92787, Issy-les-Moulineaux, France.
Ralph RileyJanssen Global Services Inc, Raritan, NJ, USA.
Katie PascoeJanssen Oncology, Global Commercial Strategy Organization, 50-100 Holmers Farm Way, High Wycombe, HP12 4EG, UK. KPascoe1@its.jnj.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5742-4654
Janssen (Belgium) · BEJanssen (France) · FRJanssen (United Kingdom) · GBJanssen (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCompanion 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.

methodsAn 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.

resultsTwenty-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.

conclusionCDx 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.

Identifiers

PMID35790681
PMCPMC9440183
OpenAlexW4284668852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.