The effect of pharmacogenetic profiling with a clinical decision support tool on healthcare resource utilization and estimated costs in the elderly exposed to polypharmacy

References

• PharmGKB®. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. CPIC Genes/Drugs. Stanford, CA, 2015. https://www.pharmgkb.org/cpic/pairs. Accessed 4 September 2015
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA announces new boxed warning on Plavix. FDA News Release. Silver Spring, MD, 2010. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm204253.htm. Accessed 2 September 2015
   Google Scholar
• Scott SA, Sangkuhl K, Stein CM, et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines for CYP2C19 genotype and clopidogrel therapy: 2013 update. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013;94:317–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks JK, Swen JJ, Thorn CF, et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guideline for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotypes and dosing of tricyclic antidepressants. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013;93:402‐8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey LB, Johnson SG, Caudle KE, et al. The clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium guideline for SLCO1B1 and simvastatin-induced myopathy: 2014 update. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2014;96:423‐8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks JK, Bishop JR, Sangkuhl K, et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotypes and dosing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2015;98:127‐34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schildcrout JS, Denny JC, Bowton E, et al. Optimizing drug outcomes through pharmacogenetics: a case for preemptive genotyping. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012;92:235‐42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villagra D, Goethe J, Schwartz HI, et al. Novel drug metabolism indices for pharmacogenetic functional status based on combinatory genotyping of CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 genes. Biomark Med 2011;5:427‐38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamburg MA, Collins FS. The path to personalized medicine. N Engl J Med 2010;363:301‐4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bushardt RL, Massey EB, Simpson TW, et al. Polypharmacy: misleading, but manageable. Clin Interv Aging 2008;3:383‐9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berenbeim DM. Polypharmacy: overdosing on good intentions. Manag Care Q 2002;10:1‐5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verbeurgt P, Mamiya T, Oesterheld J. How common are drug and gene interactions? Prevalence in a sample of 1143 patients with CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 genotyping. Pharmacogenomics 2014;15:655‐65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Clinical pharmacogenomics: premarket evaluation in early-phase clinical studies and recommendations for labeling - Guidance for Industry. Silver Spring, MD, 2013. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm337169.pdf. Accessed 17 September 2015
   Google Scholar
• Preskorn SH, Kane CP, Lobello K, et al. Cytochrome P450 2D6 phenoconversion is common in patients being treated for depression: implications for personalized medicine. J Clin Psychiatry 2013;74:614‐21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hohl CM, Dankoff J, Colacone A, et al. Polypharmacy, adverse drug-related events, and potential adverse drug interactions in elderly patients presenting to an emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2001;38:666‐71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg ML, Estes LL, Dierkhising RA, et al. Evaluation of impact of statin use on development of CPK elevation during daptomycin therapy. Ann Pharmacother 2014;48:320‐7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Avolio A, Ciancio A, Siccardi M, et al. Negative predictive value of IL28B, SLC28A2, and CYP27B1 SNPs and low RBV plasma exposure for therapeutic response to PEG/IFN-RBV treatment. Ther Drug Monit 2012;34:722‐8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus RK, Geurts JL, Grzybowski JA, et al. Challenges to clinical utilization of hereditary cancer gene panel testing: perspectives from the front lines. Fam Cancer 2015;14:641–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enchin H. Clinician adoption of genetic testing for drug metabolizing enzymes: is patient safety the low-hanging fruit of personalized medicine? AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2009;2009:168‐72
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Corporation G. Personalized Prescribing system. Seattle, WA, 2014. http://youscript.com/. Accessed 4 September 2015
   Google Scholar
• Inovalon Inc. Medical Outcomes Research for Effectiveness and Economics Registry (MORE2 Registry). Bowie, MD, 2015. http://www.inovalon.com/howwehelp/more2-registry. Accessed 1 September 2015
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Point of Origin Codes Update to the UB-04 (CMS-1450) Manual Code List. Baltimore, MD, 2009. https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/downloads/R1775CP.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2015
   Google Scholar
• AHRQ. Hospital Inpatient Services-Mean and Median Expenses per person with expense and distribution of expenses by source of payment: United States, 2012. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component Data. Rockville, MD, 2012
   Google Scholar
• Weiss A, Elxiharser A. Overview of hospital stays in the United States, 2012. Rockville, MD, 2012. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb180-Hospitalizations-United-States-2012.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2015
   Google Scholar
• National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2010 Summary Tables. Atlanta, GA, 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2010_namcs_web_tables.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2015
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41‐55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin PC. Goodness-of-fit diagnostics for the propensity score model when estimating treatment effects using covariate adjustment with the propensity score. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008;17:1202‐17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Hoore W, Bouckaert A, Tilquin C. Practical considerations on the use of the Charlson comorbidity index with administrative data bases. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:1429‐33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faulkner E, Annemans L, Garrison L, et al. Challenges in the development and reimbursement of personalized medicine-payer and manufacturer perspectives and implications for health economics and outcomes research: a report of the ISPOR personalized medicine special interest group. Value Health 2012;15:1162‐71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meckley LM, Neumann PJ. Personalized medicine: factors influencing reimbursement. Health Policy 2010;94:91‐100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alagoz O, Durham D, Kasirajan K. Cost-effectiveness of one-time genetic testing to minimize lifetime adverse drug reactions. Pharmacogenomics J 2015. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1038/tpj.2015.39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swen JJ, Wilting I, de Goede AL, et al. Pharmacogenetics: from bench to byte. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;83:781‐7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyatt JE, Pettit WL, Harirforoosh S. Pharmacogenetics of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Pharmacogenomics J 2012;12:462‐7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes CA, Foisy MM, Dewhurst N, et al. Abacavir hypersensitivity reaction: an update. Ann Pharmacother 2008;42:387‐96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson SG, Gruntowicz D, Chua T, et al. Financial analysis of CYP2C19 genotyping in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy following acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2015;21:552‐7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winner JG, Carhart JM, Altar CA, et al. Combinatorial pharmacogenomic guidance for psychiatric medications reduces overall pharmacy costs in a 1 year prospective evaluation. Curr Med Res Opin 2015;31:1633–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Medication safety basics. Atlanta, GA, 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/medicationsafety/basics.html. Accessed 4 September 2015
   Google Scholar
• Beijer HJ, de Blaey CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci 2002;24:46‐54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18,820 patients. BMJ 2004;329:15‐19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budnitz DS, Pollock DA, Weidenbach KN, et al. National surveillance of emergency department visits for outpatient adverse drug events. JAMA 2006;296:1858‐66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayoumi I, Dolovich L, Hutchison B, et al. Medication-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations among older adults. Can Fam Physician 2014;60:e217‐22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khoury M, Little J, Burje W. Human genome epidemiology: a scientific foundation for using genetic information to improve health and prevent disease. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004
   Google Scholar
• Herman L, Froelich J, Kanelos D, et al. Utility of a genomic-based, personalized medicine test in patients presenting with symptoms suggesting coronary artery disease. J Am Board Fam Med 2014;27:258‐67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukherjee A, Rakha EA. Integrating breast cancer genetics into clinical practice. Womens Health (Lond Engl) 2012;8:99‐112
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baranov VS. Genome paths: a way to personalized and predictive medicine. Acta Naturae 2009;1:70‐80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssens AC, Deverka PA. Useless until proven effective: the clinical utility of preemptive pharmacogenetic testing. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2014;96:652‐4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deverka PA, Haga SB. Comparative effectiveness research and demonstrating clinical utility for molecular diagnostic tests. Clin Chem 2015;61:142‐4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Driest SL, Shi Y, Bowton EA, et al. Clinically actionable genotypes among 10,000 patients with preemptive pharmacogenomic testing. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2014;95:423‐31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson R, Oesterheld JO. Genetic data analysis and database tools. US Patent #US8311851. Mountain View, CA, 2012. www.google.com/patents/US8311851. Accessed 14 October 2015
   Google Scholar
• Patterson R, Oesterheld JO. Genetic data analysis and database tools. US patent #US8099298. Mountain View, CA, 2012. http://www.google.com/patents/US8099298. Accessed 14 October 2015
   Google Scholar