The objective of this study was to evaluate the evidence on cost‐effectiveness of pharmacogenetic (PGx)–guided treatment for drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines. A systematic review was conducted using multiple biomedical literature databases from inception to June 2021. Full articles comparing PGx‐guided with nonguided treatment were included for data extraction. Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) was used to assess robustness of each study (0–100). Data are reported using descriptive statistics. Of 108 studies evaluating 39 drugs, 77 (71%) showed PGx testing was cost‐effective (CE) (N = 48) or cost‐saving (CS) (N = 29); 21 (20%) were not CE; 10 (9%) were uncertain. Clopidogrel had the most articles (N = 23), of which 22 demonstrated CE or CS, followed by warfarin (N = 16), of which 7 demonstrated CE or CS. Of 26 studies evaluating human leukocyte antigen (HLA) testing for abacavir (N = 8), allopurinol (N = 10), or carbamazepine/phenytoin (N = 8), 15 demonstrated CE or CS. Nine of 11 antidepressant articles demonstrated CE or CS. The median QHES score reflected high‐quality studies (91; range 48–100). Most studies evaluating cost‐effectiveness favored PGx testing. Limited data exist on cost‐effectiveness of preemptive and multigene testing across disease states.
Introduction: Co-surgeon approach for bilateral mastectomy may lead to shorter operative times and improved outcomes compared with single-surgeon approach, but cost differences remain unclear. Economic models were applied to determine whether either approach offered a lower cost opportunity. Methods: A retrospective review of 409 patients undergoing single-surgeon or cosurgeon bilateral mastectomy between January 1, 2010 through April 30, 2016 was conducted. Outcomes included narcotic and antinausea doses, length of stay (LOS), and operative time. Analyses stratified by reconstruction and no reconstruction included Wilcoxon tests, Poisson regression, generalized linear models, and a cost calculator. Results: Of 409 patients, 310 had reconstruction and 99 had no reconstruction.Compared with single-surgeon approach, co-surgeon approach was associated with less operative time and shorter LOS (233 vs. 250 min and 1.0 vs. 1.8 days no reconstruction; and 429 vs. 493 min and 2.2 vs. 2.8 days reconstruction). Economic analysis demonstrated less operative time, shorter LOS, and lower average cost for co-surgeon approach
The cover image is based on the Research Article Single surgeon versus co‐surgeon bilateral mastectomy: Comparing outcomes and costs based on health economic modeling from the perspective of the hospital system by Laura Hudson MD et al., https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.26891
23 Background: With the continued advent of new therapeutics, burgeoning costs and financial toxicity are more frequently a complication in comprehensive cancer care. At Levine Cancer Institute (LCI), a multidisciplinary Financial Toxicity Tumor Board has driven $55-60 million in cost savings for patients annually, and presented patient cases can serve as a continual impetus for iterative quality improvement and cost-savings research. One such example highlights the augmented risk of financial toxicity resultant from increasing utilization of front-line chemoimmunotherapy (chemo-IO) in ES-SCLC. Both atezolizumab and durvalumab in concert with platinum-etoposide chemotherapy separately portend an overall survival benefit. Retrospective analyses have failed to demonstrate a PFS or OS advantage between the two regimens. Amidst comparable efficacy, we sought to ascertain institutional variance in cost profiles and financial toxicity. Methods: Billing and demographic data for patients with ES-SCLC who received chemo-IO with durvalumab or atezolizumab in an LCI hospital-based outpatient infusion center were queried. Treatment dates encompassed October 1, 2019 through April 30, 2022. Patient costs were compared and exploratory analyses were performed related to patient demographics, patient geography (with financial characteristics per Census data) and bad debt proportions. Results: 211 patients received chemo-IO with atezolizumab, and 108 patients received chemo-IO with durvalumab. Medicare (+/- supplementary insurance), Medicare Advantage, and commercial insurance constituted 85% of payors. Institutional covenants restrict publication of commercial and supplementary insurance data; for compliance and generalizability, reported is the Medicare-only population. Medicare allowables of $6791 and $8429 were utilized per dose of atezolizumab 1200 mg and durvalumab 1500 mg, respectively. Amidst 20% patient responsibility with Medicare, durvalumab patient cost was $327.60 higher per cycle. Incorporating observed mean number of cycles of 5.20 for atezolizumab and 5.31 for durvalumab, an average course of durvalumab was $1836.56 more expensive. Assessing the entire population, 24% of patients in both groups met criteria for bad debt; however, mean quantity of bad debt was 62% higher with durvalumab ($8988.77) than with atezolizumab ($5555.11). Bad debt was disproportionately congregated in lower income zip codes (data to be displayed pictorally). Conclusions: Chemo-IO with durvalumab was $1834.56 more expensive per treatment course in ES-SCLC, with 62% increase in quantity of bad debt relative to atezolizumab. Future directions may focus on institutional interventions to mitigate financial toxicity related to therapy choice and geographic allocation of resources, as well as the assessment of cost variance in other solid tumors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.