Dataset Information

Economic Evaluation of Implementing a Novel Pharmacogenomic Test (IDgenetix®) to Guide Treatment of Patients with Depression and/or Anxiety.

ABSTRACT: The response to therapeutics varies widely in patients with depression and anxiety, making selection of an optimal treatment choice challenging. IDgenetix®, a novel pharmacogenomic test, has been shown to improve outcomes by predicting the likelihood of response to different psychotherapeutic medications.The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of implementing a novel pharmacogenomic test (IDgenetix®) to guide treatment choices in patients with depression and/or anxiety compared with treatment as usual from the US societal perspective.We developed a discrete event simulation to compare clinical events, quality-adjusted life-years, and costs of the two treatment strategies. Target patients had a Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression Score ? 20 and/or a Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety score ? 18 at baseline. Remission, response, and no response were simulated based on the observed rates in the IDgenetix® randomized controlled trial. Quality-adjusted life-years and direct and indirect costs attributable to depression and anxiety were estimated and compared over a 3-year time horizon. We conducted extensive deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the results.The model predicted cumulative remission rates of 78 and 66% in IDgenetix® and treatment as usual groups, respectively. Estimated discounted quality-adjusted life-years were 2.09 and 1.94 per patient for IDgenetix® and treatment as usual, respectively, which resulted in 0.15 incremental quality-adjusted life-years (95% credible interval 0.04-0.28). The total costs after accounting for a US$2000 test cost were US$14,124 for IDgenetix® compared with US$14,659 for treatment as usual, suggesting a US$535 (95% credible interval - 2902 to 1692) cost saving per patient in the IDgenetix® group. Incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain (0.49) and cost savings (US$6800) were substantially larger in patients with severe depression (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score ? 25).Using the IDgenetix® test to guide the treatment of patients with depression and anxiety may be a dominant strategy, as it improves quality-adjusted life-years and decreases overall costs over a 3-year time horizon.

SUBMITTER: Najafzadeh M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5684279 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Economic Evaluation of Implementing a Novel Pharmacogenomic Test (IDgenetix<sup>®</sup>) to Guide Treatment of Patients with Depression and/or Anxiety.

Najafzadeh Mehdi M Garces Jorge A JA Maciel Alejandra A

PharmacoEconomics 20171201 12

<h4>Background</h4>The response to therapeutics varies widely in patients with depression and anxiety, making selection of an optimal treatment choice challenging. IDgenetix<sup>®</sup>, a novel pharmacogenomic test, has been shown to improve outcomes by predicting the likelihood of response to different psychotherapeutic medications.<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of implementing a novel pharmacogenomic test (IDgenetix<sup>®</sup>) to guide t ...[more]

PMID: 29110140

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe extraordinarily high prevalence of treatment-resistant depression (TRD), coupled with its high economic burden to both healthcare systems and society, underscore how critical it is that resources are managed optimally to address the significant challenge it presents.ObjectiveTo review the literature on economic evaluation in TRD systematically, with the aim of informing future studies by identifying key challenges specific to the area, and highlighting good practices.MethodsA systematic literature search across seven electronic databases was conducted to identify both within-trial and model-based economic evaluations in TRD. Quality of reporting and study design was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC). A narrative synthesis was conducted.ResultsWe identified 31 evaluations, including 11 conducted alongside a clinical trial and 20 model-based evaluations. There was considerable heterogeneity in the definition of treatment-resistant depression, although with a trend for more recent studies to use a definition of inadequate response to two or more antidepressive treatments. A broad range of interventions were considered, including non-pharmacological neuromodulation, pharmacological, psychological, and service-level interventions. Study quality as assessed by CHEC was generally high. Frequently poorly reported items related to discussion of ethical and distributional issues, and model validation. Most evaluations considered comparable core clinical outcomes - encompassing remission, response, and relapse. There was good agreement on the definitions and thresholds for these outcomes, and a relatively small pool of outcome measures were used. Resource criteria used to inform the estimation of direct costs, were reasonably uniform. Predominantly, however, there was a high level of heterogeneity in terms of evaluation design and sophistication, quality of evidence used (particularly health state utility data), time horizon, population considered, and cost perspective.ConclusionEconomic evidence for interventions in TRD is underdeveloped, particularly so for service-level interventions. Where evidence does exist, it is hampered by inconsistency in study design, methodological quality, and availability of high quality long-term outcomes evidence. This review identifies a number of key considerations and challenges for the design of future economic evaluations. Recommendations for research and suggestions for good practice are made.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=259848&VersionID=1542096, identifier CRD42021259848.

Project description:Negative affective states such as anxiety and depression pose a risk to animal welfare, however, practical tests for assessing these states in animals are limited. In humans, anxious individuals are shown to pay more attention toward threatening information than non-anxious individuals, known as an attention bias. Previously, an attention bias test was developed and validated as a measure of anxious states in sheep, where more anxious sheep showed increased attention toward a threat (dog) and were more vigilant than Control animals. Studies in humans suggest that attention biases also occur in depressed individuals, with observations of attention biases toward threats, as well as biases away from positive stimuli. Given these findings, we hypothesized that an attention bias test for sheep could also be used to assess states of depression. We predicted that Merino ewes in pharmacologically induced Depressed (para-chlorophenylalanine) and Anxious (m-chlorophenylpiperazine) states would show greater attention toward a threat than Control animals (saline), but that the Depressed sheep would show relatively less interest in a positive stimulus (photograph of a conspecific). During testing, Depressed sheep paid more attention toward the threat and less toward the photograph than Control animals as predicted (Analyses of Variance, P < 0.05, n = 16 per treatment). Interestingly, Anxious sheep showed an attention bias in the opposite direction, paying more attention toward the photograph and less toward the threat than Control animals (P < 0.05). Both Anxious and Depressed sheep were more vigilant than Control animals (P = 0.002). These results suggest the attention bias test can be used to measure and differentiate states of depression and anxiety in livestock. The bidirectional nature of the attention bias identified between treatments highlights the importance of measuring multiple behaviors in the test and considering the context in which the test is applied. This will enable a clearer characterization of the affective state of an animal, as an aspect of its welfare.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is offered to reduce the risk of further cardiac events and to improve patients' health and quality of life following a cardiac event. Psychological care is a common component of CR as symptoms of depression and/or anxiety are more prevalent in this population, however evidence for the cost-effectiveness of current interventions is limited. Metacognitive therapy (MCT), is a recent treatment development that is effective in treating anxiety and depression in mental health settings and is being evaluated in CR patients. This protocol describes the planned approach to the economic evaluation of MCT for CR patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The economic evaluation work will consist of a within-trial analysis and an economic model. The PATHWAY Group MCT study has been prospectively designed to collect comprehensive self-reported resource use and health outcome data, including the EQ-5D, within a randomised controlled trial study design (UK Clinical Trials Gateway). A within-trial economic evaluation and economic model will compare the cost-effectiveness of MCT plus usual care (UC) to UC, from a health and social care perspective in the UK. The within-trial analysis will use intention-to-treat and estimate total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the trial follow-up. Single imputation will be used to impute missing baseline variables. Multiple imputation will be used to impute values missing at follow-up. Items of resource use will be multiplied by published national healthcare costs. Regression analysis will be used to estimate net costs and net QALYs and these estimates will be bootstrapped to generate 10?000 net pairs of costs and QALYs to inform the probability of cost-effectiveness. A decision analytical economic model will be developed to synthesise trial data with the published literature over a longer time frame. Sensitivity analysis will explore uncertainty. Guidance of the methods for economic models will be followed and dissemination will adhere to reporting guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The economic evaluation includes a within-trial analysis. The trial which included the collection of this data was reviewed and approved by Ethics. Ethics approval was obtained by the Preston Research Ethics Committee (project ID 156862). The modelling analysis is not applicable for Ethics as it will use data from the trial (secondary analysis) and the published literature. Results of the main trial and economic evaluation will be published in the peer-reviewed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) journals library (Programme Grants for Applied Research), submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at appropriate conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN74643496; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Economic Evaluation of Implementing a Novel Pharmacogenomic Test (IDgenetix®) to Guide Treatment of Patients with Depression and/or Anxiety.

Publications

Economic Evaluation of Implementing a Novel Pharmacogenomic Test (IDgenetix<sup>®</sup>) to Guide Treatment of Patients with Depression and/or Anxiety.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets