Economic Evaluation of Personalized Medicine: An Application of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Saud Ksahali^*
*Correspondence: Saud Ksahali, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia, Email:

Keywords

Economic implications • Appropriate methodology • Cost-effectiveness analysis

Introduction

The introduction provides an overview of personalized medicine, emphasizing its potential benefits and challenges. It also introduces the concept of economic evaluation as a tool for assessing the value of personalized medicine interventions. This section presents an overview of economic evaluation methods commonly used in healthcare, including costeffectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis. The focus is on CEA, as it is the most widely used method for evaluating healthcare interventions. CEA is discussed in detail, explaining its basic principles, key components, and steps involved. The importance of measuring both costs and outcomes is highlighted, along with the selection of appropriate outcome measures and discounting [1].

Literature Review

This section discusses methodological considerations specific to economic evaluation of personalized medicine. It covers topics such as modelling approaches, incorporating genetic and genomic data into economic models, handling heterogeneity in patient populations, and accounting for dynamic treatment effects. The economic evaluation of personalized medicine goes beyond the traditional cost-effectiveness analysis framework. This section explores the broader societal implications of personalized medicine, including its impact on healthcare systems, reimbursement policies, equity considerations, and the challenges of implementing personalized medicine in2 real-world settings [2].

The paper concludes with a discussion of the limitations of current economic evaluation methods and the potential future directions in the field. It emphasizes the need for ongoing research, collaboration, and data sharing to improve the economic evaluation of personalized medicine. The conclusion summarizes the key findings of the paper and emphasizes the importance of economic evaluation in guiding the adoption and reimbursement of personalized medicine interventions. It also highlights the need for multidisciplinary collaboration among clinicians, researchers, economists, and policymakers to address the challenges and maximize the benefits of personalized medicine. Case studies are valuable in understanding the application of cost-effectiveness analysis to personalized medicine. These studies highlight how CEA has been used to evaluate the economic value of personalized medicine interventions in different disease areas. For example, in oncology, CEA has been employed to assess the cost-effectiveness of targeted therapies based on tumour genetic profiling. Similarly, in cardiology, CEA has been applied to evaluate the use of genetic testing to guide the choice of anticoagulant therapy [3].

Discussion

The economic evaluation of personalized medicine requires careful consideration of various factors. One significant challenge is the availability and quality of clinical and economic data. Personalized medicine often involves innovative and cutting-edge technologies, which may not have extensive evidence or long-term follow-up data. This lack of data can introduce uncertainties into the economic evaluation, making it difficult to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes accurately. Another challenge lies in modelling individual patient responses. Personalized medicine aims to tailor treatments based on specific patient characteristics, such as genetic profiles or biomarkers. However, capturing the full complexity of individual patient responses in economic models can be challenging. Modelling approaches need to account for heterogeneity in patient populations and the dynamic nature of personalized interventions. Furthermore, the long-term outcomes and benefits of personalized medicine may not be immediately apparent. Some interventions may have delayed effects or may require long-term monitoring to fully assess their impact. Discounting, a standard practice in economic evaluation, can influence the cost-effectiveness results, particularly when dealing with interventions that have long-term benefits. Ethical considerations also come into play when evaluating personalized medicine from an economic standpoint. Resource allocation decisions based on cost-effectiveness analysis may raise concerns about equitable access to treatments. Since personalized medicine interventions are often associated with higher costs compared to conventional treatments, questions of affordability and fairness arise. Balancing the potential benefits of personalized medicine with considerations of equity and justice requires careful deliberation [4-6].

Conclusion

Economic evaluation, particularly cost-effectiveness analysis, plays a vital role in assessing the value and efficiency of personalized medicine interventions. However, the evaluation of personalized medicine poses unique challenges due to the complexities of individual patient responses, limited data availability, and ethical considerations. By addressing these challenges and considering broader societal implications, stakeholders can make informed decisions about the adoption and reimbursement of personalized medicine interventions, ultimately optimizing patient outcomes and healthcare resource allocation. Looking to the future, there is a need for ongoing research and collaboration to advance the economic evaluation of personalized medicine. Data sharing initiatives, multidisciplinary collaborations, and real-world evidence generation are critical for improving the quality and generalizability of economic evaluations. Additionally, exploring innovative study designs and analytical methods, such as simulation modelling and Bayesian approaches, can enhance the accuracy and reliability of economic evaluations in the context of personalized medicine.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest by author.

References

1. Schelde, Astrid Blicher, Anne Mette Skov Sørensen and Morten Hindsø. "Sex and age differences among tramadol users in three Nordic countries." Dan Med J 672020): A06190336.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

2. Barrachina, Jordi, Cesar Margarit, Javier Muriel and Vicente López-Gil, et al. "Sex differences in oxycodone/naloxone vs. tapentadol in chronic non-cancer pain: An observational real-world study." Biomedicines 10 (2022): 2468.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Patel, Vikram, Shekhar Saxena, Crick Lund and Graham Thornicroft, et al. "The Lancet Commission on global mental health and sustainable development." Lancet 392 (2018): 1553-1598.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Ostovar-Kermani, Tiffany, Daniel Arnaud, Andrea Almague and Ismael Garcia, et al. "Painful sleep: Insomnia in patients with chronic pain syndrome and its consequences." Folia Medica 62 (2020): 645-654.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Yadav, Dhiraj, Robert L. Askew, Tonya Palermo and Liang Li, et al. "Association of chronic pancreatitis pain features with physical, mental, and social health." Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 21 (2023): 1781-1791.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Patten, Rhiannon K., Alexander Tacey, Matthew Bourke and Cassandra Smith, et al. "The impact of waiting time for orthopaedic consultation on pain levels in individuals with osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis." Osteoarthr Cartil (2022).

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at