Tufts University School of Medicine, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
Pharmacogenomics J. 2013 Aug;13(4):378-88. doi: 10.1038/tpj.2011.63. Epub 2012 Jan 10.
In this paper, we examine the clinical and economic challenges that face developers of and payers for personalized drugs and companion diagnostics. We review and summarize clinical, regulatory and reimbursement issues with respect to eight, high profile personalized medicines and their companion diagnostics. Subsequently, we determine Medicare parts B and D reimbursement of the eight drugs from publicly available databases. Finally, we utilize surveys-each tailored to three key stakeholders; payers, drug and diagnostic developers, and pharmacogenomic expert analysts-to assess reimbursement of diagnostics, analyze the role that different kinds of evidence have in informing prescribing and reimbursement decisions, as well as the specific clinical, regulatory and economic challenges that confront pharmacogenomics as it moves forward. We found that Medicare beneficiary access to physician-administered (Medicare part B) drugs is relatively unfettered, with a fixed patient co-insurance percentage of 20%. More reimbursement restrictions are placed on self-administered (Medicare part D) drugs, which translates into higher and more variable cost sharing, more use of prior authorization and quantity limits. There is a lack of comprehensive reimbursement of companion diagnostics, even in cases in which the diagnostic is on the label and recommended or required by the Food and Drug Administration. Lack of evidence linking diagnostic tests to health outcomes has caused payers to be skeptical about the clinical usefulness of tests. Expert analysts foresee moderate growth in post-hoc development of companion diagnostics to personalize already approved drugs, and limited growth in the concurrent co-development of companion diagnostics and personalized medicines. Lack of clinically useful diagnostics as well as an evidence gap in terms of knowledge of drug and diagnostic clinical effectiveness appear to be hindering growth in personalized medicine. An increase in comparative effectiveness research may help to close the evidence gap.
本文考察了个体化药物和伴随诊断试剂的开发者及支付方所面临的临床和经济挑战。我们对 8 种备受瞩目的个体化药物及其伴随诊断试剂的临床、监管和报销问题进行了审查和总结。随后,我们从公开数据库中确定了医疗保险 B 部分和 D 部分对这 8 种药物的报销情况。最后,我们利用问卷调查了三个关键利益相关者——支付方、药物和诊断试剂开发商以及药物基因组学专家分析师——以评估诊断试剂的报销情况,分析不同类型的证据在指导处方和报销决策中的作用,以及药物基因组学在向前发展时所面临的具体临床、监管和经济挑战。我们发现,医疗保险受益人的医生开具处方(医疗保险 B 部分)药物的途径相对不受限制,患者只需自付固定的 20%共付额。自我管理(医疗保险 D 部分)药物的报销限制更多,这意味着更高和更可变的自付费用、更多的事先授权和数量限制。即使诊断试剂在标签上,并且被食品和药物管理局推荐或要求使用,也缺乏对伴随诊断试剂的全面报销。缺乏将诊断测试与健康结果联系起来的证据,导致支付方对测试的临床有效性持怀疑态度。专家分析师预计,事后开发伴随诊断试剂来个性化已批准药物的情况将适度增长,而伴随诊断试剂和个体化药物的同时开发则有限。缺乏临床有用的诊断试剂以及在药物和诊断临床效果知识方面存在的证据差距,似乎阻碍了个体化药物的发展。增加比较有效性研究可能有助于缩小证据差距。