Development of the PICCOTEAM Reference Case for Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine

Background: Current economic evaluations (EEs) of precision medicine (PM) often adhere to generic reference cases (RC) which overlook the unique healthcare paradigms of PM. This study aimed to develop an RC to standardize the conduct and reporting of EEs of PM. Methods: A working group comprising 5 core health economists, 22 PM experts, and research staff from Singapore, Thailand, and Australia who were actively engaged in EE and clinical PM implementation. The RC development comprised four stages: (1) Expert consultation shaping the RC’s scope and structure across nine domains: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Cost, Outcome, Time, Equity and ethics, Adaptability, Modelling (i.e., "PICCOTEAM" framework); (2) A comprehensive literature review on current PM EE approaches and challenges; (3) Obtaining expert consensus and drafting recommendations; (4) A workshop for RC refinement based on stakeholder feedback on relevance and feasibility. Following an experts' workshop, consensus was reached to tailor PM recommendations for screening, diagnosis, and pharmacogenomics, market-access, and early EEs. Results: The PICCOTEAM RC offers 46 recommendations for conventional EEs to guide PM reimbursement, emphasizing expert engagement, iterative study processes, disease-specific outcomes, decision uncertainty analyses, and equity considerations. Additionally, 30 recommendations are provided for early-stage evaluation to enhance PM’s positioning and value proposition, mitigating uncertainty, equity, and ethical issues. Conclusion: The PICCOTEAM RC offers a standardized process to conduct and report diverse PM EEs. This will serve as guidance for health departments, researchers, clinicians, editors, and reviewers. Pilot testing and continuous updates are recommended for ongoing relevance and applicability of this RC.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Published
2025-08-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.8756
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Development of the PICCOTEAM Reference Case for Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine

Dimple Butani, Wenjia Chen, Alec Morton, Vorasuk Shotelersuk et al.
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Development of the PICCOTEAM Reference Case for Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine

Dimple Butani, Wenjia Chen, Alec Morton, Vorasuk Shotelersuk, Janet Bouttell, Laura Huey Mien Lim, Paul Scuffham, Yi Wang, Yot Teerawattananon, Hwee Lin Wee, Joanne Ngeow, Janneke P.C. Grutters, Yah Ru Juang, Yue Zhang
article en

Abstract

Background: Current economic evaluations (EEs) of precision medicine (PM) often adhere to generic reference cases (RC) which overlook the unique healthcare paradigms of PM. This study aimed to develop an RC to standardize the conduct and reporting of EEs of PM. Methods: A working group comprising 5 core health economists, 22 PM experts, and research staff from Singapore, Thailand, and Australia who were actively engaged in EE and clinical PM implementation. The RC development comprised four stages: (1) Expert consultation shaping the RC’s scope and structure across nine domains: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Cost, Outcome, Time, Equity and ethics, Adaptability, Modelling (i.e., "PICCOTEAM" framework); (2) A comprehensive literature review on current PM EE approaches and challenges; (3) Obtaining expert consensus and drafting recommendations; (4) A workshop for RC refinement based on stakeholder feedback on relevance and feasibility. Following an experts' workshop, consensus was reached to tailor PM recommendations for screening, diagnosis, and pharmacogenomics, market-access, and early EEs. Results: The PICCOTEAM RC offers 46 recommendations for conventional EEs to guide PM reimbursement, emphasizing expert engagement, iterative study processes, disease-specific outcomes, decision uncertainty analyses, and equity considerations. Additionally, 30 recommendations are provided for early-stage evaluation to enhance PM’s positioning and value proposition, mitigating uncertainty, equity, and ethical issues. Conclusion: The PICCOTEAM RC offers a standardized process to conduct and report diverse PM EEs. This will serve as guidance for health departments, researchers, clinicians, editors, and reviewers. Pilot testing and continuous updates are recommended for ongoing relevance and applicability of this RC.

International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Griffith University (AU), Thai Red Cross Society (TH), Ministry of Public Health (TH), Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), Radboud University Nijmegen (NL), Chulalongkorn University (TH), National University of Singapore (SG), Nanyang Technological University (SG), University of Strathclyde (GB), Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (TH), King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital (TH), Radboud University Medical Center (NL), Duke-NUS Medical School (SG), National Cancer Centre Singapore (SG), National University Health System (SG), University of Glasgow (GB)
Health Systems Research Institute
Openalex Percentile: Top 82%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.