Genotype-Guided Thiopurine Dosing Does not Lead to Additional Costs in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Decreased thiopurine S-methyltransferase [TPMT] enzyme activity increases the risk of haematological adverse drug reactions [ADRs] in patients treated with thiopurines. Clinical studies have shown that in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD], pharmacogenetic TPMT-guided thiopurine treatment reduces this risk of ADRs. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this intervention impacts on healthcare costs and/or quality of life. METHODS: An a priori defined cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in the Thiopurine response Optimization by Pharmacogenetic testing in Inflammatory bowel disease Clinics [TOPIC] trial, a randomized controlled trial performed in 30 Dutch hospitals. Patients diagnosed with IBD [age ≥18 years] were randomly assigned to the intervention [i.e. pre-treatment genotyping] or control group. Total costs in terms of volumes of care, and effects in quality-adjusted life years [QALYs], based on EuroQol-5D3L utility scores, were measured for 20 weeks. Mean incremental cost savings and QALYs with confidence intervals were calculated using non-parametric bootstrapping with 1000 replications. RESULTS: The intervention group consisted of 381 patients and the control group 347 patients. The mean incremental cost savings were €52 per patient [95% percentiles -682, 569]. Mean incremental QALYs were 0.001 [95% percentiles -0.009, 0.010]. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were robust for potential change in costs of screening, costs of biologicals and costs associated with productivity loss. CONCLUSIONS: Genotype-guided thiopurine treatment in IBD patients reduced the risk of ADRs among patients carrying a TPMT variant, without increasing overall healthcare costs and resulting in comparable quality of life, as compared to standard treatment.

An economic model of the cost-utility of pre-emptive genetic testing to support pharmacotherapy in patients with major depression in primary care.

The pharmacokinetics of many antidepressants (tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) or selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRI)) are influenced by the highly polymorphic CYP2D6 enzyme. Therefore, pharmacogenetics could play an important role in the treatment of depressive patients. The potential cost-utility of screening patients is however still unknown. Therefore, a Markov model was developed to compare the strategy of screening for CYP2D6 and subsequently adjust antidepressant treatment according to a patient's metabolizer profile of poor, extensive, or ultra metabolizer, with the strategy of no screening ('one size fits all' principle). Each week a patient had a probability of side effects, which was followed by dosage titration or treatment switching. After 6 weeks treatment effect was evaluated followed by treatment adjustments if necessary, with a total time horizon of the model of 12 weeks. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective. The strategy of screening compared with no screening resulted in incremental costs of €91 (95 percentiles: €39; €152) more expensive but also more effect with 0.001 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) (95 percentiles: 0.001; 0.002) gain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was therefore €77,406 per QALY gained, but varied between €22,500 and €377,500 depending on the price of screening and productivity losses. According to our model, we cannot unequivocally conclude that screening for CYP2D6 in primary care patients using antidepressants is be cost-effective, as the results are surrounded by large uncertainty. Therefore, information from ongoing studies should be used to reduce these uncertainties.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Genotype-Guided Treatment Allocation in Patients with Alcohol Use Disorders Using Naltrexone or Acamprosate, Using a Modeling Approach.

Alcohol use disorders (AUD) are a major contributor to the global burden of disease, and have huge societal impact. Some studies show that AUD patients carrying the G-allele of the OPRM1 variant c.118A>G respond better to naltrexone, resulting in reduced relapse rates compared to carriers of the AA genotype. Genotype-guided treatment allocation of these patients carrying a G-allele to naltrexone could potentially improve the treatment outcome. However, cost-effectiveness of this strategy should be investigated before considering clinical implementation. We, therefore, evaluated costs and Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs), using a modelling approach, from an European perspective, of genotype-guided treatment allocation (G-allele carriers receiving naltrexone; AA homozygotes acamprosate or naltrexone) compared to standard care (random treatment allocation to acamprosate or naltrexone), by using a Markov model. Genotype-guided treatment allocation resulted in incremental costs of EUR 66 (95% CI -28 to 149) and incremental effects of 0.005 QALYs (95% CI 0.000-0.011) per patient (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 13,350 per QALY). Sensitivity analyses showed that the risk ratio to relapse after treatment allocation had the largest impact on the cost-effectiveness. Depending on the willingness to pay for a gain of one QALY, probabilities that the intervention is cost-effective varies between 6 and 79%. In conclusion, pharmacogenetic treatment allocation of AUD patients to naltrexone, based on OPRM1 genotype, can be a cost-effective strategy, and could have potential individual and societal benefits. However, more evidence on the impact of genotype-guided treatment allocation on relapse is needed to substantiate these conclusions, as there is contradictory evidence about the effectiveness of OPRM1 genotyping.

Cost Effectiveness of Gastroprotection with Proton Pump Inhibitors in Older Low-Dose Acetylsalicylic Acid Users in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: The present study aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of concomitant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment in low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (LDASA) users at risk of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) adverse effects as compared with no PPI co-medication with attention to the age-dependent influence of PPI-induced adverse effects. METHODS: We used a Markov model to compare the strategy of PPI co-medication with no PPI co-medication in older LDASA users at risk of UGI adverse effects. As PPIs reduce the risk of UGI bleeding and dyspepsia, these risk factors were modelled together with PPI adverse effects for LDASA users 60-69, 70-79 (base case) and 80 years and older. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained per age category. Furthermore, a budget impact analysis assessed the expected changes in expenditure of the Dutch healthcare system following the adoption of PPI co-treatment in all LDASA users potentially at risk of UGI adverse effects. RESULTS: PPI co-treatment of 70- to 79-year-old LDASA users, as compared with no PPI, resulted in incremental costs of €100.51 at incremental effects of 0.007 QALYs with an ICUR of €14,671/QALY. ICURs for 60- to 69-year-old LDASA users were €13,264/QALY and €64,121/QALY for patients 80 years and older. Initiation of PPI co-treatment for all Dutch LDASA users of 60 years and older at risk of UGI adverse effects but not prescribed a PPI (19%) would have cost €1,280,478 in the first year (year 2013 values). CONCLUSIONS: PPI co-medication in LDASA users at risk of UGI adverse effects is generally cost effective. However, this strategy becomes less cost effective with higher age, particularly in patients aged 80 years and older, mainly due to the increased risks of PPI-induced adverse effects.