Comparative Effectiveness Research and Personalized Medicine
- 1 October 2010
- journal article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in PharmacoEconomics
- Vol. 28 (10), 905-913
- https://doi.org/10.2165/11535830-000000000-00000
Abstract
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is generating intense attention as interest grows in finding new and better drug technology assessment processes. The federal government is supporting the expansion of CER through funding made available in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and by establishing the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. At the same time, personalized medicine is generating debate about its place in clinical medicine, and so, naturally, how CER can or cannot play a role in personalized medicine is part of these debates. At the heart of the debate around the role of CER in personalized medicine is the nature of personalized medicine and how it fits within contemporary clinical research concepts. We maintain in this article that CER can serve to catalyze personalized medicine, but we recognize that, for this to happen, researchers will need to embrace new data sources and new analytic approaches. We also recognize that drug technology assessment processes will have to undergo necessary adaptations to accommodate CER as configured for personalized medicine, and that clinicians will need to be educated appropriately and provided access to decision-support systems through health information technology to use the information coming from this research. To illustrate our argument, we describe two ongoing CER studies funded and managed in the private sector evaluating personalized medicine interventions that have important clinical and financial implications. One of the studies investigates the clinical and financial effects of pharmacogenomic testing for warfarin as prescribed in conditions of typical practice settings. The other study is also set in community practice settings and compares cardiovascular outcomes of patients receiving clopidogrel who are extensive metabolizer phenotypes for the cytochrome P450 2C19 hepatic isoenzyme with all patients receiving prasugrel.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Warfarin Genotyping Reduces Hospitalization RatesJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2010
- Comparative effectiveness research and genomic medicine: An evolving partnership for 21st century medicineGenetics in Medicine, 2009
- Association of Cytochrome P450 2C19 Genotype With the Antiplatelet Effect and Clinical Efficacy of Clopidogrel TherapyJAMA, 2009
- Cytochrome P-450 Polymorphisms and Response to ClopidogrelNew England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Pharmacology and Management of the Vitamin K Antagonists: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)Chest, 2008
- Use of Pharmacogenetic and Clinical Factors to Predict the Therapeutic Dose of WarfarinCancer Cell, 2008
- Randomized Trial of Genotype-Guided Versus Standard Warfarin Dosing in Patients Initiating Oral AnticoagulationCirculation, 2007
- Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary SyndromesNew England Journal of Medicine, 2007
- Influence of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 1173C/T Genotype on the Risk of Hemorrhagic Complications in African-American and European-American Patients on WarfarinClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2007
- Clinical Significance of the Cytochrome P450 2C19 Genetic PolymorphismClinical Pharmacokinetics, 2002