Cargando…

Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature

OBJECTIVE: Due to extended application of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic screening (PGx) tests it is important to assess whether they provide good value for money. This review provides an update of the literature. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed and papers published between...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Berm, Elizabeth J. J., de Looff, Margot, Wilffert, Bob, Boersma, Cornelis, Annemans, Lieven, Vegter, Stefan, van Boven, Job F. M., Postma, Maarten J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4709231/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26752539
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146262
_version_ 1782409614605680640
author Berm, Elizabeth J. J.
de Looff, Margot
Wilffert, Bob
Boersma, Cornelis
Annemans, Lieven
Vegter, Stefan
van Boven, Job F. M.
Postma, Maarten J.
author_facet Berm, Elizabeth J. J.
de Looff, Margot
Wilffert, Bob
Boersma, Cornelis
Annemans, Lieven
Vegter, Stefan
van Boven, Job F. M.
Postma, Maarten J.
author_sort Berm, Elizabeth J. J.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Due to extended application of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic screening (PGx) tests it is important to assess whether they provide good value for money. This review provides an update of the literature. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed and papers published between August 2010 and September 2014, investigating the cost-effectiveness of PGx screening tests, were included. Papers from 2000 until July 2010 were included via two previous systematic reviews. Studies’ overall quality was assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. RESULTS: We found 38 studies, which combined with the previous 42 studies resulted in a total of 80 included studies. An average QHES score of 76 was found. Since 2010, more studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most recent studies performed cost-utility analysis, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and discussed limitations of their economic evaluations. Most studies indicated favorable cost-effectiveness. Majority of evaluations did not provide information regarding the intrinsic value of the PGx test. There were considerable differences in the costs for PGx testing. Reporting of the direction and magnitude of bias on the cost-effectiveness estimates as well as motivation for the chosen economic model and perspective were frequently missing. CONCLUSIONS: Application of PGx tests was mostly found to be a cost-effective or cost-saving strategy. We found that only the minority of recent pharmacoeconomic evaluations assessed the intrinsic value of the PGx tests. There was an increase in the number of studies and in the reporting of quality associated characteristics. To improve future evaluations, scenario analysis including a broad range of PGx tests costs and equal costs of comparator drugs to assess the intrinsic value of the PGx tests, are recommended. In addition, robust clinical evidence regarding PGx tests’ efficacy remains of utmost importance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4709231
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47092312016-01-15 Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature Berm, Elizabeth J. J. de Looff, Margot Wilffert, Bob Boersma, Cornelis Annemans, Lieven Vegter, Stefan van Boven, Job F. M. Postma, Maarten J. PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: Due to extended application of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic screening (PGx) tests it is important to assess whether they provide good value for money. This review provides an update of the literature. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed and papers published between August 2010 and September 2014, investigating the cost-effectiveness of PGx screening tests, were included. Papers from 2000 until July 2010 were included via two previous systematic reviews. Studies’ overall quality was assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. RESULTS: We found 38 studies, which combined with the previous 42 studies resulted in a total of 80 included studies. An average QHES score of 76 was found. Since 2010, more studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most recent studies performed cost-utility analysis, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and discussed limitations of their economic evaluations. Most studies indicated favorable cost-effectiveness. Majority of evaluations did not provide information regarding the intrinsic value of the PGx test. There were considerable differences in the costs for PGx testing. Reporting of the direction and magnitude of bias on the cost-effectiveness estimates as well as motivation for the chosen economic model and perspective were frequently missing. CONCLUSIONS: Application of PGx tests was mostly found to be a cost-effective or cost-saving strategy. We found that only the minority of recent pharmacoeconomic evaluations assessed the intrinsic value of the PGx tests. There was an increase in the number of studies and in the reporting of quality associated characteristics. To improve future evaluations, scenario analysis including a broad range of PGx tests costs and equal costs of comparator drugs to assess the intrinsic value of the PGx tests, are recommended. In addition, robust clinical evidence regarding PGx tests’ efficacy remains of utmost importance. Public Library of Science 2016-01-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4709231/ /pubmed/26752539 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146262 Text en © 2016 Berm et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Berm, Elizabeth J. J.
de Looff, Margot
Wilffert, Bob
Boersma, Cornelis
Annemans, Lieven
Vegter, Stefan
van Boven, Job F. M.
Postma, Maarten J.
Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature
title Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature
title_full Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature
title_fullStr Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature
title_full_unstemmed Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature
title_short Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature
title_sort economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic screening tests: a systematic review. second update of the literature
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4709231/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26752539
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146262
work_keys_str_mv AT bermelizabethjj economicevaluationsofpharmacogeneticandpharmacogenomicscreeningtestsasystematicreviewsecondupdateoftheliterature
AT delooffmargot economicevaluationsofpharmacogeneticandpharmacogenomicscreeningtestsasystematicreviewsecondupdateoftheliterature
AT wilffertbob economicevaluationsofpharmacogeneticandpharmacogenomicscreeningtestsasystematicreviewsecondupdateoftheliterature
AT boersmacornelis economicevaluationsofpharmacogeneticandpharmacogenomicscreeningtestsasystematicreviewsecondupdateoftheliterature
AT annemanslieven economicevaluationsofpharmacogeneticandpharmacogenomicscreeningtestsasystematicreviewsecondupdateoftheliterature
AT vegterstefan economicevaluationsofpharmacogeneticandpharmacogenomicscreeningtestsasystematicreviewsecondupdateoftheliterature
AT vanbovenjobfm economicevaluationsofpharmacogeneticandpharmacogenomicscreeningtestsasystematicreviewsecondupdateoftheliterature
AT postmamaartenj economicevaluationsofpharmacogeneticandpharmacogenomicscreeningtestsasystematicreviewsecondupdateoftheliterature