Can knowledgeable experts assess costs and outcomes as if they were ignorant? An experiment within precision medicine evaluation

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the validity of the standard approach in expert judgment for evaluating precision medicines, in which experts are required to estimate outcomes as if they did not have access to diagnostic information, whereas in fact, they do.

METHODS

Fourteen clinicians participated in an expert judgment task to estimate the cost and medical outcomes of the use of exome sequencing in pediatric patients with intractable epilepsy in Thailand. Experts were randomly assigned to either an "unblind" or "blind" group; the former was provided with the exome sequencing results for each patient case prior to the judgment task, whereas the latter was not provided with the exome sequencing results. Both groups were asked to estimate the outcomes for the counterfactual scenario, in which patients had not been tested by exome sequencing.

RESULTS

Our study did not show significant results, possibly due to the small sample size of both participants and case studies.

CONCLUSIONS

A comparison of the unblind and blind approach did not show conclusive evidence that there is a difference in outcomes. However, until further evidence suggests otherwise, we recommend the blind approach as preferable when using expert judgment to evaluate precision medicines because this approach is more representative of the counterfactual scenario than the unblind approach.

Using an experiment among clinical experts to determine the cost and clinical impact of rapid whole exome sequencing in acute pediatric settings

Objective

Evaluate the cost and clinical impacts of rapid whole-exome sequencing (rWES) for managing pediatric patients with unknown etiologies of critical illnesses through an expert elicitation experiment.

Method

Physicians in the intervention group (n = 10) could order rWES to complete three real-world case studies, while physicians in the control group (n = 8) could not. Costs and health outcomes between and within groups were compared.

Results

The cost incurred in the intervention group was consistently higher than the control by 60,000-70,000 THB. Fewer other investigation costs were incurred when rWES could provide a diagnosis. Less cost was incurred when an rWES that could lead to a change in management was ordered earlier. Diagnostic accuracy and the quality of non-pharmaceutical interventions were superior when rWES was available.

Conclusion

In acute pediatric settings, rWES offered clinical benefits at the average cost of 60,000-70,000 THB. Whether this test is cost-effective warrants further investigations. Several challenges, including cost and ethical concerns for assessing high-cost technology for rare diseases in resource-limited settings, were potentially overcome by our study design using expert elicitation methods.

Making health technology assessment information available for decision making: the development of a Thai database

In Thailand, there is an attempt to develop the Thai HTA database in order to improve the accessibility and usefulness of HTA information. At present, the database is available online at www.db.hitap.net. The database includes (1) economic evaluation studies i.e. cost-minimization analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and cost-utility analysis, (2) outcome assessment studies i.e. randomized controlled trials, and (3) quantitative measured quality of life studies. All HTA studies related to the Thai context, and published in either Thai or English from 1990 onward, are eligible for inclusion in the database. In addition, there is a quality evaluation for each economic evaluation study which will help readers, who have limited knowledge about the method, to understand and make appropriate use of the information in their own settings. This may also raise awareness among researchers, who will conduct economic evaluation studies in the future, to adhere to the standard methodological guidelines because the quality evaluation was developed based on the national guidelines published in this supplement journal.