Key considerations when assessing clinical utility for biomarker testing: A checklist.

IF 3.3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Tianyi Wang, Kimberly Tsai, Steven S Kheloussi, Dana McCormick, Pamala A Pawloski
{"title":"Key considerations when assessing clinical utility for biomarker testing: A checklist.","authors":"Tianyi Wang, Kimberly Tsai, Steven S Kheloussi, Dana McCormick, Pamala A Pawloski","doi":"10.18553/jmcp.2026.32.9-b.s4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Establishing the clinical utility of biomarker tests is a critical component of benefit design. However, payers and laboratory benefit manager organizations may differ in how they evaluate clinical utility for a given test, including how they determine whether evaluated outcomes are clinically meaningful. These differences can create challenges for providers and manufacturers when navigating coverage policies across organizations. Based on expert insights from a partnership forum hosted by AMCP on June 24-25, 2025, in Alexandria, VA, on the topic of precision medicine in oncology, we developed a checklist of considerations to align payers and laboratory benefit managers around a shared, actionable approach to evaluating the clinical utility of biomarker tests and the types of evidence used to demonstrate it. The checklist begins with confirmation that analytical and clinical validity have been established before assessing clinical utility. Tests should then be categorized based on their intended use and whether they provide actionable information that informs clinical decision-making and improves patient health outcomes. Assessment of clinical utility includes consideration of the relevance, strength, and consistency of the supporting evidence base. After clinical utility is established, economic and operational considerations may also be evaluated. This checklist is intended to support a more transparent and structured approach to evaluating clinical utility in coverage decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":16170,"journal":{"name":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","volume":"32 9-b Suppl","pages":"S25-S33"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13452049/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2026.32.9-b.s4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Establishing the clinical utility of biomarker tests is a critical component of benefit design. However, payers and laboratory benefit manager organizations may differ in how they evaluate clinical utility for a given test, including how they determine whether evaluated outcomes are clinically meaningful. These differences can create challenges for providers and manufacturers when navigating coverage policies across organizations. Based on expert insights from a partnership forum hosted by AMCP on June 24-25, 2025, in Alexandria, VA, on the topic of precision medicine in oncology, we developed a checklist of considerations to align payers and laboratory benefit managers around a shared, actionable approach to evaluating the clinical utility of biomarker tests and the types of evidence used to demonstrate it. The checklist begins with confirmation that analytical and clinical validity have been established before assessing clinical utility. Tests should then be categorized based on their intended use and whether they provide actionable information that informs clinical decision-making and improves patient health outcomes. Assessment of clinical utility includes consideration of the relevance, strength, and consistency of the supporting evidence base. After clinical utility is established, economic and operational considerations may also be evaluated. This checklist is intended to support a more transparent and structured approach to evaluating clinical utility in coverage decision-making.

评估生物标志物检测的临床效用时的关键考虑因素:清单。
建立生物标志物试验的临床效用是利益设计的关键组成部分。然而,支付方和实验室福利管理机构在如何评估特定检测的临床效用方面可能存在差异,包括如何确定评估结果是否具有临床意义。这些差异可能会给供应商和制造商在跨组织导航覆盖策略时带来挑战。根据AMCP于2025年6月24日至25日在弗吉尼亚州亚历山大市举办的关于肿瘤学精准医学主题的合作伙伴论坛的专家见解,我们制定了一份考虑事项清单,以使支付方和实验室福利管理人员围绕一种共享的、可操作的方法来评估生物标志物测试的临床效用以及用于证明它的证据类型。检查表首先确认在评估临床效用之前已经建立了分析和临床有效性。然后,应根据测试的预期用途以及它们是否提供可操作的信息,为临床决策提供信息并改善患者的健康结果,对测试进行分类。临床效用评估包括考虑支持证据基础的相关性、强度和一致性。在确立临床效用后,还可以对经济和操作方面的考虑进行评估。该清单旨在支持一种更透明和结构化的方法来评估覆盖决策中的临床效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: JMCP welcomes research studies conducted outside of the United States that are relevant to our readership. Our audience is primarily concerned with designing policies of formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs that are based on evidence from large populations of people. Studies of pharmacist interventions conducted outside the United States that have already been extensively studied within the United States and studies of small sample sizes in non-managed care environments outside of the United States (e.g., hospitals or community pharmacies) are generally of low interest to our readership. However, studies of health outcomes and costs assessed in large populations that provide evidence for formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs are of high interest to JMCP’s readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书