Quality and Accessibility of Liquid Biopsy Information.

This cross-sectional study evaluates the information on a circulating tumor DNA test available to the public on popular internet resources.

Characteristics of Cost-effectiveness Studies for Oncology Drugs Approved in the United States From 2015-2020.

Importance: Increasingly, cost-effectiveness analyses are being done to determine the value of rapidly increasing oncology drugs; however, this assumes that these analyses are unbiased. Objective: To analyze the characteristics of cost-effectiveness studies and to determine characteristics associated with whether an oncology drug is found to be cost-effective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 254 cost-effectiveness analyses for 116 oncology drugs that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2015 to 2020. Exposures: Each drug was analyzed for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year, the funding of the study, the authors' conflict of interest, the threshold of willingness-to-pay, from what country's perspective the analysis was done, and whether a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness analysis had been done. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective. Results: There were 116 drug approvals with 254 studies and country perspectives. Of the country perspectives, 132 (52%) were from the US. Forty-seven of 78 drugs with cost-effective studies had been shown to improve overall survival, whereas 15 of 38 of drugs without a cost-effectiveness study had been shown to improve overall survival. Having a study funded by a pharmaceutical company was associated with higher odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective than studies without funding (odds ratio, 41.36; 95% CI, 11.86-262.23). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, pharmaceutical funding was associated with greater odds that an oncology drug would be found to be cost-effective. These findings suggest that simply disclosing potential conflict of interest is inadequate. We encourage cost-effectiveness analyses by independent groups.

Precision medicine and pharmacogenetics: what does oncology have that addiction medicine does not?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Precision, personalized or stratified medicine, which promises to deliver the right treatment to the right patient, is a topic of international interest in both the lay press and the scientific literature. A key aspect of precision medicine is the identification of biomarkers that predict the response to medications (i.e. pharmacogenetics). We examined why, despite the great strides that have been made in biomarker identification in many areas of medicine, only in oncology has there been substantial progress in their clinical implementation. We also considered why progress in this effort has lagged in addiction medicine. METHODS: We compared the development of pharmacogenetic biomarkers in oncology, cardiovascular medicine (where developments are also promising) and addictive disorders. RESULTS: The first major reason for the success of oncologic pharmacogenetics is ready access to tumor tissue, which allows in-vitro testing and insights into cancer biology. The second major reason is funding, with cancer research receiving, by far, the largest allocation by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the past two decades. The second largest allocation of research funding has gone to cardiovascular disease research. Addictions research received a much smaller NIH funding allocation, despite the major impact that tobacco use, alcohol consumption and illicit drug use have on the public health and healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: Greater support for research on the personalized treatment of addictive disorders can be expected to yield disproportionately large benefits to the public health and substantial reductions in healthcare costs.