Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomic-guided treatment for major depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenomic testing to identify variations in genes that influence metabolism of antidepressant medications can enhance efficacy and reduce adverse effects of pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder. We sought to establish the cost-effectiveness of implementing pharmacogenomic testing to guide prescription of antidepressants. METHODS: We developed a discrete-time microsimulation model of care pathways for major depressive disorder in British Columbia, Canada, to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomic testing from the public payer's perspective over 20 years. The model included unique patient characteristics (e.g., metabolizer phenotypes) and used estimates derived from systematic reviews, analyses of administrative data (2015-2020) and expert judgment. We estimated incremental costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for a representative cohort of patients with major depressive disorder in BC. RESULTS: Pharmacogenomic testing, if implemented in BC for adult patients with moderate-severe major depressive disorder, was predicted to save the health system $956 million ($4926 per patient) and bring health gains of 0.064 life-years and 0.381 QALYs per patient (12 436 life-years and 74 023 QALYs overall over 20 yr). These savings were mainly driven by slowing or avoiding the transition to refractory (treatment-resistant) depression. Pharmacogenomic-guided care was associated with 37% fewer patients with refractory depression over 20 years. Sensitivity analyses estimated that costs of pharmacogenomic testing would be offset within about 2 years of implementation. INTERPRETATION: Pharmacogenomic testing to guide antidepressant use was estimated to yield population health gains while substantially reducing health system costs. These findings suggest that pharmacogenomic testing offers health systems an opportunity for a major value-promoting investment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".