Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacogenetic-guided warfarin dosing in Thailand

One Step Ahead in Realizing Pharmacogenetics in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: What Should We Do?

Pharmacogenetics is a promising approach in future personalized medicine. This field holds excellent prospects for healthcare quality acceleration. It promotes the transition to the precision medicine era, whereby a health treatment is driven by a deeper understanding of individual characteristics by interpreting the underlying genomic variation. Pharmacogenetics has been developing rapidly since the human genome project. Many pharmacogenetics studies have shown the association between genetic variants and therapy outcomes. Several pharmacogenetics working groups have recommended guidelines for the clinical application of pharmacogenetics. However, the development of pharmacogenetics in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is still retarded behind. The problems mainly include clinical evidence, technology, policy and regulation, and human resources. Currently, available genome and drug effect data in LMICs are scarce. Pharmacogenetics development should be escalated with evidence proof through research collaboration across countries. The challenges of pharmacogenetics implementation are discussed comprehensively in this article, along with the prospect of pharmacogenetics-guided personalized medicine in developed countries. Stepwise is expected to help the researchers and stakeholders define the problem that hindered the pharmacogenetics application.

Assessing the utility of measurement methods applied in economic evaluations of pharmacogenomics applications

An increasing number of economic evaluations are published annually investigating the economic effectiveness of pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing. This work was designed to provide a comprehensive summary of the available utility methods used in cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analysis studies of PGx interventions. A comprehensive review was conducted to identify economic analysis studies using a utility valuation method for PGx testing. A total of 82 studies met the inclusion criteria. A majority of studies were from the USA and used the EuroQol-5D questionnaire, as the utility valuation method. Cardiovascular disorders was the most studied therapeutic area while discrete-choice studies mainly focused on patients' willingness to undergo PGx testing. Future research in applying other methodologies in PGx economic evaluation studies would improve the current research environment and provide better results.

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 on the cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics in developing countries: implementation challenges

The major challenges that delay the implementation of pharmacogenomics based clinical practice in the developing countries, primarily the low- and middle-income countries need to be recognized. This review was conducted to systematically review evidence of the cost-effectiveness for the conduct of pharmacogenomics testing in the developing countries. Studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics testing in the developing countries as defined by the United Nations were included in this study. Twenty-seven articles met the criteria. Pharmacogenomics effectiveness were evaluated for drugs used in the treatment of cancers, cardiovascular diseases and severe cutaneous adverse reactions in gout and epilepsy. Most studies had reported pharmacogenomics testing to be cost-effective (cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and tuberculosis) and economic models were evaluated from multiple perspectives, different cost categories and time horizons. Additionally, most studies used a single gene, rather than a gene panel for the pharmacogenomics testing. Genotyping cost and frequency of risk alleles in the populations influence the cost-effectiveness outcome. Further studies are warranted to examine the clinical and economic validity of pharmacogenomics testing in the developing countries.

Pharmacogenetic testing for adverse drug reaction prevention: systematic review of economic evaluations and the appraisal of quality matters for clinical practice and implementation

Background

Genetic testing has potential roles in identifying whether an individual would have risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from a particular medicine. Robust cost-effectiveness results on genetic testing would be useful for clinical practice and policy decision-making on allocating resources effectively. This study aimed to update a systematic review on economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing to prevent ADRs and critically appraise the quality of reporting and sources of evidence for model input parameters.

Methods

We searched studies through Medline via PubMed, Scopus and CRD’s NHS Economic Evaluation up to October 2019. Studies investigating polymorphism-based pharmacogenetic testing, which guided drug therapies to prevent ADRs, using economic evaluation methods were included. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and assessed the quality of reporting using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines and the quality of data sources using the hierarchy of evidence developed by Cooper et al.

Results

Fifty-nine economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing to avoid drug-induced ADRs were found between 2002 and 2018. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses were the most common methods of economic evaluation of pharmacogenetic testing. Most studies complied with the CHEERS checklist, except for single study-based economic evaluations which did not report uncertainty analysis (78%). There was a lack of high-quality evidence not only for estimating the clinical effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing, but also baseline clinical data. About 14% of the studies obtained clinical effectiveness data of testing from a meta-analysis of case-control studies with direct comparison, which was not listed in the hierarchy of evidence used.

Conclusions

Our review suggested that future single study-based economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing should report uncertainty analysis, as this could significantly affect the robustness of economic evaluation results. A specific ranking system for the quality of evidence is needed for the economic evaluation of pharmacogenetic testing of ADRs. Differences in parameters, methods and outcomes across studies, as well as population-level and system-level differences, may lead to the difficulty of comparing cost-effectiveness results across countries.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07025-8.

Access to precision medicine in Thailand: a comparative study

Purpose

This study explored health insurance coverage of genetic testing and potential factors associated with precision medicine (PM) reimbursement in Thailand.

Design/methodology/approach

The study employed a targeted review method. Thirteen PMs were selected to represent four PM categories: targeted cancer therapy candidate, prediction of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), dose adjustment and cancer risk prediction. Content analysis was performed to compare access to PMs among three health insurance schemes in Thailand. The primary outcome of the study was evaluating PM test reimbursement status. Secondary outcomes included clinical practice guidelines, PMs statement in FDA-approved leaflet and economic evaluation.

Findings

Civil Servant Medical Benefits Scheme (CSMBS) provided more generous access to PM than Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) and Social Security Scheme (SSS). Evidence of economic evaluations likely impacted the reimbursement decisions of SSS and UCS, while the information provided in FDA-approved leaflets seemed to impact the reimbursement decisions of CSMBS. Three health insurance schemes provided adequate access to PM tests for some cancer-targeted therapies, while gaps existed for access to PM tests for serious ADRs prevention, dose adjustment and cancer risk prediction.

Originality/value

This was the first study to explore the situation of access to PMs in Thailand. The evidence alerts public health insurance schemes to reconsider access to PMs. Development of health technology assessment guidelines for PM test reimbursement decisions should be prioritized.

Cost-effectiveness of precision medicine: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Precision medicine (PM) aims to improve patient outcomes by stratifying or individualizing diagnosis and treatment decisions. Previous reviews found inconclusive evidence as to the cost-effectiveness of PM. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe current research findings on the cost-effectiveness of PM and to identify characteristics of cost-effective interventions.

METHODS

We searched PubMed with a combination of terms related to PM and economic evaluations and included studies published between 2014 and 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 83 articles were included, of which two-thirds were published in Europe and the USA. The majority of studies concluded that the PM intervention was at least cost-effective compared to usual care. However, the willingness-to-pay thresholds varied widely. Key factors influencing cost-effectiveness included the prevalence of the genetic condition in the target population, costs of genetic testing and companion treatment and the probability of complications or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This review may help inform decisions about reimbursement, research and development of PM interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of warfarin care bundles and novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in Thailand

INTRODUCTION

Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin care bundles (e.g. genotyping, patient self-testing or self-management) are alternatives to usual warfarin care for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NOACs and warfarin care bundles in patients with AF in a middle-income country, Thailand.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was used to evaluate the economic and treatment outcomes of warfarin care bundles and NOACs compared with usual warfarin care. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a societal perspective over a lifetime horizon with 3% discount rate in a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old atrial fibrillation patients. Input parameters were derived from published literature, meta-analysis and local data when available. The outcome measure was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained (ICER).

RESULTS

Using USD5104 as the threshold of willingness-to-pay per QALY, patient's self-management of warfarin was cost-effective when compared to usual warfarin care, with an ICER of USD1395/QALY from societal perspective. All NOACs were not cost-effective in Thailand, with ICER ranging from USD8678 to USD14,247/QALY. When compared to the next most effective intervention, patient's self-testing and genotype-guided warfarin dosing were dominated. In the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, patient's self-management had the highest probability of being cost-effective in Thailand, approximately 78%. Results were robust over a range of inputs in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In Thailand, NOACs were unlikely to be cost-effective at current prices. Conversely, patient's self-management is a highly cost-effective intervention and may be considered for adoption in developing regions with resource-limited healthcare systems.

Systematic review of the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics-guided treatment for cardiovascular diseases

PURPOSE

To examine the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of implementing pharmacogenomics (PGx) in cardiovascular disease (CVD) care.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using multiple databases from inception to 2018. The titles and abstracts of cost-effectiveness studies on PGx-guided treatment in CVD care were screened, and full texts were extracted.

RESULTS

We screened 909 studies and included 46 to synthesize. Acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation were the predominantly studied conditions (59%). Most studies (78%) examined warfarin-CYP2C9/VKORC1 or clopidogrel-CYP2C19. A payer's perspective was commonly used (39%) for cost calculations, and most studies (46%) were US-based. The majority (67%) of the studies found PGx testing to be cost-effective in CVD care, but cost-effectiveness varied across drugs and conditions. Two studies examined PGx panel testing, of which one examined pre-emptive testing strategies.

CONCLUSION

We found mixed evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PGx in CVD care. Supportive evidence exists for clopidogrel-CYP2C19 and warfarin-CYP2C9/VKORC1, but evidence is limited in other drug-gene combinations. Gaps persist, including unclear explanation of perspective and cost inputs, underreporting of study design elements critical to economic evaluations, and limited examination of PGx panel and pre-emptive testing for their cost-effectiveness. This review identifies the need for further research on economic evaluations of PGx implementation.

Genotype-guided warfarin therapy: current status

Warfarin pharmacogenomics has been an extensively studied field in the last decades as it is focused on personalized therapy to overcome the wide interpatient warfarin response variability and decrease the risk of side effects. In this expert review, besides briefly summarizing the current knowledge about warfarin pharmacogenetics, we also present an overview of recent studies that aimed to assess the efficacy, safety and economic issues related to genotype-based dosing algorithms used to guide warfarin therapy, including randomized and controlled clinical trials, meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness studies. To date, the findings still present disparities, mostly because of standard limitations. Thus, further studies should be encouraged to try to demonstrate the benefits of the application of warfarin pharmacogenomic dosing algorithms in clinical practice.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of patient self-testing therapy of oral anticoagulation

Patient Self-testing (PST) could be an option for present anticoagulation therapy monitoring, but current evidence on its cost-effectiveness is limited. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of PST to other different care approaches for anticoagulation therapy in Thailand, a low-to-middle income country (LMIC). A Markov model was used to compare lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued to patients receiving warfarin through PST or either anticoagulation clinic (AC) or usual care (UC). The model was populated with relevant information from literature, network meta-analysis, and database analyses. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were presented as the year 2015 values. A base-case analysis was performed for patients at age 45-year-old. Sensitivity analyses including one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were constructed to determine the robustness of the findings. From societal perspective, PST increased QALY by 0.87 and costs by 112,461 THB compared with UC. Compared with AC, PST increased QALY by 0.161 and costs by 21,019 THB. The ICER with PST was 128,697 (3625 USD) and 130,493 THB (3676 USD) per QALY gained compared with UC and AC, respectively. The probability of PST being cost-effective is 74.1% and 51.9%, compared to UC and AC, respectively, in Thai context. Results were sensitive to the efficacy of PST, age and frequency of hospital visit or self-testing. This analysis suggested that PST is highly cost-effective compared with usual care and less cost-effective against anticoagulation clinic. Patient self-testing strategy appears to be economically valuable to include into healthcare system within the LMIC context.

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic-guided treatment: are we there yet?

Pharmacogenetics (PGx) has the potential to personalize pharmaceutical treatments. Many relevant gene-drug associations have been discovered, but PGx-guided treatment needs to be cost-effective as well as clinically beneficial to be incorporated into standard health-care. We reviewed economic evaluations for PGx associations listed in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling. We determined the proportion of evaluations that found PGx-guided treatment to be cost-effective or dominant over the alternative strategies, and estimated the impact on this proportion of removing the cost of genetic testing. Of the 137 PGx associations in the FDA table, 44 economic evaluations, relating to 10 drugs, were identified. Of these evaluations, 57% drew conclusions in favour of PGx testing, of which 30% were cost-effective and 27% were dominant (cost-saving). If genetic information was freely available, 75% of economic evaluations would support PGx-guided treatment, of which 25% would be cost-effective and 50% would be dominant. Thus, PGx-guided treatment can be a cost-effective and even a cost-saving strategy. Having genetic information readily available in the clinical health record is a realistic future prospect, and would make more genetic tests economically worthwhile.

Value of Information in Asia: Concepts, Current Use, and Future Directions

Health technology assessment is a form of health policy research that provides policymakers with information relevant to decisions about policy alternatives. Findings from cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) are one of the important aspects of health technology assessment. Nevertheless, the more advanced method of value of information (VOI), which is recommended by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and Society for Medical Decision Making Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force, has rarely been applied in CEA studies in Asia. The lack of VOI in Asian CEA studies may be due to limited understanding of VOI methods and what VOI can and cannot help policy decision makers accomplish. This concept article offers audiences a practical primer in understanding the calculation, presentation, and policy implications of VOI. In addition, it provides a rapid survey of health technology assessment guidelines and literature related to VOI in Asia and discusses the future directions of VOI use in Asia and its potential barriers. This article will enable health economists, outcomes researchers, and policymakers in Asia to better understand the importance of VOI analysis and its implications, leading to the appropriate use of VOI in Asia.

Evaluation of a pharmacogenetic-based warfarin dosing algorithm in patients with low time in therapeutic range - study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Time in therapeutic range (TTR) is a measurement of quality of warfarin therapy and lower TTR values (<50%) are associated with greater risk of thromboembolic and bleeding events. Recently, we developed a pharmacogenetic-based warfarin dosing algorithm specifically calibrated for a Brazilian patient sample. The aims of this study are: to evaluate the impact of a genetic-based algorithm, compared to traditional anticoagulation, in the time to achieve the therapeutic target and in TTR percentage; and to assess the cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing in a specific cohort of patients with low TTR (<50%) from a tertiary cardiovascular hospital.

Methods/design

This study is a randomized controlled trial in patients (n = 300) with atrial fibrillation with TTR < 50%, based on the last three INR values. At the first consultation, patients will be randomized into two groups: TA group (traditional anticoagulation) and PA group (pharmacogenetic anticoagulation). For the first group, the physician will adjust the dose according to current INR value and, for the second group, a pharmacogenetic algorithm will be used. At the second, third, fourth and fifth consultations (with an interval of 7 days each) INR will be measured and, if necessary, the dose will be adjusted based on guidelines. Afterwards, patients who are INR stable will begin measuring their INR in 30 day intervals; if the patient’s INR is not stable, the patient will return in 7 days for a new measurement of the INR. Outcomes measures will include the time to achieve the therapeutic target and the percentage of TTR at 4 and 12 weeks. In addition, as a secondary end-point, pharmacoeconomic analysis will be carried out. Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee for Medical Research on Human Beings of the Clinical Hospital of the University of São Paulo Medical School.

Discussion

This randomized study will include patients with low TTR and it will evaluate whether a population-specific genetic algorithm might be more effective than traditional anticoagulation for a selected group of poorly anticoagulated patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02592980. Registered on 29 October 2015.