Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20936884›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2010

Cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics: a critical and systematic review.

William B Wong, Josh J Carlson, Rahber Thariani, David L Veenstra

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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 · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

William B WongUniversity of Washington, Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, Department of Pharmacy, Seattle, Washington 98195-7630, USA.
Josh J Carlson
Rahber Thariani
David L Veenstra

Funding

Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics - CANCERGENRC2CA148570 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI RAMSEY, SCOTT D. · 2009 to 2009
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS RC2 CA148570
6 · The paper itself

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

Cost-Benefit AnalysisGenetic TestingHumansPharmacogeneticsQuality-Adjusted Life Years

Identifiers

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.