ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Multinational cost-utility analysis of panel-based pharmacogenetics-guided treatment of patients enrolled in the U-PGx PREPARE study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of genome-guided statin treatment for hypercholesterolemia.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2026Review
- Position statement from the Italian Society of Human Genetics (SIGU) on the implementation of germline pharmacogenetic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Comprehensive whole genome sequencing-based pharmacogenomics profiling using a personalized genome interpretation workflow.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Practical guide to implementing pre-emptive pharmacogenetic screening in routine pediatric oncology care.PharmacogenomicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
41 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pharmacogenetics (PGx) aims to revolutionize healthcare by individualizing drug doses and medication choices. However, clinical uptake will require positive evaluation evidence of both clinical utility and cost-effectiveness. We have recently demonstrated the clinical utility of this approach, using a panel-based PGx-guided treatment of patients from various indications recruited in seven countries (PREPARE study). Methods: Here, we provide economic evidence from a multinational cost-utility analysis of PGx-guided treatment in 6930 patients participating in the PREPARE study. The study was conducted from March 2017 to June 2020. We used the national healthcare system's perspective in each participating country, including only direct medical costs that budget holders cover. A Visual Analog Scale was used to measure utility and the quality of life was estimated by averaging the Visual Analog Scale scores of participants over four specific time points in the study, namely baseline visit (day 1), week 4, week 12, and 18 months from the baseline visit. Findings: Our analysis showed that the PGx-guided treatment is marginally cost-effective at the threshold of €11,000 QALYs. Cost drivers were hospitalization and ADRs costs, accounting for most of the resources used in both groups (46% and 37.5% in the PGx-guided group versus 49% and 48% in the control group, respectively), as a result of the average duration of hospitalization [1.51 days (95% CI: 1.23-1.82) for the PGx-guided group and 2.37 days (95% CI: 1.95-2.89) for the control group, resulting in a mean difference of 0.86 days (95% CI: 0.37-1.44). The difference in QALYs gained was 0.00178 (95% CI: 0.00176-0.00180). The ICER was €12,020 (95% CI: €10,957-€13,356) per QALY on average (SD: €116). When comparing cost and effectiveness of actionable PGx-guided versus actionable control patients, the total cost for the PGx-guided group was €491 (95% CI: €384-€613), versus €767 (95% CI: €583-€982) in the control group, with an incremental cost difference of €276 (95% CI: €62-€511), favoring the PGx-guided group. Also, the difference in effectiveness was 0.007 QALYs (95% CI: -0.021 to 0.033). Lastly, the difference in the mean total cost was estimated to be €21.4 (95% CI: €19.5-€23.8), while without considering the PGx test cost, indicative of a pre-emptive genetic testing approach, the PGx-guided treatment becomes a cost-saving option, with an estimated savings of approximately €103.6 (€124-€21.4) per patient. Interpretation: These data suggest that panel-based PGx testing is cost-effective, which, together with the clinically beneficial outcomes already demonstrated in the PREPARE study, provides additional evidence of the need to implement PGx into clinical practice. Funding: European Union Horizon 2020.
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.