Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34215853›Full record

SynthesisThe pharmacogenomics journal2021

Economic evaluation in psychiatric pharmacogenomics: a systematic review.

Kariofyllis Karamperis, Maria Koromina, Panagiotis Papantoniou, Maria Skokou, Filippos Kanellakis, Konstantinos Mitropoulos, Athanassios Vozikis, Daniel J Müller, George P Patrinos, Christina Mitropoulou

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The pharmacogenomics journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Overcoming Barriers to Discovery and Implementation of Equitable Pharmacogenomic Testing in Oncology.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Impact of Pharmacogenomics in Clinical Practice.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Kariofyllis Karamperis *The Golden Helix Foundation, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3085-7799
Maria Koromina *The Golden Helix Foundation, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8843-082X
Panagiotis Papantoniou *Warwick Business School, Coventry, UK.
Maria SkokouPatras General University Hospital, Psychiatric Clinic, Patras, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8579-8933
Filippos KanellakisUniversity of Patras, School of Health Sciences, Department of Pharmacy, Laboratory of Pharmacogenomics and Individualized Therapy, Patras, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8959-0622
Konstantinos MitropoulosUniversity of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Athanassios VozikisUniversity of Piraeus, Economics Department, Piraeus, Greece.
Daniel J MüllerInstitute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
George P PatrinosUniversity of Patras, School of Health Sciences, Department of Pharmacy, Laboratory of Pharmacogenomics and Individualized Therapy, Patras, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0519-7776
Christina MitropoulouThe Golden Helix Foundation, London, UK. c.mitropoulou@goldenhelix.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9184-4668
University of Patras · GRCentre for Addiction and Mental Health · CAGeneral University Hospital of Patras · GRGolden Helix Foundation · GBNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRUniversity of Piraeus · GRUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

European Commission (EC) H2020-668353
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nowadays, many relevant drug-gene associations have been discovered, but pharmacogenomics (PGx)-guided treatment needs to be cost-effective as well as clinically beneficial to be incorporated into standard health care. To address current challenges, this systematic review provides an update regarding previously published studies, which assessed the cost-effectiveness of PGx testing for the prescription of antidepressants and antipsychotics. From a total of 1159 studies initially identified by literature database querying, and after manual assessment and curation of all of them, a mere 18 studies met our inclusion criteria. Of the 18 studies evaluations, 16 studies (88.89%) drew conclusions in favor of PGx testing, of which 9 (50%) genome-guided interventions were cost-effective and 7 (38.9%) were less costly compared to standard treatment based on cost analysis. More precisely, supportive evidence exists for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 drug-gene associations and for combinatorial PGx panels, but evidence is limited for many other drug-gene combinations. Amongst the limitations of the field are the unclear explanation of perspective and cost inputs, as well as the underreporting of study design elements, which can influence though the economic evaluation. Overall, the findings of this article demonstrate that although there is growing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of genome-guided interventions in psychiatric diseases, there is still a need for performing additional research on economic evaluations of PGx implementation with an emphasis on psychiatric disorders.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMental DisordersPharmacogeneticsAntipsychotic Agents

Identifiers

PMID34215853
OpenAlexW3176791188

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.