Cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided P2Y12 inhibitors in Veterans undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes.

AIMS: CYP2C19-guided P2Y12 inhibitor selection can reduce cardiovascular (CV) events and bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The 12-month cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided P2Y12 inhibitor selection for Veterans post-ACS/PCI was evaluated from the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using average annualized PCI volumes and P2Y12 inhibitor use from VA data, a decision-analytic model simulated CYP2C19 testing vs. no testing outcomes in 2800 hypothetical Veterans receiving PY212 inhibitor for 12 months post-ACS/PCI (74% clopidogrel, 5% prasugrel, and 21% ticagrelor use at baseline without testing). CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) carrier prevalence was 28%. Model inputs were from studies (bleeding/ischaemic events, CYP2C19-guided therapy effect, health state utilities, CYP2C19 LOF carrier prevalence) and VHA administrative data (costs of events, drugs, CYP2C19 testing; PCI volumes, and P2Y12 inhibitor prescriptions). The primary outcome was cost (2020 US${\$}$) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Base-case scenarios, probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and scenario analyses were completed. CYP2C19-guided therapy resulted in 496 (24%) escalations (clopidogrel to prasugrel/ticagrelor) and 465 (65%) de-escalations (prasugrel/ticagrelor to clopidogrel). CYP2C19 testing averted 1 stroke, 27 myocardial infarctions, 8 CV-related deaths, and caused 3 bleeds. CYP2C19 testing (vs. no testing) was dominant in the base-case scenario (0.0027 QALYs gained, ${\$}$527 saved/person) and in 97.1% of simulations, making it cost-effective and high-value. In scenario analyses, de-escalation in conjunction with escalation is required for CYP2C19 testing to be cost-effective and high-value. CONCLUSION: In Veterans post-ACS/PCI, CYP2C19-guided P2Y12 inhibitor selection can improve CV outcomes and lower costs for the VHA within 12 months of implementation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tumor Genomic Profiling to Guide First-Line Targeted Therapy Selection in Patients With Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of 10 oncogenes, targeted gene panel testing (TGPT) of 4 oncogenes, and no tumor profiling over the lifetime for patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' perspective was conducted. METHODS: A decision analytic model used 10 000 hypothetical Medicare beneficiaries with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma to simulate outcomes associated with CGP (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ERBB2, MET, NTRK1, NTRK2, NTRK3, RET, ROS1), TGPT (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ROS1), and no tumor profiling (no genes tested). First-line targeted cancer-directed therapies were assigned if actionable gene variants were detected; otherwise, nontargeted cancer-directed therapies were assigned. Model inputs were derived from randomized trials (progression-free survival, adverse events), the Veterans Health Administration and Medicare (drug costs), published studies (nondrug cancer-related management costs, health state utilities), and published databases (actionable variant prevalences). Costs (2019 US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% per year. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses used 1000 Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: No tumor profiling was the least costly/person ($122 613 vs $184 063 for TGPT and $188 425 for CGP) and yielded the least QALYs/person (0.53 vs 0.73 for TGPT and 0.74 for CGP). The costs per QALY gained and corresponding 95% confidence interval were $310 735 ($278 323-$347 952) for TGPT vs no tumor profiling and $445 545 ($322 297-$572 084) for CGP vs TGPT. All probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations for both comparisons surpassed the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150 000 per QALY gained). CONCLUSION: Compared with no tumor profiling in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma, tumor profiling (TGPT, CGP) improves quality-adjusted survival but is not cost-effective.

United States Emergency Department Use of Medications with Pharmacogenetic Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments (ED) use many medications with a range of therapeutic efficacy and potential significant side effects, and many medications have dosage adjustment recommendations based on the patient's specific genotype. How frequently medications with such pharmaco-genetic recommendations are used in United States (US) EDs has not been studied. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the 2010-2015 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). We reported the proportion of ED visits in which at least one medication with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) recommendation of Level A or B evidence was ordered. Secondary comparisons included distributions and 95% confidence intervals of age, gender, race/ethnicity, ED disposition, geographical region, immediacy, and insurance status between all ED visits and those involving a CPIC medication. RESULTS: From 165,155 entries representing 805,726,000 US ED visits in the 2010-2015 NHAMCS, 148,243,000 ED visits (18.4%) led to orders of CPIC medications. The most common CPIC medication was tramadol (6.3%). Visits involving CPIC medications had higher proportions of patients who were female, had private insurance and self-pay, and were discharged from the ED. They also involved lower proportions of patients with Medicare and Medicaid. CONCLUSION: Almost one fifth of US ED visits involve a medication with a pharmacogenetic recommendation that may impact the efficacy and toxicity for individual patients. While direct application of genotyping is still in development, it is important for emergency care providers to understand and support this technology given its potential to improve individualized, patient-centered care.

Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Pharmacogenetic Testing in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multigene testing (CYP2C19, SLCO1B1, CYP2C9, VKORC1) compared with single-gene testing (CYP2C19) and standard of care (no genotyping) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from Medicare's perspective. METHODS: A hybrid decision tree/Markov model was developed to simulate patients post-PCI for ACS requiring antiplatelet therapy (CYP2C19 to guide antiplatelet selection), statin therapy (SLCO1B1 to guide statin selection), and anticoagulant therapy in those that develop atrial fibrillation (CYP2C9/VKORC1 to guide warfarin dose) over 12 months, 24 months, and lifetime. The primary outcome was cost (2016 US dollar) per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% per year. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) varied input parameters (event probabilities, prescription costs, event costs, health-state utilities) to estimate changes in the cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: Base-case-discounted results indicated that the cost per QALY gained was $59 876, $33 512, and $3780 at 12 months, 24 months, and lifetime, respectively, for multigene testing compared with standard of care. Single-gene testing was dominated by multigene testing at all time horizons. PSA-discounted results indicated that, at the $50 000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold, multigene testing had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness in the majority of simulations at 24 months (61%) and over the lifetime (81%). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of projected simulations, multigene testing for Medicare patients post-PCI for ACS has a higher probability of being cost-effective over 24 months and the lifetime compared with single-gene testing and standard of care and could help optimize medication prescribing to improve patient outcomes.

A hub for bench-to-bedside pharmacogenomic-based research.

In 2003 Duke University (Durham, NC, USA) launched the Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy (IGSP) as an interdisciplinary network of centers comprised of scientists, engineers and physicians, as well as experts in law, business, economics public policy and ethics. Within this environment, the IGSP and its Center for Genomic Medicine form the hub for pharmacogenomic research discovery initiatives through collaborations with other scientific and clinical units at the Duke University Medical Center. The Center for Genomic Medicine specifically focuses on developing strategies for translating and implementing pharmacogenomic discoveries into the clinical arena; therefore, by harnessing the resources of the IGSP as well as other complementary centers on campus, Duke University is poised to accelerate the development of novel pharmacgenomic paradigms for the prevention and treatment of disease. These new treatment paradigms can, potentially, ensure that the right dose of the right drug is prescribed to the right individual - an often stated goal of personalized medicine and pharmacogenomics.