Personalized medicine and genomics: Challenges and opportunities in assessing effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and future research priorities

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 328-340

  Conti, Rena ^a   Veenstra, David L ^b   Armstrong, Katrina ^c   Lesko, Lawrence J ^d   Grosse, Scott D ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^e NATIONAL CENTER ON BIRTH DEFECTS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis; Pharmacoeconomics; Resource allocation. (

Indexed keywords

ANTICOAGULANT AGENT; WARFARIN;

ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FORECASTING; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; GENOMICS; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME; MEDICAL GENETICS; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PHARMACOGENETICS; RESEARCH;

ANTICOAGULANTS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FORECASTING; GENETIC RESEARCH; GENETIC TESTING; GENETICS, MEDICAL; GENOME, HUMAN; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; PHARMACOGENETICS; RESEARCH; WARFARIN;

EID: 77951869318     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09347014     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Hoffman EP Skipping toward personalized molecular medicine. N Engl J Med. 2007 ; 357: 2719-2722.
2. Trusheim MR, Berndt ER, Douglas FL Stratified medicine: strategic and economic implications of combining drugs and clinical biomarkers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007 ; 6: 287-293.
3. Burke W., Khoury MJ, Stewart A., Zimmern RL ; Bellagio Group. The path from genome-based research to population health: development of an international public health genomics network. Genet Med. 2006 ; 8: 451-458.
4. Williams I., Bryan S., McIver S. How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? Evidence from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approach. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 ; 12: 73-79.
5. Nelson HD, Huffman LH, Fu R., Harris EL Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2005 ; 143: 362-379.
6. Janssens AC, Gwinn M., Bradley LA, Oostra BA, van Duijn CM, Khoury MJ A critical appraisal of the scientific basis of commercial genomic profiles used to assess health risks and personalize health interventions. Am J Hum Genet. 2008 ; 82: 593-599.
7. Secretarys Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS). US System of Oversight of Genetic Testing: A Response to the Charge of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. April 2008. Available from: http://www.4.od.nih.gov/oba/sacghs/reports/SACGHS-oversight-report.pdf
8. Tunis SR, Pearson SD Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicares coverage with evidence development. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006 ; 25: 1218-1230.
9. Khoury MJ, Gwinn M., Yoon PW, Dowling N., Moore CA, Bradley L. The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention ? Genet Med. 2007 ; 9: 665-674.
10. Burke W., Pinsky LE, Press NA Categorizing genetic tests to identify their ethical, legal, and social implications. Am J Med Genet. 2001 ; 106: 233-240.
11. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP): Implementation and Evaluation of a Model Approach. Available from: http://www.egappreviews.org/about.htm
12. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, et al. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: Methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med. 2009 ; 11: 3-14.
13. Haddow JE, Palomaki GE ACCE: a model process for evaluating data on emerging genetic tests. In: Khoury MJ, Little J, Burke W, eds. Human Genome Epidemiology: A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease. New York: Oxford University Press ; 2004. p 217-233.
14. Grosse SD, Khoury MJ What is the clinical utility of genetic testing ? Genet Med. 2006 ; 8: 448-450.
15. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: testing for cytochrome P450 polymorphisms in adults with nonpsychotic depression treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Genet Med. 2007 ; 9: 819-825.
16. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan? Genet Med. 2009 ; 11: 15-20.
17. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med. 2009 ; 11: 35-41.
18. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can tumor gene expression profiling improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer? Genet Med. 2009 ; 11: 66-73.
19. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drugs and Biological Products. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) ; 1998. Available from: www.fda.gov
20. Budnitz DS, Pollock DA, Weidenbach KN, Mendelsohn AB, Schroeder TJ, Annest JL National surveillance of emergency department visits for outpatient adverse drug events. JAMA. 2006 ; 296: 1858-1866.
21. Diener HC ; Executive Steering Committee of the SPORTIFF III and V Investigators. Stroke prevention using the oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran in patients with non-valvularatrial fibrillation: pooled analysis from the SPORTIF III and V studies. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2006 ; 21: 279-293.
22. Schwarz UI, Ritchie MD, Bradford Y., et al. Genetic determinants of response to warfarin during initial anticoagulation. N Engl J Med. 2008 ; 358: 999-1008.
23. Ansell J., Hirsh J., Hylek E., et al. Pharmacology and management of the vitamin K antagonists: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8 th edition). Chest. 2008 ; 133: 160S - 98S.
24. Lesko LJ The critical path of warfarin dosing: finding an optimal dosing strategy using pharmacogenetics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 ; 84: 301-303.
25. Wadelius M., Pirmohamed M. Pharmacogenetics of warfarin: current status and future challenges. J Pharmacogenomics. 2007 ; 7: 99-111.
26. Gage BF, Eby C., Johnson JA, et al. Use of pharmacogenetic and clinical factors to predict the therapeutic dose of warfarin. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 ; 84: 326-331.
27. Limdi NA, McGwin G., Goldstein JA, et al. Influence of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 1173C/T genotype on the risk of hemorrhagic complications in African-American and European-American patients on warfarin. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 ; 83: 312-321.
28. Flockhart DA, OKane D., Williams MS, et al. Pharmacogenetic testing of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 alleles for warfarin. Genet Med. 2008 ; 10: 139-150.
29. Garcia DA Warfarin and pharmacogenomic testing: the case for restraint. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 ; 84: 303-305.
30. Hynicka LM, Cahoon WD Jr, Bukaveckas BL Genetic testing for warfarin therapy initiation. Ann Pharmacother. 2008 ; 42: 1298-1303.
31. Limdi NA, Veenstra DL Warfarin pharmacogenetics. Pharmacotherapy. 2008 ; 28: 1084-1097.
32. Anderson JL, Horne BD, Stevens SM, et al. Randomized trial of genotype-guided versus standard warfarin dosing in patients initiating oral anticoagulation. Circulation. 2007 ; 116: 2563-2570.
33. Caraco Y., Blotnick S., Muszkat M. CYP2C9 genotype-guided warfarin prescribing enhances the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation: a prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 ; 83: 460-470.
34. Klein TE, Altman RB, Eriksson N., et al. Estimation of the warfarin dose with clinical and pharmacogenetic data. N Engl J Med. 2009 ; 360: 753-764.
35. Clinicaltrials.gov. Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation Through Genetics (COAG), NCT00839657. Report Number: NCT00839657, 2009. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT00839657
36. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. Section 1.3: Evidence for pharmacogenomic tests and drugs. In: The AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions. Version 2.1, April 2005. Available from: http://www.fmcpnet.org/index.cfm?pl= A0EE1897
37. Kelly C. Medco warfarin, tamoxifen genomic testing finding traction among payers. The Pink Sheet. 2 December 2008. Available from: http://www. biopharmatoday.com/2008/12/medco-warfarin-tamoxifen-genomic-testing-finding- traction-among-payers.html
38. Pharmacogenomic Testing for Warfarin Response (CAG-00400N). Available from: https://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/indexes.asp
39. Grosse SD Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the USD 50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008 ; 8: 165-178.
40. Steinbrook R. Saying no isnt NICE: the travails of Britains National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. N Engl J Med. 2008 ; 359: 1977-1981.
41. Garrison LP Jr, Austin MJ Linking pharmacogenetics-based diagnostics and drugs for personalized medicine. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006 ; 25: 1281-1290.
42. Veenstra DL The cost-effectiveness of warfarin pharmacogenomics. J Thromb Haemost. 2007 ; 5: 1974-1975.
43. Fargher EA, Tricker K., Newman W., et al. Current use of pharmacogenetic testing: a national survey of thiopurinemethyltransferase testing prior to azathioprine prescription. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2007 ; 32: 187-195.
44. Garrison LP Jr, Towse A., Bresnahan BW Assessing a structured, quantitative health outcomes approach to drug risk-benefit analysis. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 ; 26: 684-695.
45. Hutton J., Trueman P., Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007 ; 23: 425-432.
46. Miller FG, Pearson SD Coverage with evidence development: ethical issues and policy implications. Med Care. 2008 ; 46: 746-751.
47. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Proposed Decision Memo for Pharmacogenomic Testing for Warfarin. Report Number: CAG-00400N, 2009. Available from: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd
48. American Cancer Society: Cancer facts and figures 2007, 2007 update. Available from: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdf
49. DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG Economics of new oncology drug development. J Clin Oncol. 2007 ; 25: 209-216.
50. Adams CP, Brantner VV Estimating the cost of new drug development: is it really 802 million dollars ? Health Aff (Millwood). 2006 ; 25: 420-428.
51. Yabroff KR, Lamont EB, Mariotto A., et al. Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 ; 100: 630-641.
52. Herper M. Cancers cost crisis. Forbes 8 June 2004. Available from: www.forbes.com/technology/2004/06/08/cx-mh-0608costs.html
53. National Cancer Institute. The Nations Investment in Cancer Research, Fiscal Year 2007, Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2009. Available from: http://plan.cancer.gov/
54. Claxton KP, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority setting. Health Econ. 1996 ; 5: 513-534.
55. Willan AR Clinical decision making and the expected value of information. Clin Trials 2007 ; 4: 279-285.
56. Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ Using value of information analysis to prioritize health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics 2006 ; 24: 1055-1068.
57. Walton SM, Schumock GT, Lee KV, Alexander GC, Meltzer D., Stafford RS Prioritizing future research on off-label prescribing: results of a quantitative evaluation. Pharmacotherapy. 2008 ; 28: 1443-1452.
58. Basu A., Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Making. 2007 ; 27: 112-127.
59. Henrikson NB, Burke W., Veenstra DL Ancillary risk information and pharmacogenetic tests: social and policy implications. Pharmacogenomics J. 2008 ; 8: 85-89.
60. Brandt R., Ali Z., Sabel A., McHugh T., Gilman P. Cancer genetics evaluation: barriers to and improvements for referral. Genet Test. 2008 ; 12: 9-12.
61. Erwin C. Legal update: living with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Genet Med. 2008 ; 10: 869-873.
62. Huang ES, Shook M., Jin L., Chin MH, Meltzer DO The impact of patient preferences on the cost-effectiveness of intensive glucose control in older patients with new-onset diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2006 ; 29: 259-264.
63. Grosse SD, Wordsworth S., Payne K. Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis. Genet Med. 2008 ; 10: 648-654.
64. Lee JT, Bridges JFP, Shockney L. Can pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research contribute to the empowerment of women affected by breast cancer ? Exp Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2008 ; 8: 73-79.
65. Grosse SD, McBride CM, Evans J., Khoury MJ Personal utility and genomic information: look before you leap. Genet Med. 2009 Jul 18. [Epub ahead of print].
66. Rogowski W., Grosse SD, Khoury MJ Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nat Rev Genet. 2009 ; 10: 489-495.