Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Published in: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Methodology

The early economic evaluation of novel biomarkers to accelerate their translation into clinical applications

Authors: Gimon de Graaf, Douwe Postmus, Jan Westerink, Erik Buskens

Published in: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Translating prognostic and diagnostic biomarker candidates into clinical applications takes time, is very costly, and many candidates fail. It is therefore crucial to be able to select those biomarker candidates that have the highest chance of successfully being adopted in the clinic. This requires an early estimate of the potential clinical impact and commercial value. In this paper, we aim to demonstratively evaluate a set of novel biomarkers in terms of clinical impact and commercial value, using occurrence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in type-2 diabetes (DM2) patients as a case study.

Methods

We defined a clinical application for the novel biomarkers, and subsequently used data from a large cohort study in The Netherlands in a modeling exercise to assess the potential clinical impact and headroom for the biomarkers.

Results

The most likely application of the biomarkers would be to identify DM2 patients with a low CVD risk and subsequently withhold statin treatment. As a result, one additional CVD event in every 75 patients may be expected. The expected downstream savings resulted in a headroom for a point-of-care device ranging from €119.09 at a willingness to accept of €0 for one additional CVD event, to €0 at a willingness to accept of €15,614 or more.

Conclusion

It is feasible to evaluate novel biomarkers on outcomes directly relevant to technological development and clinical adoption. Importantly, this may be attained at the same point in time and using the same data as used for the evaluation of association with disease and predictive power.
Literature
1.
Ludwig J, Weinstein J. Biomarkers in cancer staging, prognosis and treatment selection. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5:845–56.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Nordström A, Lewensohn R. Metabolomics: moving to the clinic. J Neuroimmune Pharmacol. 2010;5:4–17.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Moons KGM. Criteria for scientific evaluation of novel markers: a perspective. Clin Chem. 2010;56:537–41.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Lumbreras B, Parker LA, Porta M, Pollán M, Ioannidis JPA, Hernández-Aguado I. Overinterpretation of clinical applicability in molecular diagnostic research. Clin Chem. 2009;55:786–94.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zolg W. The proteomic search for diagnostic biomarkers: lost in translation? Mol Cell Proteomics. 2006;5:1720–6.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Ioannidis JPA, Panagiotou OA. Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. J Am Med Assoc (JAMA). 2011;305:2200.CrossRef
7.
8.
Ioannidis JPA. Is molecular profiling ready for use in clinical decision making? Oncologist. 2007;12:301–11.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Vickers AJ, Jang K, Sargent D, Lilja H, Kattan MW. Systenatic review of statistical methods used in molecular marker studies in cancer. Cancer. 2008;112:1862–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Williams PM, Lively TG, Jessup JM, Conley BA. Bridging the gap: moving predictive and prognostic assays from research to clinical use. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:1531–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Bossuyt PMM, Reitsma JB, Linnet K, Moons KGM. Beyond diagnostic accuracy: the clinical utility of diagnostic tests. Clin Chem. 2012;58:1636–43.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Pepe MS, Etzioni R, Feng Z, Potter JD, Lou M, Thornquist M, et al. Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. Cancer. 2001;93:1054–61.
13.
14.
Van den Bruel A, Cleemput I, Aertgeerts B, Ramaekers D, Buntinx F. The evaluation of diagnostic tests: evidence on technical and diagnostic accuracy, impact on patient outcome and cost-effectiveness is needed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:1116–22.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Horvath AR, Lord SJ, StJohn A, Sandberg S, Cobbaert CM, Lorenz S, et al. From biomarkers to medical tests: the changing landscape of test evaluation. Clin Chim Acta. 2014;427:49–57.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Durtschi A, Jülicher P. Assessing the value of cardiac biomarkers: going beyond diagnostic accuracy? Future Cardiol. 2014;10:367–80.CrossRefPubMed
18.
CTMM Predicct. Biomarkers for the prediction and early diagnosis of diabetes and diabetes-related cardiovascular complications: output report. 2015.
19.
van der Leeuw J, Beulens JWJ, van Dieren S, Schalkwijk CG, Glatz JFC, Hofker MH, et al. Novel biomarkers to improve the prediction of cardiovascular event risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5:e003048.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Moynihan R, Henry D, Moons KGM. Using evidence to combat overdiagnosis and overtreatment: evaluating treatments, tests, and disease definitions in the time of too much. PLoS Med. 2014;11:11–3.CrossRef
21.
Piepoli MF, Hoes AW, Agewall S, Albus C, Brotons C, Catapano AL, et al. 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2315–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Stone NJ, Robinson J, Lichtenstein AH, Bairey Merz CN, Lloyd-Jones DM, Blum CB, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;63:2889–934.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Fox CS, Golden SH, Anderson C, Bray GA, Burke LE, De Boer IH, et al. Update on prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in light of recent evidence: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2015;38:1777–803.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:S1–159.CrossRef
25.
Paynter N, Mazer N, Pradhan A, Gaziano J, Ridker P, Cook NR. Cardiovascular risk prediction in diabetic men and women using hemoglobin A1c vs diabetes as a high-risk equivalent. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1712–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Kaasenbrood L, Boekholdt SM, Van Der Graaf Y, Ray KK, Peters RJG, Kastelein JJP, et al. Distribution of estimated 10-year risk of recurrent vascular events and residual risk in a secondary prevention population. Circulation. 2016;134:1419–29.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Cosh E, Girling A, Lilford R, McAteer H, Young T. Investing in new medical technologies: a decision framework. J Commer Biotechnol. 2007;13:263–71.CrossRef
28.
Stevens RJ, Kothari V, Adler AI, Stratton IM. The UKPDS risk engine: a model for the risk of coronary heart disease in type II diabetes (UKPDS 56). Clin Sci (Lond). 2001;101:671–9.CrossRef
29.
Simons PC, Algra A, van de Laak MF, Grobbee DE, van der Graaf Y. Second manifestations of ARTerial disease (SMART) study: rationale and design. Eur J Epidemiol. 1999;15:773–81.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94:496–509.CrossRef
31.
Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. MICE: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:1–67.CrossRef
32.
Collins R, Armitage J, Parish S, Sleigh P, Peto R. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-lowering with simvastatin in 5963 people with diabetes: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2003;361:2005–16.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators. Efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapy in 18 686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2008;371:117–25.CrossRef
34.
35.
Colhoun HM, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN, Hitman GA, Neil HAW, Livingstone SJ, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS): multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364:685–96.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Annemans L, Genesté B, Jolain B. Early modelling for assessing health and economic outcomes of drug therapy. Value Heal. 2000;3:427–34.CrossRef
37.
Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, D’Agostino RB Jr, Vasan RS. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med. Wiley Online Library. 2008;27:157–72.
38.
Pencina M, Steyerberg EW, D’Agostino R Sr. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat Med. 2011;30:11–21.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Postmus D, De Graaf G, Hillege HL, Steyerberg EW, Buskens E. A method for the early health technology assessment of novel biomarker measurement in primary prevention programs. Stat Med. 2012;31:2733–44.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Steyerberg E, Vickers A, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski NA, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for some traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21:128–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
D’Agostino RB. Risk prediction and finding new independent prognostic factors. J Hypertens. 2006;24:643–5.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Ijzerman M, Steuten LM. Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access: a review of methods and applications. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9:331–47.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Koffijberg H, van Zaane B, Moons KGM. From accuracy to patient outcome and cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests and biomarkers: an exemplary modelling study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Gerke O, Poulsen MH, Hoilund-Carlsen PF. Added value of cost-utility analysis in simple diagnostic studies of accuracy:18F-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT in prostate cancer staging. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;5:183–94.PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
The early economic evaluation of novel biomarkers to accelerate their translation into clinical applications
Authors
Gimon de Graaf
Douwe Postmus
Jan Westerink
Erik Buskens
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1478-7547
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-018-0105-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

Cost effectiveness of mHealth intervention by community health workers for reducing maternal and newborn mortality in rural Uttar Pradesh, India

Research

Cost-effectiveness of antiviral prophylaxis during pregnancy for the prevention of perinatal hepatitis B infection in South Korea

Research

Econometric estimation of WHO-CHOICE country-specific costs for inpatient and outpatient health service delivery

Research

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a UK perspective

Methodology

Cultural beliefs, utility values, and health technology assessment

Methodology

National cost study versus hospital cost accounting for organ recovery cost assessment in a French hospital group