RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Empirical use of pharmacogenetic test(PGT) is advocated for many drugs, and resource-rich setting hospitals are using the same commonly. The clinical translation of pharmacogenetic tests in terms of cost and clinical utility is yet to be examined in hospitals of low middle income countries (LMICs). AIM: The present study assessed the clinical utility of PGT by comparing the pharmacogenetically(PGT) guided- versus standard of care(SOC)- warfarin therapy, including the health economics of the two warfarin therapies. METHODS: An open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial recruited warfarin-receiving patients in pharmacogenetically(PGT) guided- versus standard of care(SOC)- study arms. Pharmacogenetic analysis of CYP2C9*2(rs1799853), CYP2C9*3(rs1057910) and VKORC1(rs9923231) was performed for patients recruited to the PGT-guided arm. PT(Prothrombin Time)-INR(international normalized ratio) testing and dose titrations were allowed as per routine clinical practice. The primary endpoint was the percent time spent in the therapeutic INR range(TTR) during the 90-day observation period. Secondary endpoints were time to reach therapeutic INR(TRT), the proportion of adverse events, and economic comparison between two modes of therapy in a Markov model built for the commonest warfarin indication- atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: The study enrolled 168 patients, 84 in each arm. Per-protocol analysis showed a significantly high median time spent in therapeutic INR in the genotype-guided arm(42.85%; CI 21.4-66.75) as compared to the SOC arm(8.8%; CI 0-27.2)(p < 0.00001). The TRT was less in the PG-guided warfarin dosing group than the standard-of-care dosing warfarin group (17.85 vs. 33.92 days) (p = 0.002). Bleeding and thromboembolic events were similar in the two study groups. Lifetime expenditure was â¹1,26,830 in the PGT arm compared to â¹1,17,907 in the SOC arm. The QALY gain did not differ in the two groups(3.9 vs. 3.65). Compared to SOC, the incremental cost-utility ratio was â¹35,962 per QALY gain with PGT test opting. In deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the base case results were found to be insensitive to the variation in model parameters. In the cost-effectiveness-acceptability curve analysis, a 90% probability of cost-effectiveness was reached at a willingness-to-pay(WTP) of â¹ 71,630 well below one time GDP threshold of WTP used. CONCLUSION: Clinical efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of the warfarin pharmacogenetic test suggest its routine use as a point of care investigation for patient care in LMICs.