ArticlePharmacoEconomics2026
Economic Evaluation of Pre-emptive Pharmacogenetic Panel Testing versus No Genetic Testing in a Multi-ethnic Asian Population.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe cost-utility of a panel-based pre-emptive pharmacogenomic (PPGx) test has not been evaluated in a multi-ethnic Asian population. Prior studies have largely focused on reactive, single drug-gene tests. This study assessed the cost-utility of a PPGx panel test and identified key drivers influencing its economic value.
methodsWe developed a prioritization framework integrating clinical and economic criteria to select drug-gene pairs for economic analysis. Cost-utility analysis was conducted using Discretely Integrated Condition Event (DICE) simulation, which allowed simultaneous analysis of multiple diseases and treatments of varying duration. The analysis focused on a hypothetical cohort of healthy 40-year-old Singaporeans and assessed the lifetime impact of a one-time panel test on outcomes such as disease occurrence and serious adverse drug events (ADE). Costs were evaluated from a healthcare payer's perspective and reported in 2024 Singapore dollars (S$). Both costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Deterministic, probabilistic, and scenario analyses were performed to address uncertainty.
resultsFour drug-gene pairs were selected: clopidogrel-CYP2C19, capecitabine-DPYD, allopurinol-HLA-B*58:01, and simvastatin-SLCO1B1. In the base case, panel testing was dominant, resulting in savings of S$37,600 and gain of 9.32 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per 1000 individuals compared with no PGx testing. Results were sensitive to drug costs, ADE-related costs, and the age for panel administration. Ideal drug-gene pairs for panel inclusion involve commonly prescribed drugs with variants associated with severe ADEs, where genotype-guided alternatives (e.g., dose adjustment or switching therapy) have costs comparable to standard care.
conclusionsPre-emptive PGx panel testing is economically viable when panel design, variant prevalence, drug costs, and local prescribing patterns are carefully considered. As more data become available, the model can be tailored to evaluate additional drug-gene pairs and their downstream consequences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41870846What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.