SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2010
Cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics: a critical and systematic review.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
52 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guidelines: A Systematic Review.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review on the cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics in developing countries: implementation challenges.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2022Pooled it
- Economic evaluation in psychiatric pharmacogenomics: a systematic review.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review of the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics-guided treatment for cardiovascular diseases.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Pooled it
- Economic Value of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Cancer Drugs with Clinically Relevant Drug-Gene Associations: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2019Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Prevention of Adverse Drug Reactions.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Biomarkers.Applied health economics and health policy · 2016Pooled it
- Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Improving the Efficiency and Quality of the Value Assessment Process for Companion Diagnostic Tests: The Companion test Assessment Tool (CAT).Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2015Pooled it
- Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for psoriasis.PharmacoEconomics · 2015Pooled it
- Is individualized medicine more cost-effective? A systematic review.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Pooled it
- Cost of illness in colorectal cancer: an international review.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Pooled it
- Article
- Pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing in Italy: a review of evidence and multidisciplinary consensus on key priorities for implementation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Article
- Impact and Enablers of Pharmacogenetic-Informed Treatment Decisions-A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Study Exploring the Patient Perspective.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Association of Pharmacogenotyping and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Chronic Pain Management.Health services insights · 2025Article
- Article
- Clinical Pharmacists' Involvement in Pharmacogenomics Testing and Related Services in China.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomics-Guided Prescribing to Prevent Gene-Drug-Related Deaths: A Decision-Analytic Model.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice is limited thus far. A potential barrier to the widespread implementation of pharmacogenetic testing is the lack of evidence on whether testing provides good value for money. The objective of this review was to provide a systematic and critical review of economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing. A literature search using publically available databases was performed for articles published up to October 2009. To be included, studies had to meet the definition of being a pharmacogenomic study (defined as use of information on human genetic variation to target drug therapy) and an economic evaluation (defined as an evaluation of both costs and clinical outcomes). Articles that met these criteria were subsequently reviewed and graded using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Lastly, the evidence for biomarker validity and utility were qualitatively assessed using expert opinion. A total of 34 articles were identified using our defined criteria. The most common disease category was thromboembolic-related diseases (26%), while the most common biomarkers were thiopurine methyltransferase and cytochrome P450 2C9 (18% each). Almost all studies were published after 2004 (91%). Two types of studies were identified: cost-effectiveness studies and cost-utility studies, with roughly half of the overall studies being cost-utility studies (53%) and a majority of these published within the last 3 years. The average quality score was 77 (range 29-99). Of the biomarkers reviewed, it was estimated that most had demonstrated clinical validity, but only two had demonstrated clinical utility. Despite a recent increase in the number of economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic applications, further studies examining the clinical validity and utility of these biomarkers are needed to support cost-effectiveness assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20936884What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.