Cost-effectiveness of cytochrome P450 2C19 genotype screening for selection of antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel or prasugrel

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guidelines: A Systematic Review

The objective of this study was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic (PGx)-guided treatment for drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines. A systematic review was conducted using multiple biomedical literature databases from inception to June 2021. Full articles comparing PGx-guided with nonguided treatment were included for data extraction. Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) was used to assess robustness of each study (0-100). Data are reported using descriptive statistics. Of 108 studies evaluating 39 drugs, 77 (71%) showed PGx testing was cost-effective (CE) (N = 48) or cost-saving (CS) (N = 29); 21 (20%) were not CE; 10 (9%) were uncertain. Clopidogrel had the most articles (N = 23), of which 22 demonstrated CE or CS, followed by warfarin (N = 16), of which 7 demonstrated CE or CS. Of 26 studies evaluating human leukocyte antigen (HLA) testing for abacavir (N = 8), allopurinol (N = 10), or carbamazepine/phenytoin (N = 8), 15 demonstrated CE or CS. Nine of 11 antidepressant articles demonstrated CE or CS. The median QHES score reflected high-quality studies (91; range 48-100). Most studies evaluating cost-effectiveness favored PGx testing. Limited data exist on cost-effectiveness of preemptive and multigene testing across disease states.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Prevention of Adverse Drug Reactions

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenetics offers the potential to improve health outcomes by identifying individuals who are at greater risk of harm from certain medicines. Routine adoption of pharmacogenetic tests requires evidence of their cost effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

The present review aims to systematically review published economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic tests that aim to prevent or reduce the incidence of ADRs.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic tests aimed to reduce the incidence of adverse drug reactions. Literature was searched using Embase, MEDLINE and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database with search terms relating to pharmacogenetic testing, adverse drug reactions, economic evaluations and pharmaceuticals. Titles were screened independently by two reviewers. Articles deemed to meet the inclusion criteria were screened independently on abstract, and full texts reviewed.

RESULTS

We identified 852 articles, of which 47 met the inclusion criteria. There was evidence supporting the cost effectiveness of testing for HLA-B*57:01 (prior to abacavir), HLA-B*15:02 and HLA-A*31:01 (prior to carbamazepine), HLA-B*58:01 (prior to allopurinol) and CYP2C19 (prior to clopidogrel treatment). Economic evidence was inconclusive with respect to TPMT (prior to 6-mercaptoputine, azathioprine and cisplatin therapy), CYP2C9 and VKORC1 (to inform genotype-guided dosing of coumarin derivatives), MTHFR (prior to methotrexate treatment) and factor V Leiden testing (prior to oral contraception). Testing for A1555G is not cost effective before prescribing aminoglycosides.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review identified robust evidence of the cost effectiveness of genotyping prior to treatment with a number of common drugs. However, further analyses and (or) availability of robust clinical evidence is necessary to make recommendations for others.

Financial Analysis of CYP2C19 Genotyping in Patients Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following Acute Coronary Syndrome and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

Dual antiplatelet therapy is an established standard of care for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to reduce thrombotic risk. Reduced CYP2C19 activity impairs clopidogrel bio-activation and increases risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Patients with poor and intermediate CYP2C19 metabolizers treated with clopidogrel incur higher cardiovascular event rates, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and stent thrombosis, following ACS than patients with normal CYP2C19 function. Tests are available to identify the CYP2C19 genotype and can be used to support individualization of antiplatelet therapy. 

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the financial impact of CYP2C19 genotyping in a theoretical cohort of 1,000 patients with ACS, who received percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary stent implantation and were treated with clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor in a managed care setting. 

METHODS

Differences in overall and average cost per patient were estimated based on the rate of CYP2C19 genotyping in a theoretical cohort of 1,000 patients. Sensitivity analysis was carried out for varying costs, adherence, and the percentage of patients treated according to genotyping results. All clinical event costs were reported in terms of 2012 U.S. dollars. The budget impact analysis used published event rates from primary literature to estimate costs of events analysis for 3 different scenarios: Scenario A, no CYP2C19 genotyping; Scenario B, 50% of patients received CYP2C19 genotyping with appropriate treatment based on genotype; and Scenario C, 100% of patients received CYP2C19 genotyping with appropriate treatment based on genotype. 

RESULTS

According to this model, there was no change in the market share for the 3 antiplatelet agents in Scenario A. Initial market share for clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor was 93%, 5%, and 2%, respectively; however, use of CYP2C19 genotyping is expected to shift market share from clopidogrel to either prasugrel or ticagrelor. In Scenario B, where 50% of the patients received genotyping, clopidogrel market share was reduced to 83%, while prasugrel increased to 12.1% and ticagrelor increased to 4.9%. In Scenario C, where all patients received genotyping, clopidogrel market share was reduced to 73%, prasugrel increased to 19.3%, and ticagrelor increased to 7.7%. Total estimated cost differences when all possible patients were genotyped included annual savings of roughly $444,852.

CONCLUSIONS

Important financial benefits may be realized through use of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy to reserve prasugrel or ticagrelor use for patients with reduced CYP2C19 activity to avoid costs associated with adverse cardiac events.

A systematic review of the quality of economic models comparing thrombosis inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Thrombosis inhibitors can be used to treat acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, there are various alternative treatment strategies, of which some have been compared using health economic decision models.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of health economic decision models comparing thrombosis inhibitors in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and to identify areas for quality improvement.

DATA SOURCES

The literature databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

A review of the quality of health economic decision models was conducted by two independent reviewers, using the Philips checklist.

RESULTS

Twenty-one relevant studies were identified. Differences were apparent regarding the model type (six decision trees, four Markov models, eight combinations, three undefined models), the model structure (types of events, Markov states) and the incorporation of data (efficacy, cost and utility data). Critical issues were the absence of particular events (e.g. thrombocytopenia, stroke) and questionable usage of utility values within some studies.

LIMITATIONS

As we restricted our search to health economic decision models comparing thrombosis inhibitors, interesting aspects related to the quality of studies of adjacent medical areas that compared stents or procedures could have been missed.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified areas where recommendations are indicated regarding the quality of future ACS decision models. For example, all critical events and relevant treatment options should be included. Models also need to allow for changing event probabilities to correctly reflect ACS and to incorporate appropriate, age-specific utility values and decrements when conducting cost-utility analyses.