↓ Skip to main content

Cost Implications of Value-Based Pricing for Companion Diagnostic Tests in Precision Medicine

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Cost Implications of Value-Based Pricing for Companion Diagnostic Tests in Precision Medicine
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40273-016-0388-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory S. Zaric

Abstract

Many interpretations of personalized medicine, also referred to as precision medicine, include discussions of companion diagnostic tests that allow drugs to be targeted to those individuals who are most likely to benefit or that allow treatment to be designed in a way such that individuals who are unlikely to benefit do not receive treatment. Many authors have commented on the clinical and competitive implications of companion diagnostics, but there has been relatively little formal analysis of the cost implications of companion diagnostics, although cost reduction is often cited as a significant benefit of precision medicine. We investigate the potential impact on costs of precision medicine implemented through the use of companion diagnostics. We develop a framework in which the costs of companion diagnostic tests are determined by considerations of profit maximization and cost effectiveness. We analyze four scenarios that are defined by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the new drug in the absence of a companion diagnostic test. We find that, in most scenarios, precision medicine strategies based on companion diagnostics should be expected to lead to increases in costs in the short term and that costs would fall only in a limited number of situations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Master 11 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Other 4 8%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 21%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 15 28%
Unknown 4 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,427,926
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,466
of 1,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,349
of 299,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#25
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,879 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.