EXAMINATION OF EQUITY IN THE DELIVERY OF PERSONALISED MEDICINES

Author(s)

Martin AP, Haycox A, Downing J, Alfirevic A, Pirmohamed M
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

OBJECTIVES: The remit of this review is to appraise considerations of equity in the delivery of personalised medicines. The aim of the review was to analyse evidence relating to the assessment of the effects of personalised medicines not aimed at reducing inequity but where it is important to understand the effects on equity in terms of delivery of care. METHODS: The scope was informed by the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group and the Cochrane Public Health Group who recommend the PROGRESS-Plus approach to analyse health inequality information. PROGRESS-Plus is an acronym for place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language/occupation/, gender/sex, religion, socioeconomic status and social capital and ‘Plus’; captures other characteristics which may indicate a disadvantage, such as age and disability. The categories of focus for identification of factors which may lead to health inequalities in our analysis include income, occupation, education, gender, ethnicity and age. A total of 202 personalised medicines with differing approvals between EMA, FDA, PMDA and HCSC were considered and studies grouped according to therapeutic area. A hypothesis testing approach using a harvest plot was chosen to assess which of three competing hypotheses; positive social gradient, negative social gradient and no gradient is best supported by each study for each dimension of inequality. RESULTS: Findings of health inequalities will be synthesized by presenting relative and absolute differences between groups. Using a harvest plot, a positive social gradient in effectiveness was defined as a situation in which the personalised medicine was more effective in more advantaged groups whereas a negative social gradient in effectiveness was defined as a situation in which a personalised medicine was more effective in disadvantaged groups.   CONCLUSIONS: The review aims to identify evidence of personalised medicines with a negative social gradient to inform policies to reduce inequalities in health and also highlight gaps in evidence.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2016-05, ISPOR 2016, Washington DC, USA

Value in Health, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May 2016)

Code

PHP47

Topic

Health Policy & Regulatory

Topic Subcategory

Health Disparities & Equity

Disease

Multiple Diseases

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×