Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing to predict treatment response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of testing patients with nephropathies for the I/D polymorphism before starting angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor therapy, using a 3-year time horizon and a healthcare perspective. METHODS: We used a combination of a decision analysis and Markov modeling technique to evaluate the potential economic value of this pharmacogenetic test by preventing unfavorable treatment in patients with nephropathies. The estimation of the predictive value of the I/D polymorphism is based on a systematic review showing that DD carriers tend to respond well to ACE inhibitors, while II carriers seem not to benefit adequately from this treatment. Data on the ACE inhibitor effectiveness in nephropathy were derived from the REIN (Ramipril Efficacy in Nephropathy) trial. We calculated the number of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) prevented and the differences in the incremental costs and incremental effect expressed as life-years free of ESRD. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Compared with unselective treatment, testing patients for their ACE genotype could save 12 patients per 1000 from developing ESRD during the 3 years covered by the model. As the mean net cost savings was euro 356,000 per 1000 patient-years, and 9 life-years free of ESRD were gained, selective treatment seems to be dominant. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that genetic testing of the I/D polymorphism in patients with nephropathy before initiating ACE therapy will most likely be cost-effective, even if the risk for II carriers to develop ESRD when treated with ACE inhibitors is only 1.4% higher than for DD carriers. Further studies, however, are required to corroborate the difference in treatment response between ACE genotypes, before genetic testing can be justified in clinical practice.

Multivariable adjustments counteract spectrum and test review bias in accuracy studies

OBJECTIVES: The STAndards for Reporting studies of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD) for investigators and editors and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) for reviewers and readers offer guidelines for the quality and reporting of test accuracy studies. These guidelines address and propose some solutions to two major threats to validity: spectrum bias and test review bias. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using a clinical example, we demonstrate that these solutions fail and propose an alternative solution that concomitantly addresses both sources of bias. We also derive formulas that prove the generality of our arguments. RESULTS: A logical extension of our ideas is to extend STARD item 23 by adding a requirement for multivariable statistical adjustment using information collected in QUADAS items 1, 2, and 12 and STARD items 3-5, 11, 15, and 18. CONCLUSION: We recommend reporting not only variation of diagnostic accuracy across subgroups (STARD item 23) but also the effects of the multivariable adjustments on test performance. We also suggest that the QUADAS be supplemented by an item addressing the appropriateness of statistical methods, in particular whether multivariable adjustments have been included in the analysis.