A formal risk-benefit framework for genomic tests: Facilitating the appropriate translation of genomics into clinical practice

Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA.
Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics (Impact Factor: 6.44). 11/2010; 12(11):686-93. DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181eff533
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Evaluation of genomic tests is often challenging because of the lack of direct evidence of clinical benefit compared with usual care and unclear evidence requirements. To address these issues, this study presents a risk-benefit framework for assessing the health-related utility of genomic tests.
We incorporated approaches from a variety of established fields including decision science, outcomes research, and health technology assessment to develop the framework. Additionally, we considered genomic test stakeholder perspectives and case studies.
We developed a three-tiered framework: first, we use decision-analytic modeling techniques to synthesize data, project incidence of clinical events, and assess uncertainty. Second, we defined the health-related utility of genomic tests as improvement in health outcomes as measured by clinical event rates, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life-years. Finally, we displayed results using a risk-benefit policy matrix to facilitate the interpretation and implementation of findings from these analyses.
A formal risk-benefit framework may accelerate the utilization and practice-based evidence development of genomic tests that pose low risk and offer plausible clinical benefit, while discouraging premature use of tests that provide little benefit or pose significant health risks compared with usual care.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the field of pharmacogenetics has existed for decades, practioners have been slow to implement pharmacogenetic testing in clinical care. Numerous publications describe the barriers to clinical implementation of pharmacogenetics. Recently, several freely available resources have been developed to help address these barriers. In this review, we discuss current programs that use preemptive genotyping to optimize the pharmacotherapy of patients. Array-based preemptive testing includes a large number of relevant pharmacogenes that impact multiple high-risk drugs. Using a preemptive approach allows genotyping results to be available prior to any prescribing decision so that genomic variation may be considered as an inherent patient characteristic in the planning of therapy. This review describes the common elements among programs that have implemented preemptive genotyping and highlights key processes for implementation, including clinical decision support. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology Volume 55 is January 06, 2015. Please see for revised estimates.
    Annual Review of Pharmacology 10/2014; 55(1). DOI:10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010814-124835 · 18.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence of the value of pharmacogenomic testing is needed to inform policymakers and clinicians for decision making related to adoption and coverage, and to facilitate prioritization for research and development. Pharmacogenomics has an important role in creating a more efficient healthcare system, and this article addresses how economic evaluation can strategically target evidence gaps for public health priorities with examples from pharmacogenomic medicine. This article begins with a review of the need for and use of economic evaluations in value-based decision making for pharmacogenomic testing. Three important gaps are described with examples demonstrating how they can be addressed: (1) projected impact of hypothetical new technology, (2) pre-implementation assessment of a specific technology, and (3) post-implementation assessment from relevant analytical stakeholder perspectives. Additional needs, challenges and approaches specific to pharmacogenomic economic evaluation in the developing world are also identified. These pragmatic approaches can provide much needed evidence to support real-world value-based decision making for pharmacogenomic-based screening and treatment strategies. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.
    Public Health Genomics 09/2014; 17(5-6). DOI:10.1159/000366177 · 2.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The language of ‘personalized medicine’ and ‘personal genomics’ has now entered the common lexicon. The idea of personalized medicine is the integration of genomic risk assessment alongside other clinical investigations. Consistent with this approach, testing is delivered by health care professionals who are not medical geneticists, and where results represent risks, as opposed to clinical diagnosis of disease, to be interpreted alongside the entirety of a patient’s health and medical data. In this review we consider the evidence concerning the application of such personalized genomics within the context of population screening, and potential implications that arise from this. We highlight two general approaches which illustrate potential uses of genomic information in screening. The first is a narrowly targeted approach in which genetic profiling is linked with standard population-based screening for diseases; the second is a broader targeting of variants associated with multiple single gene disorders, performed opportunistically on patients being investigated for unrelated conditions. In doing so we consider the organisation and evaluation of tests and services, the challenge of interpretation with less targeted testing, professional confidence, barriers in practice, and education needs. We conclude by discussing several issues pertinent to health policy, namely; avoiding the conflation of genetics with biological determinism, resisting the ‘technological imperative’, due consideration of the organisation of screening services, the need for professional education, as well as informed decision making and public understanding.
    Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 02/2015; 8:9-20. DOI:10.2147/RMHP.S58728

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 15, 2014