Publication: Pharmacogenetic testing for adverse drug reaction prevention: systematic review of economic evaluations and the appraisal of quality matters for clinical practice and implementation
7
Issued Date
2021-12-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14726963
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85116377919
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
BMC Health Services Research. Vol.21, No.1 (2021)
Suggested Citation
Saowalak Turongkaravee, Jiraphun Jittikoon, Onwipa Rochanathimoke, Kathleen Boyd, Olivia Wu, Usa Chaikledkaew Pharmacogenetic testing for adverse drug reaction prevention: systematic review of economic evaluations and the appraisal of quality matters for clinical practice and implementation. BMC Health Services Research. Vol.21, No.1 (2021). doi:10.1186/s12913-021-07025-8 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/77514
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Pharmacogenetic testing for adverse drug reaction prevention: systematic review of economic evaluations and the appraisal of quality matters for clinical practice and implementation
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
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.