SynthesisClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2017
Are Evidence Standards Different for Genomic- vs. Clinical-Based Precision Medicine? A Quantitative Analysis of Individualized Warfarin Therapy.
Synthesis in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of pharmacogenomic clinical decision support for health systems: a cost-utility analysis.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2022Article
- Are There Different Evidence Thresholds for Genomic Versus Clinical Precision Medicine? A Value of Information-Based Framework Applied to Antiplatelet Drug Therapy.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Evidence requirements for implementation of precision medicine (PM), whether informed by genomic or clinical data, are not well defined. Evidence requirements are driven by uncertainty and its attendant consequences; these aspects can be quantified by a novel technique in health economics: value of information analysis (VOI). We utilized VOI analysis to compare the evidence levels over time for warfarin dosing based on pharmacogenomic vs. amiodarone-warfarin drug-drug interaction information. The primary outcome was the expected value of perfect information (EVPI), which is an estimate of the upper limit of the societal value of conducting future research. Over the past decade, the EVPI for the pharmacogenomic strategy decreased from $1,550 to $140 vs. $1,220 to $280 per patient for the drug-interaction strategy. Evidence levels thus appear to be higher for pharmacogenomic-guided vs. drug-interaction-guided warfarin dosing. Clinical guidelines and reimbursement policies for warfarin PM could be informed by these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.