Can precision medicine be integrated into routine therapeutic decisions at the bedside of patients?

Therapeutic strategies are shifting from a "one-size-fits-all" population-based approach to a stratified approach targeting groups with similar characteristics, or even individuals, tailoring treatments to the unique characteristics of each patient. Since such strategies rely on increasingly complex knowledge and healthcare technologies, along with an understanding of the tools of precision medicine, the appropriate dissemination and use of these strategies involves a number of challenges for the medical community. Having evaluation methodologies that have been jointly designed with the institutional, industrial, academic stakeholders, and also patients, like streamlining the processes and externally validating performances, could enhance the relevance of the "evaluation" aspect of precision medicine. Creating a network of expert precision-medicine centers and ensuring that precision-medicine procedures are reimbursed by social security would guarantee fair and sustainable access. Finally, training healthcare professionals, creating interfaces between precision-medicine expert centers and primary care professionals as well as patients, and integrating individual patient data into medical records are all key drivers that will enable information from precision-medicine to be made available and guarantee the proper use of these approaches.

[Cost of high-throughput sequencing (NGS) technologies: Literature review and insights]. / Coût des technologies de séquençage haut débit (NGS) : revue de la littérature et enseignements.

Although high-throughput sequencing technologies (Next-Generation Sequencing [NGS]) are revolutionizing medicine, the estimation of their production cost for pricing/tariffication by health systems raises methodological questions. The objective of this review of cost studies of high-throughput sequencing techniques is to draw lessons for producing robust cost estimates of these techniques. We analyzed, using an eleven item analysis framework, micro-costing studies of high-throughput sequencing technologies (n=17), including two studies conducted in the French context. The factors of variability between the studies that we identified were temporality (early evaluation of the innovation vs. evaluation of a mature technology), the choice of cost evaluation method (scope, micro- vs. gross-costing technique), the choice of production steps observed and the transposability of these studies. The lessons we have learned are that it is necessary to have a comprehensive vision of the sequencing production process by integrating all the steps from the collection of the biological sample to the delivery of the result to the clinician. It is also important to distinguish between what refers to the local context and what refers to the general context, by favouring the use of mixed methods to calculate costs. Finally, sensitivity analyses and periodic re-estimation of the costs of the techniques must be carried out in order to be able to revise the tariffs according to changes linked to the diffusion of the technology and to competition between reagent suppliers.

Health technology assessment for cancer medicines across the G7 countries and Oceania: an international, cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Criticisms have emerged that cancer medicines offer modest benefits at increasingly high prices. Reimbursement decisions made by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have become a complex endeavour for cancer medicines. Most high-income countries (HICs) use HTA criteria to identify high-value medicines for reimbursement under public drug coverage plans. We compared HTA criteria specific for cancer medicines in economically similar HICs, to understand how these criteria contribute to reimbursement decisions. METHODS: We did an international, cross-sectional analysis in collaboration with author investigators across eight HICs, from the Group of Seven (known as G7; Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan) and Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). Publicly available data from HTA agency reports and official documentation were extracted and analysed between Aug 15, 2021, and July 31, 2022. We collected data pertaining to the decision-making criteria used by the national HTA agency; HTA reimbursement status for 34 medicine-indication pairs corresponding to 15 unique US top-selling cancer medicines; and HTA reimbursement status for 18 cancer medicine-indication pairs (13 unique medicines) with minimal clinical benefit (score of 1 on the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). Descriptive statistics were used to compare HTA decision criteria and drug reimbursement recommendations (or for Germany and Japan, final reimbursement status) across the eight countries. FINDINGS: Therapeutic impact related to clinical outcomes of the new medicine was a uniform criterion across the eight countries, whereas quality of evidence (under the remit of therapeutic impact assessment) and equity were infrequently cited criteria. Only the German HTA agency mandated that surrogate endpoints be validated in therapeutic impact assessment. All countries except Germany included formal cost-effectiveness analyses within HTA reports. England and Japan were the only countries that specified a cost-effectiveness threshold. Of the 34 medicine-indication pairs corresponding to US top-selling cancer medicines, Germany reimbursed the maximum (34 [100%]), followed by Italy (32 [94%] recommended for reimbursement), Japan (28 [82%] reimbursed), Australia, Canada, England, and France (27 [79%] recommended for reimbursement), and New Zealand (12 [35%] recommended for reimbursement). Of the 18 cancer medicine-indication pairs with marginal clinical benefit, Germany reimbursed 15 (83%) and Japan reimbursed 12 (67%). France recommended nine (50%) for reimbursement, followed by Italy (seven [39%]), Canada (five [28%]), and Australia and England (three [17%] each). New Zealand did not recommend any medicine-indications with marginal clinical benefit for reimbursement. Considering the overall cumulative proportion across the eight countries, 58 (21%) of 272 indications for the US top-selling medicines and 90 (63%) of 144 marginally beneficial medicine-indications were not recommended for reimbursement or reimbursed. INTERPRETATION: Our findings indicate discordance in public reimbursement decisions across economically similar countries, despite overlapping HTA decision criteria. This suggests a need for improved transparency around the nuances of the criteria to ensure improved access to high-value cancer medicines, and deprioritisation of low-value cancer medicines. Health systems have opportunities to improve their HTA decision-making processes by learning from the systems in other countries. FUNDING: None.

Whole exome sequencing in molecular diagnostics of cancer decreases over time: evidence from a cost analysis in the French setting.

OBJECTIVES: Although high-throughput sequencing is revolutionising medicine, data on the actual cost of whole exome sequencing (WES) applications are needed. We aimed at assessing the cost of WES at a French cancer institute in 2015 and 2018. METHODS: Actual costs of WES application in oncology research were determined using both micro-costing and gross-costing for the years 2015 and 2018, before and after the acquisition of a new sequencer. The entire workflow process of a WES test was tracked, and the number and unit price of each resource were identified at the most detailed level, from library preparation to bioinformatics analyses. In addition, we conducted an ad hoc analysis of the bioinformatics storage costs of data issued from WES analyses. RESULTS: The cost of WES has decreased substantially, from €1921 per sample (i.e. cost of €3842 per patient) in 2015 to €804 per sample (i.e. cost of €1,608 per patient) in 2018, representing a decrease of 58%. In the meantime, the cost of bioinformatics storage has increased from €19,836 to €200,711. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that WES cost has decreased significantly in recent years. WES has become affordable, even though clinical utility and efficiency still need to be confirmed.

Switch to anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) fixed-dose regimen: What is the economic impact?

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and pembrolizumab were initially developed using weight-based regimen doses. Recently, fixed-dose regimens were commercialised with reference weights higher than the accurate weight of patients with cancer in routine practice. This may have important economic consequences for healthcare systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Budget impact analysis was performed using real-world data both from Gustave Roussy database and the French National Hospital Discharge database and including patients treated with either nivolumab or pembrolizumab at Gustave Roussy and in France before the approval of fixed-dosing regimens in Europe. Main outcome is the expected annual budget impact of fixed-dosing regimens in France. RESULTS: From January to April 2018, 978 perfusions of anti-programmed cell death protein 1 were administered at our institution including 560 perfusions of nivolumab in 103 patients and 418 perfusions of pembrolizumab in 125 patients mainly treated for lung cancer and melanoma. The mean extra cost attributable to flat doses would have amounted to €284 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 241-327) per infusion of nivolumab and to €1287 (95% CI: 1200-1373) per infusion of pembrolizumab. Annually, at Gustave Roussy, it would represent an extra cost of € 477 120 (95% CI: 404 880-549 360) and €1 613 898 (95% CI: 1 504 800-1 721 742), respectively, for the year 2018. At the French national level, the expected annual budget impact is estimated at €55 162 211 for the year 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Weight references for fixed-dose regimens do not reflect the accurate mean weight of patients under cancer treatment and are likely to have substantial economic impact for healthcare systems.