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

dc.contributor.authorSaowalak Turongkaraveeen_US
dc.contributor.authorJiraphun Jittikoonen_US
dc.contributor.authorOnwipa Rochanathimokeen_US
dc.contributor.authorKathleen Boyden_US
dc.contributor.authorOlivia Wuen_US
dc.contributor.authorUsa Chaikledkaewen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherCollege of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciencesen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-04T09:01:31Z
dc.date.available2022-08-04T09:01:31Z
dc.date.issued2021-12-01en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citationBMC Health Services Research. Vol.21, No.1 (2021)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12913-021-07025-8en_US
dc.identifier.issn14726963en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85116377919en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/77514
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85116377919&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titlePharmacogenetic testing for adverse drug reaction prevention: systematic review of economic evaluations and the appraisal of quality matters for clinical practice and implementationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85116377919&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections