Cargando…

Assessment of a Manual Method versus an Automated, Probability-Based Algorithm to Identify Patients at High Risk for Pharmacogenomic Adverse Drug Outcomes in a University-Based Health Insurance Program

We compared patient cohorts selected for pharmacogenomic testing using a manual method or automated algorithm in a university-based health insurance network. The medication list was compiled from claims data during 4th quarter 2018. The manual method selected patients by number of medications by the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grande, Kendra J., Dalton, Rachel, Moyer, Nicolas A., Arwood, Meghan J., Nguyen, Khoa A., Sumfest, Jill, Ashcraft, Kristine C., Cooper-DeHoff, Rhonda M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8878761/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35207649
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm12020161
_version_ 1784658737085022208
author Grande, Kendra J.
Dalton, Rachel
Moyer, Nicolas A.
Arwood, Meghan J.
Nguyen, Khoa A.
Sumfest, Jill
Ashcraft, Kristine C.
Cooper-DeHoff, Rhonda M.
author_facet Grande, Kendra J.
Dalton, Rachel
Moyer, Nicolas A.
Arwood, Meghan J.
Nguyen, Khoa A.
Sumfest, Jill
Ashcraft, Kristine C.
Cooper-DeHoff, Rhonda M.
author_sort Grande, Kendra J.
collection PubMed
description We compared patient cohorts selected for pharmacogenomic testing using a manual method or automated algorithm in a university-based health insurance network. The medication list was compiled from claims data during 4th quarter 2018. The manual method selected patients by number of medications by the health system’s list of medications for pharmacogenomic testing. The automated method used YouScript’s pharmacogenetic interaction probability (PIP) algorithm to select patients based on the probability that testing would result in detection of one or more clinically significant pharmacogenetic interactions. A total of 6916 patients were included. Patient cohorts selected by each method differed substantially, including size (manual n = 218, automated n = 286) and overlap (n = 41). The automated method was over twice as likely to identify patients where testing may reveal a clinically significant pharmacogenetic interaction than the manual method (62% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001). The manual method captured more patients with significant drug–drug or multi-drug interactions (80.3% vs. 40.2%, respectively, p < 0.0001), higher average number of significant drug interactions per patient (3.3 vs. 1.1, p < 0.0001), and higher average number of unique medications per patient (9.8 vs. 7.4, p < 0.0001). It is possible to identify a cohort of patients who would likely benefit from pharmacogenomic testing using manual or automated methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8878761
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88787612022-02-26 Assessment of a Manual Method versus an Automated, Probability-Based Algorithm to Identify Patients at High Risk for Pharmacogenomic Adverse Drug Outcomes in a University-Based Health Insurance Program Grande, Kendra J. Dalton, Rachel Moyer, Nicolas A. Arwood, Meghan J. Nguyen, Khoa A. Sumfest, Jill Ashcraft, Kristine C. Cooper-DeHoff, Rhonda M. J Pers Med Article We compared patient cohorts selected for pharmacogenomic testing using a manual method or automated algorithm in a university-based health insurance network. The medication list was compiled from claims data during 4th quarter 2018. The manual method selected patients by number of medications by the health system’s list of medications for pharmacogenomic testing. The automated method used YouScript’s pharmacogenetic interaction probability (PIP) algorithm to select patients based on the probability that testing would result in detection of one or more clinically significant pharmacogenetic interactions. A total of 6916 patients were included. Patient cohorts selected by each method differed substantially, including size (manual n = 218, automated n = 286) and overlap (n = 41). The automated method was over twice as likely to identify patients where testing may reveal a clinically significant pharmacogenetic interaction than the manual method (62% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001). The manual method captured more patients with significant drug–drug or multi-drug interactions (80.3% vs. 40.2%, respectively, p < 0.0001), higher average number of significant drug interactions per patient (3.3 vs. 1.1, p < 0.0001), and higher average number of unique medications per patient (9.8 vs. 7.4, p < 0.0001). It is possible to identify a cohort of patients who would likely benefit from pharmacogenomic testing using manual or automated methods. MDPI 2022-01-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8878761/ /pubmed/35207649 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm12020161 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Grande, Kendra J.
Dalton, Rachel
Moyer, Nicolas A.
Arwood, Meghan J.
Nguyen, Khoa A.
Sumfest, Jill
Ashcraft, Kristine C.
Cooper-DeHoff, Rhonda M.
Assessment of a Manual Method versus an Automated, Probability-Based Algorithm to Identify Patients at High Risk for Pharmacogenomic Adverse Drug Outcomes in a University-Based Health Insurance Program
title Assessment of a Manual Method versus an Automated, Probability-Based Algorithm to Identify Patients at High Risk for Pharmacogenomic Adverse Drug Outcomes in a University-Based Health Insurance Program
title_full Assessment of a Manual Method versus an Automated, Probability-Based Algorithm to Identify Patients at High Risk for Pharmacogenomic Adverse Drug Outcomes in a University-Based Health Insurance Program
title_fullStr Assessment of a Manual Method versus an Automated, Probability-Based Algorithm to Identify Patients at High Risk for Pharmacogenomic Adverse Drug Outcomes in a University-Based Health Insurance Program
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of a Manual Method versus an Automated, Probability-Based Algorithm to Identify Patients at High Risk for Pharmacogenomic Adverse Drug Outcomes in a University-Based Health Insurance Program
title_short Assessment of a Manual Method versus an Automated, Probability-Based Algorithm to Identify Patients at High Risk for Pharmacogenomic Adverse Drug Outcomes in a University-Based Health Insurance Program
title_sort assessment of a manual method versus an automated, probability-based algorithm to identify patients at high risk for pharmacogenomic adverse drug outcomes in a university-based health insurance program
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8878761/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35207649
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm12020161
work_keys_str_mv AT grandekendraj assessmentofamanualmethodversusanautomatedprobabilitybasedalgorithmtoidentifypatientsathighriskforpharmacogenomicadversedrugoutcomesinauniversitybasedhealthinsuranceprogram
AT daltonrachel assessmentofamanualmethodversusanautomatedprobabilitybasedalgorithmtoidentifypatientsathighriskforpharmacogenomicadversedrugoutcomesinauniversitybasedhealthinsuranceprogram
AT moyernicolasa assessmentofamanualmethodversusanautomatedprobabilitybasedalgorithmtoidentifypatientsathighriskforpharmacogenomicadversedrugoutcomesinauniversitybasedhealthinsuranceprogram
AT arwoodmeghanj assessmentofamanualmethodversusanautomatedprobabilitybasedalgorithmtoidentifypatientsathighriskforpharmacogenomicadversedrugoutcomesinauniversitybasedhealthinsuranceprogram
AT nguyenkhoaa assessmentofamanualmethodversusanautomatedprobabilitybasedalgorithmtoidentifypatientsathighriskforpharmacogenomicadversedrugoutcomesinauniversitybasedhealthinsuranceprogram
AT sumfestjill assessmentofamanualmethodversusanautomatedprobabilitybasedalgorithmtoidentifypatientsathighriskforpharmacogenomicadversedrugoutcomesinauniversitybasedhealthinsuranceprogram
AT ashcraftkristinec assessmentofamanualmethodversusanautomatedprobabilitybasedalgorithmtoidentifypatientsathighriskforpharmacogenomicadversedrugoutcomesinauniversitybasedhealthinsuranceprogram
AT cooperdehoffrhondam assessmentofamanualmethodversusanautomatedprobabilitybasedalgorithmtoidentifypatientsathighriskforpharmacogenomicadversedrugoutcomesinauniversitybasedhealthinsuranceprogram