, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 481–493 | Cite as

The Role of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the Era of Pharmacogenomics

  • Christopher R. Flowers
  • David Veenstra
Leading Article


The broad availability of genetic information and technologies heralds an era when practitioners will utilise genomic testing to individualise patients’ care. Pharmacogenomics uses a spectrum of approaches to explore the association of genetic variation with drug efficacy or toxicity. Investigators have described a broad array of genetic polymorphisms that confer inter-individual differences in drug response. Pharmacogenomics offers the potential to improve drug effectiveness, reduce adverse drug reactions and provide cost-effective care. However, it has had little impact on current clinical practice and the economic implications of pharmacogenomics remain unclear.

Assessing the incremental cost effectiveness of a pharmacogenomic strategy involves examination of factors associated with the genotype of interest, the genomic test, the disease state and the treatment. A pharmacogenomic strategy is likely to be cost effective when: (i) the polymorphism under consideration is prevalent in the population and has a high degree of penetrance; (ii) genetic testing is highly sensitive and specific, and less costly alternative tests that could be used to individualise therapy are not readily available; (iii) the disease state involves outcomes with significant morbidity or mortality if left untreated; and (iv) the treatment involves significant outcomes and/or costs that can be impacted by genotype-individualised therapy.

We foresee pharmacogenomic applications being particularly relevant for drugs: with a narrow therapeutic index or a high degree of variability in inter-individual response; where there are limitations in current methods for monitoring their adverse effects and treatment responses; and where there are few alternative treatment options. Because of the characteristics of chemotherapeutic agents and the severity of clinical outcomes in cancer, oncology appears to be one of the most appropriate disease areas for the application of pharmacogenomics.

We have developed a framework which can assist researchers, pharmacists, physicians, and policy makers in evaluating the implications of specific strategies, and identifying when formal cost-effectiveness analyses should be conducted to quantitatively evaluate the benefits of pharmacogenomics.


Imatinib Chronic Myelogenous Leukaemia Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia Mercaptopurine TPMT Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was funded by a grant from the Seattle Veteran’s Administration Medical Center funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar’s Program and by a Health Outcomes Research Starter Grant funded by the PhRMA Foundation. The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.


  1. 1.
    Evans WE, Mcleod HL. Pharmacogenomics: drug disposition, drug targets, and side effects. N Engl J Med 2003; 348 (6): 538–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weinshilboum R. Inheritance and drug response. N Engl J Med 2003; 348 (6): 529–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Evans WE, Relling MV. Pharmacogenomics: translating functional genomics into rational therapeutics. Science 1999; 286 (5439): 487–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsai YJ, Hoyne HE. Pharmacogenomics: the future of drug therapy. Clin Genet 2002; 62 (4): 257–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rowers CR, Veenstra DL. Will pharmacogenomicsin oncology be cost-effective? Oncol Econ 2000; 1 (11): 26–33Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Phillips KA, Veenstra DL, Oren E, et al. Potential role of pharmacogenomics in reducing adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. JAMA 2001; 286 (18): 2270–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Veenstra DL, Higashi MK, Phillips KA. Assessing the costeffectiveness ofpharmacogenomics. AAPS PharmSci 2000; 2 (3), E29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robertson JA, Brody B, Buchanan A, et al. Pharmacogenetic challenges for the health care system. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002; 21 (4): 155–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002; 415 (6871): 530–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brodeur GM, Pritchard J, Berthold F, et al. Revisions of the international criteria for neuroblastoma diagnosis, staging, and response to treatment. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11 (8): 1466–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Appelbaum FR. Molecular diagnosis and clinical decisions in adult acute leukemia. Semin Hematol 1999; 36 (4): 401–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dagher R, Cohen M, Williams G, et al. Approval summary: imatinib mesylate in the treatment of metastatic and/or unresectable malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2002; 8 (10): 3034–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen MH, Williams G, Johnson JR, et al. Approval summary for imatinib rresylate capsules in the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia. Clin Cancer Res 2002; 8 (5): 935–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Druker BJ, Lydon NB. Lessons learned from the development of an ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor for chronic myelogenous leukemia. J Clin Invest 2000; 105 (1): 3–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sikic BI, Fisher GA, Lum BL, et al. Modulation and prevention of rmltidrug resistance by inhibitors of P-glycoprotein. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1997; 40 Suppl.: S13–9Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weinstein IN. Pharmacogenomics: teaching old drugs new tricks. N Engl J Med 2000; 343 (19): 1408–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meyer UA. Pharmacogenetics and adverse drug reactions. Lancet 2000; 356 (9242): 1667–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998; 279 (15): 1200–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, et al. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 1997; 277 (4): 301–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milano G, Etienne MC, Pierrefite V, et al. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency and fluorouracil-related toxicity. Br J Cancer 1999; 79 (3–4): 627–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Kuilenburg AB, Muller EW, Haasjes J, et al. Lethal outcome of a patient with a complete dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency after administration of 5-fluorouracil: frequency of the common IVS 14+1G>A mutation causing DPD deficiency. Clin Cancer Res 2001; 7 (5): 1149–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Evans WE, Horner M, Chu YQ, et al. Altered mercaptopurine metabolism, toxic effects, and dosage requirement in a thiopurine methyltransferase-deficient child with acute lymphocytic leukemia. J Pediatr 1991; 119 (6): 985–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lennard L, Gibson BE, Nicole T, et al. Congenital thiopurine rrethyltransferase deficiency and 6-mercaptopurine toxicity during treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Arch Dis Child 1993; 69 (5): 577–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Andersen JB, Szumlanski C, Weinshilboum RM, et al. Pharmacokinetics, dose adjustments, and 6-mercaptopurine/ methotrexate drug interactions in two patients with thiopurine rrethyltransferase deficiency. Acta Paediatr 1998; 87 (1): 108–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Relling MY, Hancock ML, Rivera GK, et al. Mercaptopurine therapy intolerance and heterozygosity at the thiopurine Srrethyltransferase gene locus. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91 (23): 2001–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Relling MV, Hancock ML, Boyett JM, et al. Prognostic importance of 6-mercaptopurine dose intensity in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1999; 93 (9): 2817–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yates CR, Krynetski EY, Loennechen T, et al. Molecular diagnosis of thiopurine S-methyltransferase deficiency: genetic basis for azathioprine and mercaptopurine intolerance. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126 (8): 608–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Garber AM, Phelps CEo Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997; 16 (1): 1–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Fifectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996; 276 (15): 1253–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drummond M, Dubois D, Garattini L, et al. Current trends in the use of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Europe. Value Health 1999; 2: 323–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Earle CC, Chapman RH, Baker CS, et al. Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18 (18): 3302–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Owens DK. Interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses. J Gen Intern Med 1998; 13 (10): 716–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McClure H. The insurance industry’s use of genetic information: legal and ethical concerns. J Health Hosp Law 1995; 28: 231–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ross JS. Financial determinants of outcomes in molecular testing. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999; 123 (11): 1071–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pathologists ARaU. Guide to clinical laboratory testing [online]. Available from URL: http://www.arup-Iab.comlguides/ug/tests/0098628.htm. [Accessed 2002 Dec 2]Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ramsey SD, Sullivan SD. Weighing the economic evidence: guidelines for critical assessment of cost-effectiveness analyses. J Am Board Fam Pract 1999; 12 (6): 477–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Steimer W, Potter JM. Pharmacogenetic screening and therapeutic drugs. Clin Chim Acta 2002; 315 (1–2): 137–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mancinelli L, Cronin M, Sadee W. Pharmacogenomics: the promise of personalized medicine. AAPS Pharm Sci 2000; 2 (1), E4Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Danzon P, Towse A. The economics of gene therapy and of pharmacogenetics. Value Health 2002; 5 (1): 5–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cacabelos R. Pharmacogenomics in Alzheimer’s disease. Mini Rev Med Chern 2002; 2 (1): 59–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Emilien G, Ponchon M, Caldas C, et al. Impact of genomics on drug discovery and clinical medicine. QJM 2000; 93 (7): 391–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Moskowitz DW. From pharmacogenomics to improved patient outcomes: angiotensin I-converting enzyme as an example. Diabetes Technol Ther 2002; 4 (4): 519–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ferrari P. Pharmacogenomics: a new approach to individual therapy of hypertension? Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 1998; 7 (2): 217–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Baudin B. Angiotensin II receptor polymorphisms in hypertension: pharmacogenomic considerations. Phannacogenomics 2002; 3 (1): 65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Basile VS, Masellis M, Potkin SG, et al. Pharmacogenomics in schizophrenia: the quest for individualized therapy. Hum Mol Genet 2002; 11 (20): 2517–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lichter JB, Kurth JH. The impact of pharmacogenetics on the future of healthcare. Curr Opin BiotechnoI1997; 8 (6): 692–5Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rioux PP. Clinical trials in pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics: methods and applications. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2000; 57 (9): 887–98PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy ProgramUniversity of Washington Medical CenterSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars ProgramSeattle Veteran’s Administration Medical CenterSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Winship Cancer InstituteEmery UniversityAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.Institute for Public Health GeneticsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations