Economic analyses of genetic tests in personalized medicine: Clinical utility first, then cost utility

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 225-227

  Grosse, Scott D ^a  

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

WARFARIN;

COLORECTAL CANCER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FAMILY HISTORY; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEMOCHROMATOSIS; HEREDITARY NONPOLYPOSIS COLORECTAL CANCER; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; NOTE; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PHARMACOGENETICS; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF LIFE; VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; REGISTER; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; REGISTRIES;

EID: 84895798774     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.158     Document Type: Note

References (21)

1. Phillips KA, Sakowski JA, Trosman J, Douglas MP, Liang SY, Neumann P. The economic value of personalized medicine tests: What we know and what we need to know. Genet Med e-pub ahead of print 14 Nov 2013
2. Adams PC, Gregor JC, Kertesz AE, Valberg LS. Screening blood donors for hereditary hemochromatosis: Decision analysis model based on a 30-year database. Gastroenterology 1995;109:177-188
3. Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Flottemesch TJ, Goodman MJ, Solberg LI. Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: Results of a systematic review and analysis. Am J Prev Med 2006;31:52-61
4. Bridges JF, Onukwugha E, Mullins CD. Healthcare rationing by proxy: Costeffectiveness analysis and the misuse of the $50,000 threshold in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28:175-184
5. Conti R, Veenstra DL, Armstrong K, Lesko LJ, Grosse SD. Personalized medicine and genomics: Challenges and opportunities in assessing effectiveness, costeffectiveness, and future research priorities. Med Decis Making 2010;30: 328-340
6. 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
7. Dinh TA, Rosner BI, Atwood JC, et al. Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening for Lynch syndrome in the general population. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2011;4:9-22
8. Mvundura M, Grosse SD, Hampel H, Palomaki GE. The cost-effectiveness of genetic testing strategies for Lynch syndrome among newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer. Genet Med 2010;12:93-104
9. Ladabaum U, Wang G, Terdiman J, et al. Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:69-79
10. Greenberg D, Neumann PJ. Does adjusting for health-related quality of life matter in economic evaluations of cancer-related interventions? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011;11:113-119
11. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: Routine testing for Factor V Leiden (R506Q) and prothrombin (20210GA) mutations in adults with a history of idiopathic venous thromboembolism and their adult family members. Genet Med 2011;13:67-76
12. You JH. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of warfarin pharmacogenomics. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2011;12:435-441
13. Eckman MH, Rosand J, Greenberg SM, Gage BF. Cost-effectiveness of using pharmacogenetic information in warfarin dosing for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:73-83
14. Patrick AR, Avorn J, Choudhry NK. Cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing for patients with atrial fibrillation. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2009;2:429-436
15. Meckley LM, Gudgeon JM, Anderson JL, Williams MS, Veenstra DL. A policy model to evaluate the benefits, risks and costs of warfarin pharmacogenomic testing. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28:61-74
16. You JH, Tsui KK, Wong RS, Cheng G. Potential clinical and economic outcomes of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotype-guided dosing in patients starting warfarin therapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2009;86:540-547
17. Rogowski WH, Grosse SD, Khoury MJ. Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nat Rev Genet 2009;10: 489-495
18. Veenstra DL, Roth JA, Garrison LP Jr, Ramsey SD, Burke W. A formal risk-benefit framework for genomic tests: Facilitating the appropriate translation of genomics into clinical practice. Genet Med 2010;12: 686-693
19. Bajaj PS, Veenstra DL. A risk-benefit analysis of factor V Leiden testing to improve pregnancy outcomes: A case study of the capabilities of decision modeling in genomics. Genet Med 2013;15:374-381
20. Grosse SD, Caughey AB. Modeling uncertain outcomes of genetic testing: Factor V Leiden mutation and pregnant women. Genet Med 2013;15: 335-337
21. Carlson JJ, Thariani R, Roth J, et al. Value-of-information analysis within a stakeholder-driven research prioritization process in a US setting: An application in cancer genomics. Med Decis Making 2013;33:463-471