Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomics: A Critical and Systematic Review
The use of pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice is limited thus far. A potential barrier to the widespread implementation of pharmacogenetic testing is the lack of evidence on whether testing provides good value for money. The objective of this review was to provide a systematic and critical...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PharmacoEconomics 2010-01, Vol.28 (11), p.1001-1013 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1013 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 1001 |
container_title | PharmacoEconomics |
container_volume | 28 |
creator | Wong, William B. Carlson, Josh J. Thariani, Rahber Veenstra, David L. |
description | The use of pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice is limited thus far. A potential barrier to the widespread implementation of pharmacogenetic testing is the lack of evidence on whether testing provides good value for money. The objective of this review was to provide a systematic and critical review of economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing. A literature search using publically available databases was performed for articles published up to October 2009. To be included, studies had to meet the definition of being a pharmacogenomic study (defined as use of information on human genetic variation to target drug therapy) and an economic evaluation (defined as an evaluation of both costs and clinical outcomes). Articles that met these criteria were subsequently reviewed and graded using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Lastly, the evidence for biomarker validity and utility were qualitatively assessed using expert opinion.
A total of 34 articles were identified using our defined criteria. The most common disease category was thromboembolic-related diseases (26%), while the most common biomarkers were thiopurine methyltransferase and cytochrome P450 2C9 (18% each). Almost all studies were published after 2004 (91%). Two types of studies were identified: cost-effectiveness studies and cost-utility studies, with roughly half of the overall studies being cost-utility studies (53%) and a majority of these published within the last 3 years. The average quality score was 77 (range 29–99). Of the biomarkers reviewed, it was estimated that most had demonstrated clinical validity, but only two had demonstrated clinical utility.
Despite a recent increase in the number of economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic applications, further studies examining the clinical validity and utility of these biomarkers are needed to support cost-effectiveness assessments. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2165/11537410-000000000-00000 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_757795174</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A239530931</galeid><sourcerecordid>A239530931</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-d3b68e7d667f88e3ff1514905ec53006be441cf3f2c741bc45e36a594319d633</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkd1u1DAQhSMEoj_wCmgFolyl2JnYji-rVQtIrcpF7y2vM95NSeJgZ4v69p2Q3a1ASMSKc-R8Z2Y8k2ULzs4LLsVnzgWokrOc7Z9ZvciOOVc6L1ihXv7WLFdSs6PsJKV7AiSo4nV2VDANsqrK4-xsGdK4uPQe3dg8YI8pLYJffN_Y2FkX1tiHrnHpTfbK2zbh2933NLu7urxbfs2vb798W15c504wGPMaVrJCVUupfFUheM8FLzUT6ARQ9hWWJXcefOGo_JUrBYK0QpfAdS0BTrNPc9ghhp9bTKPpmuSwbW2PYZuMEkppwVVJ5Pu_yPuwjT3VNkFcMy0lQR9maG1bNE3vwxitm0KaiwI0laSBE3X-D4pWjXT10KNv6PwPQzUbXAwpRfRmiE1n46PhzEzzMfv5mMN8ZkXWm9kacUB38P36sRk2SLnMgwFbVLQ9ToJRCLANvZzTNkyCMU55OJjN2FG8d7s2bFcd1oeA-wET8HEH2ORs66PtXZOeOYCqoI4Sp2cu0a9-jfG5n_-91BNC7r1B</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>757190966</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomics: A Critical and Systematic Review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>RePEc</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Wong, William B. ; Carlson, Josh J. ; Thariani, Rahber ; Veenstra, David L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wong, William B. ; Carlson, Josh J. ; Thariani, Rahber ; Veenstra, David L.</creatorcontrib><description>The use of pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice is limited thus far. A potential barrier to the widespread implementation of pharmacogenetic testing is the lack of evidence on whether testing provides good value for money. The objective of this review was to provide a systematic and critical review of economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing. A literature search using publically available databases was performed for articles published up to October 2009. To be included, studies had to meet the definition of being a pharmacogenomic study (defined as use of information on human genetic variation to target drug therapy) and an economic evaluation (defined as an evaluation of both costs and clinical outcomes). Articles that met these criteria were subsequently reviewed and graded using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Lastly, the evidence for biomarker validity and utility were qualitatively assessed using expert opinion.
A total of 34 articles were identified using our defined criteria. The most common disease category was thromboembolic-related diseases (26%), while the most common biomarkers were thiopurine methyltransferase and cytochrome P450 2C9 (18% each). Almost all studies were published after 2004 (91%). Two types of studies were identified: cost-effectiveness studies and cost-utility studies, with roughly half of the overall studies being cost-utility studies (53%) and a majority of these published within the last 3 years. The average quality score was 77 (range 29–99). Of the biomarkers reviewed, it was estimated that most had demonstrated clinical validity, but only two had demonstrated clinical utility.
Despite a recent increase in the number of economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic applications, further studies examining the clinical validity and utility of these biomarkers are needed to support cost-effectiveness assessments.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1170-7690</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1179-2027</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2165/11537410-000000000-00000</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20936884</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Biomarkers ; Clinical medicine ; Clinical outcomes ; Cost analysis ; Cost benefit analysis ; Cost-effectiveness ; Cost-utility ; Cytochrome-P450 ; Diagnostic tests ; Drug targeting ; Drug therapy ; Economic aspects ; Economics ; General pharmacology ; Genetic aspects ; Genetic screening ; Genetic testing ; Genetic Testing - economics ; Genomics ; Health Administration ; Health Economics ; Health technology assessment ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Miscellaneous ; Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes ; Pharmacogenetics - economics ; Pharmacogenomics. ; Pharmacology. Drug treatments ; Public Health ; Quality of Life Research ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; Review Article ; Validity</subject><ispartof>PharmacoEconomics, 2010-01, Vol.28 (11), p.1001-1013</ispartof><rights>Adis Data Information BV 2010</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Wolters Kluwer Health Adis International Nov 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-d3b68e7d667f88e3ff1514905ec53006be441cf3f2c741bc45e36a594319d633</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.2165/11537410-000000000-00000$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.2165/11537410-000000000-00000$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,4009,27929,27930,41493,42562,51324</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=23382951$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20936884$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/wkhphecon/v_3a28_3ay_3a2010_3ai_3a11_3ap_3a1001-1013.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wong, William B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carlson, Josh J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thariani, Rahber</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veenstra, David L.</creatorcontrib><title>Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomics: A Critical and Systematic Review</title><title>PharmacoEconomics</title><addtitle>Pharmacoeconomics</addtitle><addtitle>Pharmacoeconomics</addtitle><description>The use of pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice is limited thus far. A potential barrier to the widespread implementation of pharmacogenetic testing is the lack of evidence on whether testing provides good value for money. The objective of this review was to provide a systematic and critical review of economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing. A literature search using publically available databases was performed for articles published up to October 2009. To be included, studies had to meet the definition of being a pharmacogenomic study (defined as use of information on human genetic variation to target drug therapy) and an economic evaluation (defined as an evaluation of both costs and clinical outcomes). Articles that met these criteria were subsequently reviewed and graded using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Lastly, the evidence for biomarker validity and utility were qualitatively assessed using expert opinion.
A total of 34 articles were identified using our defined criteria. The most common disease category was thromboembolic-related diseases (26%), while the most common biomarkers were thiopurine methyltransferase and cytochrome P450 2C9 (18% each). Almost all studies were published after 2004 (91%). Two types of studies were identified: cost-effectiveness studies and cost-utility studies, with roughly half of the overall studies being cost-utility studies (53%) and a majority of these published within the last 3 years. The average quality score was 77 (range 29–99). Of the biomarkers reviewed, it was estimated that most had demonstrated clinical validity, but only two had demonstrated clinical utility.
Despite a recent increase in the number of economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic applications, further studies examining the clinical validity and utility of these biomarkers are needed to support cost-effectiveness assessments.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomarkers</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Cost-effectiveness</subject><subject>Cost-utility</subject><subject>Cytochrome-P450</subject><subject>Diagnostic tests</subject><subject>Drug targeting</subject><subject>Drug therapy</subject><subject>Economic aspects</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>General pharmacology</subject><subject>Genetic aspects</subject><subject>Genetic screening</subject><subject>Genetic testing</subject><subject>Genetic Testing - economics</subject><subject>Genomics</subject><subject>Health Administration</subject><subject>Health Economics</subject><subject>Health technology assessment</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes</subject><subject>Pharmacogenetics - economics</subject><subject>Pharmacogenomics.</subject><subject>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Quality of Life Research</subject><subject>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>1170-7690</issn><issn>1179-2027</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>X2L</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkd1u1DAQhSMEoj_wCmgFolyl2JnYji-rVQtIrcpF7y2vM95NSeJgZ4v69p2Q3a1ASMSKc-R8Z2Y8k2ULzs4LLsVnzgWokrOc7Z9ZvciOOVc6L1ihXv7WLFdSs6PsJKV7AiSo4nV2VDANsqrK4-xsGdK4uPQe3dg8YI8pLYJffN_Y2FkX1tiHrnHpTfbK2zbh2933NLu7urxbfs2vb798W15c504wGPMaVrJCVUupfFUheM8FLzUT6ARQ9hWWJXcefOGo_JUrBYK0QpfAdS0BTrNPc9ghhp9bTKPpmuSwbW2PYZuMEkppwVVJ5Pu_yPuwjT3VNkFcMy0lQR9maG1bNE3vwxitm0KaiwI0laSBE3X-D4pWjXT10KNv6PwPQzUbXAwpRfRmiE1n46PhzEzzMfv5mMN8ZkXWm9kacUB38P36sRk2SLnMgwFbVLQ9ToJRCLANvZzTNkyCMU55OJjN2FG8d7s2bFcd1oeA-wET8HEH2ORs66PtXZOeOYCqoI4Sp2cu0a9-jfG5n_-91BNC7r1B</recordid><startdate>20100101</startdate><enddate>20100101</enddate><creator>Wong, William B.</creator><creator>Carlson, Josh J.</creator><creator>Thariani, Rahber</creator><creator>Veenstra, David L.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Adis International</general><general>Springer Healthcare | Adis</general><general>Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100101</creationdate><title>Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomics</title><author>Wong, William B. ; Carlson, Josh J. ; Thariani, Rahber ; Veenstra, David L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-d3b68e7d667f88e3ff1514905ec53006be441cf3f2c741bc45e36a594319d633</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomarkers</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Cost-effectiveness</topic><topic>Cost-utility</topic><topic>Cytochrome-P450</topic><topic>Diagnostic tests</topic><topic>Drug targeting</topic><topic>Drug therapy</topic><topic>Economic aspects</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>General pharmacology</topic><topic>Genetic aspects</topic><topic>Genetic screening</topic><topic>Genetic testing</topic><topic>Genetic Testing - economics</topic><topic>Genomics</topic><topic>Health Administration</topic><topic>Health Economics</topic><topic>Health technology assessment</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes</topic><topic>Pharmacogenetics - economics</topic><topic>Pharmacogenomics.</topic><topic>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Quality of Life Research</topic><topic>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wong, William B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carlson, Josh J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thariani, Rahber</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veenstra, David L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>PharmacoEconomics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wong, William B.</au><au>Carlson, Josh J.</au><au>Thariani, Rahber</au><au>Veenstra, David L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomics: A Critical and Systematic Review</atitle><jtitle>PharmacoEconomics</jtitle><stitle>Pharmacoeconomics</stitle><addtitle>Pharmacoeconomics</addtitle><date>2010-01-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1001</spage><epage>1013</epage><pages>1001-1013</pages><issn>1170-7690</issn><eissn>1179-2027</eissn><abstract>The use of pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice is limited thus far. A potential barrier to the widespread implementation of pharmacogenetic testing is the lack of evidence on whether testing provides good value for money. The objective of this review was to provide a systematic and critical review of economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing. A literature search using publically available databases was performed for articles published up to October 2009. To be included, studies had to meet the definition of being a pharmacogenomic study (defined as use of information on human genetic variation to target drug therapy) and an economic evaluation (defined as an evaluation of both costs and clinical outcomes). Articles that met these criteria were subsequently reviewed and graded using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Lastly, the evidence for biomarker validity and utility were qualitatively assessed using expert opinion.
A total of 34 articles were identified using our defined criteria. The most common disease category was thromboembolic-related diseases (26%), while the most common biomarkers were thiopurine methyltransferase and cytochrome P450 2C9 (18% each). Almost all studies were published after 2004 (91%). Two types of studies were identified: cost-effectiveness studies and cost-utility studies, with roughly half of the overall studies being cost-utility studies (53%) and a majority of these published within the last 3 years. The average quality score was 77 (range 29–99). Of the biomarkers reviewed, it was estimated that most had demonstrated clinical validity, but only two had demonstrated clinical utility.
Despite a recent increase in the number of economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic applications, further studies examining the clinical validity and utility of these biomarkers are needed to support cost-effectiveness assessments.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>20936884</pmid><doi>10.2165/11537410-000000000-00000</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1170-7690 |
ispartof | PharmacoEconomics, 2010-01, Vol.28 (11), p.1001-1013 |
issn | 1170-7690 1179-2027 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_757795174 |
source | MEDLINE; RePEc; SpringerNature Journals |
subjects | Biological and medical sciences Biomarkers Clinical medicine Clinical outcomes Cost analysis Cost benefit analysis Cost-effectiveness Cost-utility Cytochrome-P450 Diagnostic tests Drug targeting Drug therapy Economic aspects Economics General pharmacology Genetic aspects Genetic screening Genetic testing Genetic Testing - economics Genomics Health Administration Health Economics Health technology assessment Humans Medical sciences Medicine Medicine & Public Health Miscellaneous Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes Pharmacogenetics - economics Pharmacogenomics. Pharmacology. Drug treatments Public Health Quality of Life Research Quality-Adjusted Life Years Review Article Validity |
title | Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomics: A Critical and Systematic Review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-16T03%3A03%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost%20Effectiveness%20of%20Pharmacogenomics:%20A%20Critical%20and%20Systematic%20Review&rft.jtitle=PharmacoEconomics&rft.au=Wong,%20William%20B.&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1001&rft.epage=1013&rft.pages=1001-1013&rft.issn=1170-7690&rft.eissn=1179-2027&rft_id=info:doi/10.2165/11537410-000000000-00000&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA239530931%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=757190966&rft_id=info:pmid/20936884&rft_galeid=A239530931&rfr_iscdi=true |