Phillips Kathryn A, Douglas Michael P, Trosman Julia R, Marshall Deborah A
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Center for Translational and Policy Research on Peronalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), University of California 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 Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Center for Translational and Policy Research on Peronalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Value Health. 2017 Jan;20(1):47-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.08.736.
The growth of "big data" and the emphasis on patient-centered health care have led to the increasing use of two key technologies: personalized medicine and digital medicine. For these technologies to move into mainstream health care and be reimbursed by insurers, it will be essential to have evidence that their benefits provide reasonable value relative to their costs. These technologies, however, have complex characteristics that present challenges to the assessment of their economic value. Previous studies have identified the challenges for personalized medicine and thus this work informs the more nascent topic of digital medicine.
To examine the methodological challenges and future opportunities for assessing the economic value of digital medicine, using personalized medicine as a comparison.
We focused specifically on digital biomarker technologies and multigene tests. We identified similarities in these technologies that can present challenges to economic evaluation: multiple results, results with different types of utilities, secondary findings, downstream impact (including on family members), and interactive effects.
Using a structured review, we found that there are few economic evaluations of digital biomarker technologies, with limited results.
We conclude that more evidence on the effectiveness of digital medicine will be needed but that the experiences with personalized medicine can inform what data will be needed and how such analyses can be conducted. Our study points out the critical need for typologies and terminology for digital medicine technologies that would enable them to be classified in ways that will facilitate research on their effectiveness and value.
“大数据”的发展以及对以患者为中心的医疗保健的重视,导致了两种关键技术的使用日益增加:个性化医疗和数字医疗。要使这些技术融入主流医疗保健并获得保险公司的报销,必须有证据表明其益处相对于成本具有合理的价值。然而,这些技术具有复杂的特性,给评估其经济价值带来了挑战。先前的研究已经确定了个性化医疗所面临的挑战,因此这项工作为数字医疗这个更为新兴的主题提供了参考。
以个性化医疗作为比较,研究评估数字医疗经济价值的方法学挑战和未来机遇。
我们特别关注数字生物标志物技术和多基因检测。我们确定了这些技术中可能给经济评估带来挑战的相似之处:多个结果、具有不同类型效用的结果、次要发现、下游影响(包括对家庭成员的影响)以及交互作用。
通过结构化综述,我们发现对数字生物标志物技术的经济评估很少,结果有限。
我们得出结论,需要更多关于数字医疗有效性的证据,但个性化医疗的经验可以为所需数据以及如何进行此类分析提供参考。我们的研究指出,迫切需要针对数字医疗技术的分类法和术语,以便能够以有助于研究其有效性和价值的方式对它们进行分类。