Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18563949›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2008

Pharmacoeconomic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and genomic screening programmes: a systematic review on content and adherence to guidelines.

Stefan Vegter, Cornelis Boersma, Mark Rozenbaum, Bob Wilffert, Gerjan Navis, Maarten J Postma

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Innovations in Health Care-A Conceptual Framework.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. The economic case for precision medicine.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 2018
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Key emerging themes for assessing the cost-effectiveness of reporting incidental findings.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2015
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Stefan VegterGroningen Research Institute of Pharmacy (GRIP), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Cornelis Boersma
Mark Rozenbaum
Bob Wilffert
Gerjan Navis
Maarten J Postma

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The fields of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics have become important practical tools to progress goals in medical and pharmaceutical research and development. As more screening tests are being developed, with some already used in clinical practice, consideration of cost-effectiveness implications is important. A systematic review was performed on the content of and adherence to pharmacoeconomic guidelines of recent pharmacoeconomic analyses performed in the field of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics. Economic analyses of screening strategies for genetic variations, which were evidence-based and assumed to be associated with drug efficacy or safety, were included in the review. The 20 papers included cover a variety of healthcare issues, including screening tests on several cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme genes, thiopurine S-methyltransferase (TMPT) and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) insertion deletion (ACE I/D) polymorphisms. Most economic analyses reported that genetic screening was cost effective and often even clearly dominated existing non-screening strategies. However, we found a lack of standardization regarding aspects such as the perspective of the analysis, factors included in the sensitivity analysis and the applied discount rates. In particular, an important limitation of several studies related to the failure to provide a sufficient evidence-based rationale for an association between genotype and phenotype. Future economic analyses should be conducted utilizing correct methods, with adherence to guidelines and including extensive sensitivity analyses. Most importantly, genetic screening strategies should be based on good evidence-based rationales. For these goals, we provide a list of recommendations for good pharmacoeconomic practice deemed useful in the fields of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics, regardless of country and origin of the economic analysis.

Indexed as

Economics, PharmaceuticalCost-Benefit AnalysisCytochrome P-450 Enzyme SystemGenetic TestingGenotypeGuidelines as TopicHumansPharmacogeneticsSensitivity and SpecificityCytochrome P-450 Enzyme System

Identifiers

PMID18563949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.