Concepts of ‘personalization’ in personalized
medicine: implications for economic evaluation
Appendix 1
Selection and final names & affiliations of workshop participants
Out of literature and internet searches of relevant publications, organizations and
agencies persons with high expertise in the focus areas of the framework were
selected to generate a list of potential experts. The list contained position,
affiliation, expertise and biosketch of the experts who were assigned to one of the
six working groups – among them the WG on methods for economic evaluation for the international ONCOTYROL expert task force. Additionally delegates from
the Society of Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment
international were invited to be part of the working groups in the framework
development.
Overall, 134 persons received invitations to the Oncotyrol Task Force Workshop
in Innsbruck whereupon 31 experts were able to participate. Out of 72 experts
asked to attend the following two Oncotyrol Task Force Workshops, 11 took part
in Oslo and 13 in Bilbao. Additionally 10 senior researchers from the
ONCOTYROL team participated in the workshops (see list).
1
Appendix 1. List of Participants in the International Oncotyrol Expert Task Force Workshops
1
Name
Affiliation
Working Group
Clifford,
Canadian Agency for Drugs and
Technologies in Health (CADTH), Canada
Structures and Processes
Finnish Office for HTA (FinOHTA), Finland
Structures and Processes
Gesundheit Österreich, Austria
Structures and Processes
Eli Lilly, Australia
Structures and Processes
Dept Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics
Academic Medical Center- University of
Amsterdam
Netherlands
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC,
Netherlands
Study design issues
(PICOS scheme)
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review
(ICER), United States
Study design issues
(PICOS scheme)
Study design issues
(PICOS scheme)
Study design issues
(PICOS scheme)
Tammy
2
Pasternack,
Iris
3
Kernstock,
Eva
4
Grainger,
David
5
Tajik, Parvin
6
Steyerberg,
Ewout
7
Ollendorf,
Dan
8
Mader, Sarah
Medical University Innsbruck, Austria
9
No approval
Academic, United States
of publication
Study design issues
(PICOS scheme)
available
10
No approval
Clinical researcher, Austria
Study design issues
(PICOS scheme)
Medical University Innsbruck, Austria
Study design issues
(PICOS scheme)
UMIT – University for Health Sciences,
Medical Informatics & Technology, Austria
Oncotyrol – Center for Personalized Cancer
Medicine, Austria
THETA (Toronto Health Economics and
Technology Assessment Collaborative),
Canada
Outcomes Research Center, Dept. of
Pharmacotherapy, University of Utah, United
States
Department of Health Services, Policy &
Practice, Brown University School of Public
Health, Brown University, Providence,
United States
Senior scientist at nonprofit research center,
focusing on comparative effectiveness
research, United States
Study design issues
(PICOS scheme)
Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Spain
Evaluation of Clinical
Effectiveness
of publication
available
11
Klocker,
Helmut
12
Rochau,
Ursula
13
Krahn,
Murray
14
Brixner,
Diana
15
Thomas
Trikalinos*
16
No approval
of publication
Evaluation of Clinical
Effectiveness
Evaluation of Clinical
Effectiveness
Evaluation of Clinical
Effectiveness
Evaluation of Clinical
Effectiveness
available
17
SampietroColom, Laura
2
18
Oberaigner,
Institut für klin. Epidemiologie der TILAK –
Evaluation of Clinical
Willi
Unternehmen Gesundheit, Austria
Effectiveness
Oncotyrol - Center for Personalized Cancer
Medicine company partner, Austria
UMIT – University for Health Sciences,
Medical Informatics & Technology, Austria
UMIT – University for Health Sciences,
Medical Informatics & Technology, Austria
Oncotyrol – Center for Personalized Cancer
Medicine, Austria
Centre for Health Economics, University of
York, United Kingdom
Evaluation of Clinical
Effectiveness
University of Wisconsin-Madison, College of
Engineering, United States
Methods for Economic
Evaluation
Payne,
School of Medicine, Manchester Centre for
Katherine
Health Economics, The University of
Methods for Economic
Evaluation
19
Saverno, Kim
20
Manca.
Andrea
21
Oguzhan,
Alagoz
22
Methods for Economic
Evaluation
Manchester, United Kingdom
23
24
Rogowski,
IMG
Wolf
Helmholtz Center Munich – Deutsches
Forschungszentrum für Gesundheit und
Umwelt, Germany
Leiden University Medical Center,
Department of Medical Decision Making,
Netherlands
UMIT – University for Health Sciences,
Medical Informatics & Technology, Austria
Oncotyrol – Center for Personalized Cancer
Medicine, Austria
UMIT – University for Health Sciences,
Medical Informatics & Technology, Austria
Oncotyrol – Center for Personalized Cancer
Medicine, Austria
UMIT – University for Health Sciences,
Medical Informatics & Technology, Austria
Van den
Akkern, Elske
25
Jahn, Beate
26
Sroczynski,
Gaby
27
Stühlinger,
Verena
28
FlatscherThöni,
Methods for Economic
Evaluation
Methods for Economic
Evaluation
Methods for Economic
Evaluation
Methods for Economic
Evaluation
Ethical, legal, social issues
UMIT – University for Health Sciences,
Medical Informatics & Technology, Austria
Ethical, legal, social issues
AnthroConsult, Denmark
Ethical, legal, social issues
Ludwig Maximilian University Munich,
Germany
Ethical, legal, social issues
Pharmaceutical Company, United Kingdom
Ethical, legal, social issues
Health Policy Consultant, United Kingdom
Ethical, legal, social issues
Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research & Policy
Link to Decision Making
Magdalena
29
Mortensen,
Gitte Lee
30
Schleidgen,
Sebastian
31
No approval
of publication
available
32
No approval
of publication
available
33
Garrison, Lou
3
34
Endel,
Gottfried
Program, Department of Pharmacy,
University of Washington , United States
Association of Social Insurance Agencies,
Austria
Link to Decision Making
35
Faulkner, Eric
36
Stiggelbout,
Institute for Pharmacogenomics and
Individualized Therapy, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States
Leiden University Medical Center,
Anne
Netherlands
No approval
Researcher, United Kingdom
Link to Decision Making
37
Link to Decision Making
Link to Decision Making
of publication
available
38
Ward, Robyn
University of New South Wales, Australia
Link to Decision Making
39
Meijer,
Merck & Co, Inc. Whitehouse Station, USA
Link to Decision Making
Paulien
40
Pugner, Klaus
Amgen (Europe) GmbH, Switzerland
Link to Decision Making
41
Hebborn,
Roche Pharma, Switzerland
Link to Decision Making
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health
Services, Norway
Link to Decision Making
Consulting company, United States
Link to Decision Making
UMIT – University for Health Sciences,
Medical Informatics & Technology, Austria
Oncotyrol – Center for Personalized Cancer
Medicine, Austria
UMIT – University for Health Sciences,
Medical Informatics & Technology, Austria
Oncotyrol – Center for Personalized Cancer
Medicine, Austria
UMIT – University for Health Sciences,
Medical Informatics & Technology, Austria
Oncotyrol – Center for Personalized Cancer
Medicine, Austria
Canadian Agency for Drugs and
Technologies in Health (CADTH), Canada.
Link to Decision Making
Ansgar
42
Klemp,
Marianne
43
No approval
of publication
available
44
Schwarzer,
Ruth
45
Siebert; Uwe
46
SchnellInderst, Petra
47
Husereau,
Don
Contents and organization
of Workshop in General
Contents and organization
of Workshop in General
Contents and organization
of Workshop in General
*via telephone
Further details regarding the workshops
Each workshop included discussions among pre-defined groups of key experts as
well as plenary sessions in which rapporteurs from each topic specific working
group presented key findings to stimulate a collective discussion. The findings
4
from these topic specific and collective plenary discussions were used to
understand the degree and extent of consensus on the HTA methods and process
for PM in oncology. The findings from the workshops were recorded using
extensive notes taken from the summary power point slides prepared during the
breakout session and a team of note takers who attended each plenary session.
Thematic data analysis was used to analyze the notes recorded in each workshop
and used to inform the degree of consensus and breadth of views on the economic
evaluation of PM.
For each topic specific session a framework document with key research
questions was prepared. This document was based on a review of the literature of
HTA and PM. The literature search aimed to identify key recommendations, key
principles and methods of HTA. The framework document for the working group
“defining methods on economic evaluation” was based on one HTA guidance
document dealing with economic evaluation in oncology (Mittmann N et al.
Addendum to CADTH’s Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health
Technologies: Specific Guidance for Oncology Products. Ottawa: Canadian
Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009).
5