Universal versus genotype-guided use of direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients: a decision analysis

Cost Effectiveness of Strategies to Manage Atrial Fibrillation in Middle- and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains the most common form of cardiac arrhythmia. Management of AF aims to reduce the risk of stroke, heart failure and premature mortality via rate or rhythm control. This study aimed to review the literature on the cost effectiveness of treatment strategies to manage AF among adults living in low-, middle- and high-income countries.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (OvidSp), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit and Google Scholar for relevant studies between September 2022 and November 2022. The search strategy involved medical subject headings or related text words. Data management and selection was performed using EndNote library. The titles and abstracts were screened followed by eligibility assessment of full texts. Selection, assessment of the risk of bias within the studies, and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. The cost-effectiveness results were synthesised narratively. The analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 365. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for each study was adjusted to 2021 USD values.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included in the analysis after selection and risk of bias assessment. In high-income countries, apixaban was predominantly cost effective for stroke prevention in patients at low and moderate risk of stroke, while left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) was cost effective in patients at high risk of stroke. Propranolol was the cost-effective choice for rate control, while catheter ablation and the convergent procedure were cost-effective strategies in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively. Among the anti-arrhythmic drugs, sotalol was the cost-effective strategy for rhythm control. In middle-income countries, apixaban was the cost-effective choice for stroke prevention in patients at low and moderate risk of stroke while high-dose edoxaban was cost effective in patients at high risk of stroke. Radiofrequency catheter ablation was the cost-effective option in rhythm control. No data were available for low-income countries.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has shown that there are several cost-effective strategies to manage AF in different resource settings. However, the decision to use any strategy should be guided by objective clinical and economic evidence supported by sound clinical judgement.

REGISTRATION

CRD42022360590.

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.

Genetic-Guided Pharmacotherapy for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic and Critical Review of Economic Evaluations

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to examine the extent and quality of evidence from economic evaluations (EEs) of genetic-guided pharmacotherapy (PGx) for atrial fibrillation (AF) and to identify variables influential in changing base-case conclusions.

METHODS

From systematic searches, we included EEs of existing PGx testing to guide pharmacotherapy for AF, without restrictions on population characteristics or language. Articles excluded were genetic tests used to guide device-based therapy or focused on animals.

RESULTS

We found 18 EEs (46 comparisons), all model-based cost-utility analysis with or without cost-effectiveness analysis mostly from health system's perspectives, of PGx testing to determine coumadin/direct-acting anticoagulant (DOAC) dosing (14 of 18), to stratify patients into coumadin/DOACs (3 of 18), or to increase patients' adherence to coumadin (1 of 18) versus non-PGx. Most PGx to determine coumadin dosing found PGx more costly and more effective than standard or clinical coumadin dosing (19 of 24 comparisons) but less costly and less effective than standard DOAC dosing (14 of 14 comparisons). The remaining comparisons were too few to observe any trend. Of 61 variables influential in changing base-case conclusions, effectiveness of PGx testing was the most common (37%), accounted for in the models using time-based or medication-based approaches or relative risk. The cost of PGx testing has decreased and plateaued over time.

CONCLUSIONS

EEs to date only partially inform decisions on selecting optimal PGx testing for AF, because most evidence focuses on PGx testing to determine coumadin dosing, but less on other purposes. Future EE may refer to the list of influential variables and the approaches used to account for the effect of PGx testing to inform data collection and study design.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Genotype-Guided Interruption Days in Warfarin Pre-Procedural Management

BACKGROUND

Warfarin is commonly used in thromboembolic conditions. Warfarin interruption represents a significant challenge in pre-operative warfarin management as it is associated with major consequences. Genetics polymorphism demonstrated to be a significant predictor of the required days of warfarin interruption. This study sought to assess the economic benefit of implementing a pharmacogenetic-guided approach in the preprocedural warfarin management.

METHODS

From the hospital's perspective, a cost-benefit analysis was conducted based on a one-year decision-analytic follow-up model of the economic implications of using a pharmacogenetic algorithm versus standard of care in pre-operative warfarin management in the Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar. The benefit of the interventional algorithm was based on estimated reduction in the probabilities of clinical events and their cost, added to the avoided cost because of canceled procedures. The cost of the algorithm was the cost of the genotyping assay. The model event probability inputs were extracted from major literature clinical trials, and the setting-specifc and cost inputs were locally obtained. The model was based on a multivariate analysis at its base case.

RESULTS

As per 10.3% prevalence of genetic variants, 82% bridging, and a calculated 20% optimization in the preparative period of warfarin management, the benefit to cost ratio was 4.0 in favor genotype-guided approach. This positive benefit to cost ratio was maintained in 100% of the simulated study cases. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness and generalizability of the study conclusion.

CONCLUSION

A pharmacogenetic- guided pre-operative warfarin interruption management is a cost-beneficial approach in the Qatari practice.

A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacogenomic panel testing in cardiovascular disease management: preemptive, reactive, or none?

Purpose

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) studies how inherited genetic variations in individuals affect drug absorption, distribution, and metabolism. PGx panel testing can potentially help improve efficiency and accuracy in individualizing therapy. This study compared the cost-effectiveness between preemptive PGx panel testing, reactive PGx panel testing and usual care (no testing) in cardiovascular disease management.

Methods

We developed a decision analytic model from the US payer’s perspective for a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients ≥45 years old, using a short-term decision tree and long-term Markov model. The testing panel included the following gene–drug pairs: CYP2C19–clopidogrel, CYP2C9/VKORC1–warfarin, and SLCO1B1–statins with 30 test-return days. Costs were reported in 2019 US dollars and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER = ΔCost/ΔQALY), assuming 3% discount rate for costs and QALYs. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of demographics, risk level, and follow-up timeframe.

Results

Preemptive testing was found to be cost-effective compared with usual care (ICER $86,227/QALY) at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY while reactive testing was not (ICER $148,726/QALY). Sensitivity analyses suggested that our cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to longer follow-up, and the age group 45–64 years.

Conclusion

Compared with usual care, preemptive PGx panel testing was cost-effective in cardiovascular disease management.

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.

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.

Precision dosing of warfarin: open questions and strategies

Warfarin has a very narrow therapeutic window and obvious interindividual variability in its effects, with many factors contributing to the body's response. Algorithms incorporating multiple genetic, environment and clinical factors have been established to select a precision dose for each patient. A number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to explore whether patients could benefit from these algorithms; however, the results were inconsistent. Some questions remain to be resolved. Recently, new genetic and non-genetic factors have been discovered to contribute to variability in optimal warfarin doses. The results of further RCTs have been unveiled, and guidelines for pharmacogenetically guided warfarin dosing have been updated. Based on these most recent advancements, we summarize some open questions in this field and try to propose possible strategies to resolve them.

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 of Genotype-Guided Warfarin Dosing in Patients with Mechanical Heart Valve Replacement Under the Fee-for-Service System

BACKGROUND

Although studies assessing the cost effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing for the management of atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism have been reported, no publications have addressed genotype-guided warfarin therapy in mechanical heart valve replacement (MHVR) patients or genotype-guided warfarin therapy under the fee-for-service (FFS) insurance system.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing in patients with MHVR under the FFS system from the Korea healthcare sector perspective.

METHODS

A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing compared with standard dosing. Estimates of clinical adverse event rates and health state utilities were derived from the published literature. The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the range of plausible results.

RESULTS

In a base-case analysis, genotype-guided warfarin dosing was associated with marginally higher QALYs than standard warfarin dosing (6.088 vs. 6.083, respectively), at a slightly higher cost (US$6.8) (year 2016 values). The ICER was US$1356.2 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, there was an 82.7% probability that genotype-guided dosing was dominant compared with standard dosing, and a 99.8% probability that it was cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Compared with only standard warfarin therapy, genotype-guided warfarin dosing was cost effective in MHVR patients under the FFS insurance system.

Warfarin Pharmacogenomics in Diverse Populations

Genotype-guided warfarin dosing algorithms are a rational approach to optimize warfarin dosing and potentially reduce adverse drug events. Diverse populations, such as African Americans and Latinos, have greater variability in warfarin dose requirements and are at greater risk for experiencing warfarin-related adverse events compared with individuals of European ancestry. Although these data suggest that patients of diverse populations may benefit from improved warfarin dose estimation, the vast majority of literature on genotype-guided warfarin dosing, including data from prospective randomized trials, is in populations of European ancestry. Despite differing frequencies of variants by race/ethnicity, most evidence in diverse populations evaluates variants that are most common in populations of European ancestry. Algorithms that do not include variants important across race/ethnic groups are unlikely to benefit diverse populations. In some race/ethnic groups, development of race-specific or admixture-based algorithms may facilitate improved genotype-guided warfarin dosing algorithms above and beyond that seen in individuals of European ancestry. These observations should be considered in the interpretation of literature evaluating the clinical utility of genotype-guided warfarin dosing. Careful consideration of race/ethnicity and additional evidence focused on improving warfarin dosing algorithms across race/ethnic groups will be necessary for successful clinical implementation of warfarin pharmacogenomics. The evidence for warfarin pharmacogenomics has a broad significance for pharmacogenomic testing, emphasizing the consideration of race/ethnicity in discovery of gene-drug pairs and development of clinical recommendations for pharmacogenetic testing.

VKORC1 and CYP2C9 polymorphisms related to adverse events in case-control cohort of anticoagulated patients

Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are highly effective but have a narrow therapeutic index and require routine monitoring of the INR. The primary aim of pharmacogenetics (PGx) is to optimize patient care, achieving drug treatments that are personalized according to the genetic profile of each patient. The best-characterized genes involved in VKA PGx involve pharmacokinetics (VKORC1) and pharmacodynamics (CYP2C9) of VKA metabolism. The role of these genes in clinical outcomes (bleeding and thrombosis) during oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy is controversial. The aim of the present study was to evaluate any potential association between genotype VKORC1 and CYP2C9 and adverse events (hemorrhagic and/or thrombotic), during initiation and long-term VKA treatment, in Caucasian patients. Furthermore, we aimed to determine if the concomitant prescription of other selected drugs affected the association between genotype and adverse events.We performed a retrospective, matched case-control study to determine associations between multiple gene variants, drug intake, and any major adverse effects in anticoagulated patients, monitored in 2 Italian anticoagulation clinics.Our results show that anticoagulated patients have a high risk of adverse events if they are carriers of 1 or more genetic polymorphisms in the VKORC1 (rs9923231) and CYP2C9 (rs1799853 and rs1057910) genes.Information on CYP2C9 and VKORC1 variants may be useful to identify individualized oral anticoagulant treatment for each patient, improve management and quality of VKA anticoagulation control, and monitor drug surveillance in pharmacovigilance programs.

Assessing the Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Genomic Sequencing

Despite dramatic drops in DNA sequencing costs, concerns are great that the integration of genomic sequencing into clinical settings will drastically increase health care expenditures. This commentary presents an overview of what is known about the costs and cost-effectiveness of genomic sequencing. We discuss the cost of germline genomic sequencing, addressing factors that have facilitated the decrease in sequencing costs to date and anticipating the factors that will drive sequencing costs in the future. We then address the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic and pharmacogenomic applications of genomic sequencing, with an emphasis on the implications for secondary findings disclosure and the integration of genomic sequencing into general patient care. Throughout, we ground the discussion by describing efforts in the MedSeq Project, an ongoing randomized controlled clinical trial, to understand the costs and cost-effectiveness of integrating whole genome sequencing into cardiology and primary care settings.