A key to accelerating the appropriate integration of genomic applications into healthcare in the coming decades will be the ability to assess the tradeoffs between clinical benefits and clinical risks of genetic tests in a timely manner. Several factors limit the ability of stakeholders to achieve this objective, including the lack of direct evidence, the lack of a framework to quantitatively assess risk and benefit, and the lack of a formal analytic approach to assess uncertainty. We propose that a formal, quantitative risk-benefit framework may be particularly useful for assessing genetic tests intended to influence health outcomes, and communicating the potential clinical benefits, harms, and uncertainty to stakeholders. As part of the development process for such a framework, a stakeholder meeting was held in Seattle (Wash., USA) in December of 2008, with the objective of discussing a risk-benefit framework, using warfarin pharmacogenomics as a case study. Participants engaged in focused discussion to elucidate the potential role of genetic test risk-benefit analysis in informing decision-making, categorizing genetic tests and directing research prioritization. This research investigation focuses on qualitative analysis of responses elicited from workshop participants during the proceedings of the workshop session. The major findings of the workshop were: (1) stakeholder support for risk-benefit modeling as a tool to structure discussion of the clinical utility of genetic tests; (2) desire for the modeling process to be iterative, transparent, and parsimonious in its presentation to stakeholders, and (3) some concern with the use of quality-adjusted life-years in the evaluation process. The meeting’s findings emphasize the potential utility of risk-benefit analysis in genetic test evaluation, and highlight key areas for future research and stakeholder consensus-building.

1.
Holtzman NA, Watson MS: Promoting Safe and Effective Genetic Testing in the United States: Final Report of the Task Force on Genetic Testing. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins, 1998.
2.
Garrison LP, Veenstra DL, Carlson RJ, Carlson J, Meckley L: Backgrounder on Pharmacogenomics for the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Industries: Basic Science, Future Scenarios, Policy Directions. University of Washington, Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, 2007.
3.
Garrison LP, Austin MJ: The economics of personalized medicine: a model of incentives for value creation and capture. Drug Inf J 2007;41:501–509.
4.
Lesko LJ: The critical path of warfarin dosing: finding an optimal dosing strategy using pharmacogenetics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;84:301–303.
5.
Garcia DA: Warfarin and pharmacogenomic testing: the case for restraint. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;84:303–305.
6.
Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group: Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can tumor gene expression profiling improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer? Genet Med 2009;11:66–73.
7.
Tunis SR: Economic analysis in healthcare decisions. Am J Manag Care 2004;10:301–304.
8.
Rogowski WH, Grosse SD, Khoury MJ: Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Genetics 2009;10:489–495.
9.
Petitti DB, Teutsch SM, Barton MB, Sawaya GF, Ockene JK, DeWitt T: Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: insufficient evidence. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:199–205.
10.
Phillips KA, Veenstra DL, Sadee W: Implications of the genetics revolution for health services research: pharmacogenomics and improvements in drug therapy. Health Serv Res 2000;35:128–140.
11.
Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Judge J, et al: The incidence of adverse drug events in two large academic long-term care facilities. Am J Med 2005;118:251–258.
12.
Rieder MJ, Reiner AP, Gage BF, et al: Effect of VKORC1 haplotypes on transcriptional regulation and warfarin dose. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2285–2293.
13.
Gage BF, Eby C, Milligan PE, Banet GA, Duncan JR, McLeod HL: Use of pharmacogenetics and clinical factors to predict the maintenance dose of warfarin. Thromb Haemost 2004;91:87–94.
14.
Hillman MA, Wilke RA, Caldwell MD, Berg RL, Glurich I, Burmester JK: Relative impact of covariates in prescribing warfarin according to CYP2C9 genotype. Pharmacogenetics 2004;14:539–547.
15.
Limdi NA, McGwin G, Goldstein JA, et al: Influence of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 1173C/T genotype on the risk of hemorrhagic complications in African-American and European-American patients on warfarin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007;83:312–321.
16.
Anderson JL, Horne BD, Stevens SM, et al: Randomized trial of genotype-guided versus standard warfarin dosing in patients initiating oral anticoagulation. Circulation 2007;116:2563–2570.
17.
Meckley LM, Wittkowsky AK, Rieder MJ, Rettie AE, Veenstra DL: A policy model to evaluate the benefits, risks and costs of warfarin pharmacogenomic testing. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28:61–74.
18.
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005;15:1277–1288.
19.
Garrison LP, Towse A, Breshahan BW: Assessing a structured, quantitative health outcomes approach to drug risk-benefit analysis. Health Aff 2007;26:684–695.
20.
Garrison LP, Mansley EC, Abbott TA, Bresnahan BW, Hay JW, Smeeding J: Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: a societal perspective. Value Health 2010;13:8–13.
21.
Garrison LP: On the benefits of modeling using QALYs for societal resource allocation: the model is in the message. Value Health 2009;12:S36–S37.
22.
Neumann PJ, Greenberg D: Is the United States ready for QALYs? Health Aff 2009;28:1366–1371.
23.
Johnson FR: Moving the QALY forward or just stuck in traffic? Value Health 2009;12:S38–S39.
24.
Kind P, Lafata JE, Matuszewski K, Raisch D: The use of QALYs in clinical and patient decision-making: issues and prospects. Value Health 2009;12:S27–S30.
25.
Grosse SD, McBride CM, Evans JP, Khoury MJ: Personal utility and genomic information: look before you leap. Genet Med 2009;11:575–576.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.