A scoping review on patient heterogeneity in economic evaluations of precision medicine based on basket trials

References

• Degtiar I. A review of international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs. J Health Policy. 2017;121:1240–1248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janiaud P, Serghiou S, Ioannidis JP. New clinical trial designs in the era of precision medicine: an overview of definitions, strengths, weaknesses, and current use in oncology. J Cancer Treat Rev. 2019;73:20–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Administration UFD. Master protocols: efficient clinical trial design strategies to expedite development of oncology drugs and biologics guidance for industry-DRAFT GUIDANCE. FDA Maryland. 2018
   Google Scholar
• Nosrati M, Nikfar S. conducting economic evaluation based on basket trial in the area of precision medicine. Expert Rev PharmacoEcon Outcome Res. 2021. doi:10.1080/14737167.2021.1865158.
   Google Scholar
• Renfro L, Sargent D. Statistical controversies in clinical research: basket trials, umbrella trials, and other master protocols: a review and examples. J Ann Oncol Off J Europ Soc Med Oncol. 2017;28:34–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saramago P, Espinoza MA, Sutton AJ, et al. The value of further research: the added value of individual-participant level data. Appl Health Econ. 2019;17:273–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gavan SP, Thompson AJ, Payne K. The economic case for precision medicine. Exp Rev Precis Med Drug Develop. 2018;3:1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munn Z, Peters MD, and Stern C, et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Method. 2018;18:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, et al. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramaekers BL, Joore MA, Grutters JP. How should we deal with patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation: a systematic review of national pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Value Health. 2013;16:855–862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espinoza MA, Sculpher MJ, and Manca A , et al. Analysing heterogeneity to support decision making. In Encycloped Health Econ 1st .Netherlands: Elsevier. 2014;71–76.
   Google Scholar
• Grutters JP, Sculpher M, Briggs AH, et al. Acknowledging patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:111–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kravitz RL, Duan N, Braslow J. Evidence‐based medicine, heterogeneity of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages. Milbank Q. 2004;82:661–687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espinoza MA. Heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis: methods to explore the value of subgroups and individualized care in a collectively funded health system. University of York; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Assessment of methods in health care. Sweden Services Safhtaaaos, editor; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Authorities Baltic health, editor. Baltic guideline for Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals (pharmacoeconomic analysis). The Baltics; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Belgian healthcare knowledge center, editor. Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analysis: second edition. Belgium; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Department of economics and public health assessment HAdsH board, france, editor. Choices in methods for economic evaluation, France. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Department for development RaHTA, agency for quality and accreditation in health care, Croatia, editor. The Croatian Guideline for health technology assessment. Croatia; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Alban A, Gyldmark M, Pedersen AV, et al. The Danish approach to standards for economic evaluation methodologies. PharmacoEconomics. 1997;12:627–636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Academy of managed care pharmacy (AMPC)U. USA, editor. A format for submission of clinical and economic evidence in support of formulary consideration, version 4.0, USA. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Institute for quality and efficiency in healthcare (IQWiG), editor. General methods for the assessment of the relation of the benefits to costs, Germany. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Guidance to applicants for the submission of pharmacoeconomic analyses with in the pricing and reimbursement disorder; Italian Medicines Agency, editor. Italy. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• NICE, editor. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. England and Wales; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• National healthcare institute (ZIN), editor. Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. Netherlands; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Fukuda T. Supported by health and labor science research grants (sbHaSR G), editor. Guideline for preparing cost-effectiveness evaluation to the central social insurance medical council, version 1.0. Japan; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Silva EAd, Pinto CG, and Sampaio C, et al. Guidelines for economic drug evaluation studies. Portugal; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Australia government department of health, editor. Guidelines for preparing a submission to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee, version 5.0; Australia. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Health information and quality authority Ireland, editor. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland, Ireland, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• CADTH, editor. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies, Canada; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health PA, editor. Guidelines for the submission of a request to include a pharmaceutical product in the national list of health services. Israel, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Guidelines of methodological standards for pharmacoeconomic evaluations, Taiwan. 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Evelyn Walter, SZ. Institute for pharmacoeconomic research, Vienna, editor. Guidelines on health economic evaluation. Austria; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian medicine agency, editor. Guideline on how to conduct pharmacoeconomic analyses. Norway. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• The agency for health technology assessment and tariff system, editor.Health technology assessment guidelines, version 3.0, Poland. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish medicines consortium, editor. New product assessment form, Scotland. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Cheraghali AM. Newly defined role of pharmacoeconomics in Iran national medicine policy. Shiraz E Med J. 2016;17. DOI:10.17795/semj35258
   Google Scholar
• Gupta SK, Thomas D, Rai MK, et al. Pharmacoeconomic and outcomes research guidelines for India. India; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Health Mo, editor. Pharmacoeconomic guideline for Malaysia, second edition. Malaysia; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Pharmaceutical pricing Board, Ministry of social affairs and health, Finland, editor. preparing a health economic evaluation to be attached to the application for reimbursement status and wholesale price for a medical product. Finland; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Pharmaceutical management agency, editor. Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis, methods for cost-utility analysis, version 2.2. New Zealand, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Dóczy V, Dózsa DC, Dudás DD, et al. Professional healthcare guideline on the methodology of health technology assessment, Hungary. J Hung Pharm Authority Doctors Pharm. 2017;67(1):5–23 .
   Google Scholar
• Republic of South Africa: department of health, editor. Publication of the guidelines for pharmacoeconomic submissions. South Africa; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Elsisi GH, Kaló Z, Eldessouki R, et al. Recommendations for reporting pharmacoeconomic evaluations in Egypt. J Value Health Regional Issues. 2013;2:319–327.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• T Y, and C U. Thai health technology assessment guideline. J Med Assoc Thailand. 2008;91.
   Google Scholar
• Bilcke J, Beutels P, Brisson M, et al. Accounting for methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty in decision-analytic models: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:675–692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corro Ramos I, Hoogendoorn M, Rutten-van Molken M. How to address uncertainty in health economic discrete-event simulation models: an illustration for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Med Decis Making. 2020;40:619–632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langeheine R, Van De Pol F. A unifying framework for Markov modeling in discrete space and discrete time. Sociol Methods Res. 2016;18:416–441.
   Google Scholar
• Elbasha EH, Chhatwal J. Characterizing heterogeneity bias in cohort-based models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:857–865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groot Koerkamp B, Weinstein MC, Stijnen T, et al. Uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:194–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoogendoorn M, Feenstra TL, Asukai Y, et al. Patient heterogeneity in health economic decision models for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: are current models suitable to evaluate personalized medicine? Value Health. 2016;19:800–810.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadakis S, Reid RD, Coyle D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation program delivery models in patients at varying cardiac risk, reason for referral, and sex. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008;15:347–353.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Saylan M, Treur MJ, Postema R, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of aripiprazole augmentation treatment of patients with major depressive disorder compared to olanzapine and quetiapine augmentation in Turkey: a microsimulation approach. Value Health Reg Issues. 2013;2:171–180.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:799–806.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Annemans L. Methodological issues in evaluating cost effectiveness of adjuvant aromatase inhibitors in early breast cancer: a need for improved modelling to aid decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:409–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs AD, Wolstenholme J, Blakely T, et al. Choosing an epidemiological model structure for the economic evaluation of non-communicable disease public health interventions. Popul Health Metr. 2016;14:17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Chirikov VV, Marston XL, et al. Machine learning for precision health economics and outcomes research (P-HEOR): conceptual review of applications and next steps. J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2020;7:35–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Congdon P. Health status and healthy life measures for population health need assessment: modelling variability and uncertainty. Health Place. 2001;7:13–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degeling K, MJ IJ, Koopman M, et al. Accounting for parameter uncertainty in the definition of parametric distributions used to describe individual patient variation in health economic models. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Houwing N, Slothuus U, et al. Making economic evaluations more helpful for treatment choices in haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2017;23:e58–e66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groot Koerkamp B, Stijnen T, Weinstein MC, et al. The combined analysis of uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:650–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoch JS, Dewa CS. Lessons from trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses of mental health interventions: why uncertainty about the outcome, estimate and willingness to pay matters. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:807–816.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang Y, Kypridemos C, Liu J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the us food and drug administration added sugar labeling policy for improving diet and health. Circulation. 2019;139:2613–2624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain R, Grabner M, Onukwugha E. Sensitivity analysis in cost-effectiveness studies: from guidelines to practice. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:297–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le QA. Patient-level modeling approach using discrete-event simulation: a cost-effectiveness study of current treatment guidelines for women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019;25:1089–1095.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung W, Kvizhinadze G, Nair N, et al. Adjuvant Trastuzumab in HER2-positive early breast cancer by age and hormone receptor status: a cost-utility analysis. PLos Med. 2016;13:e1002067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Main C, Bojke L, Griffin S, et al. Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Vol. 10. England: Health technology assessment (Winchester; 2006. p. 1–132 iii–iv.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall DA, Grazziotin LR, Regier DA, et al. Addressing challenges of economic evaluation in precision medicine using dynamic simulation modeling. Value Health. 2020;23:566–573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClean S, Barton M, Garg L, et al. A modeling framework that combines Markov models and discrete-event simulation for stroke patient care. ACM Transact Model Comput Simul. 2011;21:1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald SA, Devleesschauwer B, Wallinga J. The impact of individual-level heterogeneity on estimated infectious disease burden: a simulation study. Popul Health Metr. 2016;14:47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muhlbacher AC. Patient-centric HTA: different strokes for different folks. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15:591–597.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Donnell H, McCullagh L, Barry M, et al. The interaction between price negotiations and heterogeneity: implications for economic evaluations. Med Decis Making. 2020;40:144–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips KA, Sakowski JA, Liang SY, et al. Economic perspectives on personalized health care and prevention. Forum Health Econ Policy. 2013;16:S23–S52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pollard DJ, Brennan A, Dixon S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of insulin pumps compared with multiple daily injections both provided with structured education for adults with type 1 diabetes: a health economic analysis of the relative effectiveness of pumps over structured education (REPOSE) randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e016766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG. Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost-effectiveness modelling. Stat Med. 2003;22:3687–3709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugrue DM, Ward T, Rai S, et al. Economic modelling of chronic kidney disease: a systematic literature review to inform conceptual model design. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:1451–1468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vemer P, Goossens LM, Rutten-van Molken MP. Not simply more of the same: distinguishing between patient heterogeneity and parameter uncertainty. Med Decis Making. 2014;34:1048–1058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang HI, Roman E, Crouch S, et al. A generic model for follicular Lymphoma: predicting cost, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted-life-year using UK population-based observational data. Value Health. 2018;21:1176–1185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaric GS. The impact of ignoring population heterogeneity when Markov models are used in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:379–396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoogenveen RT, van Baal PH, Boshuizen HC. Chronic disease projections in heterogeneous ageing populations: approximating multi-state models of joint distributions by modelling marginal distributions. Math Med Biol J IMA. 2010;27:1–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuntz KM, Goldie SJ. Assessing the sensitivity of decision-analytic results to unobserved markers of risk: defining the effects of heterogeneity bias. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:218–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Staa TP, Kanis JA, Geusens P, et al. The cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women based on individual long-term fracture risks. Value Health. 2007;10:348–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Koning HJ, van Ineveld BM, van Oortmarssen GJ, et al. Breast cancer screening and cost-effectiveness; policy alternatives, quality of life considerations and the possible impact of uncertain factors. Int J Cancer. 1991;49:531–537.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoogendoorn M, Feenstra T, Asukai Y, et al. Patient heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness models for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): are current models suitable to evaluate personalized medicine. Value Health. 2015;18:A694–A.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar