Or rounding errors. b As reported in original study unless otherwise noted. No main variations were observed in P values with unadjusted analyses performed in present evaluation.Ontario Health Technologies Assessment Series; Vol. 21: No. 13, pp. 114, AugustAugustTable A30: Remission Prices for Pharmacogenomic-Guided Medication Choice Compared With Remedy as Usual–Post-Hoc Stratifications and Subgroup Analyses by Baseline CharacteristicsAuthor, Year (Primary Study) Subgroup: Age Forester et al, 202067 (Greden et al, 201957) Perez et al, 201762 Age 65 y 86/98 20.1 7.four NR .014 Remissiona Sub-population N PGx/TAU PGx TAU Summary ATGL medchemexpress Estimate (95 CI) as Reported P ValueSubgroup: Depression Severity HAM-D17 19b Inadequately controlledc 79/71 27.eight 19.7 OR 1.57 (0.73.37) .Subgroup: Inadequate Response to Medication or Remedy Resistance Bradley et al, 201858 NR 42 27 NR .Subgroup: Medication Congruency at Baseline Thase et al, 201968 (Greden et al, 201957) CaMK III drug Dunlop et al, 201966 (Greden et al, 201957) Yellow/red bind Yellow/red bind and switchede Yellow/red bind at baseline (HAM-D6) 357/430 235/225 357/429 18.2 20.three 22.two ten.7 11.1 14.three NR NR NR .003 .008 .Abbreviations: CI, self-assurance interval; HAM-D, 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; HAM-D17, 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; NR, not reported; OR, odds ratio, PGx, pharmacogenomic-guided remedy; PP, per protocol; TAU, treatment as usual. a Final results had been based on HAM-D17 unless otherwise specified. b This post-hoc evaluation was for comparison purposes only. c Inadequate handle was not defined by post. Outcome was reported only in discussion post-hoc, which didn’t specify which cohort was used (moderate or serious + moderate depression). d Drugs were categorized as green bin (use as directed), yellow bin (use with caution), or red bin (use with enhanced caution and more frequent monitoring). e Switched was defined as stopping one medication and adding 1 medication.Ontario Well being Technologies Assessment Series; Vol. 21: No. 13, pp. 114, AugustAugustAppendix 9: Examples of Excluded Studies–Economic EvidenceFor transparency, we give a list of some research that readers could have anticipated to see inside the financial proof evaluation but that did not meet the inclusion criteria, in addition to the primary purpose for exclusion. Main Purpose for ExclusionIntervention: doesn’t match criteria of a PGx test that incorporates a decision-support tool Study type: costing evaluation, ICER not estimated Population: wider spectrum, all psychiatric patients Intervention: single-gene pharmacogenomic testingCitationFabbri C, Kasper S, Zohar J, Souery D, Montgomery S, Albani D, et al. Costeffectiveness of genetic and clinical predictors for picking combined psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in important depression. Journal of Affective Issues 2021;279:722. Jablonski MR, Lorenz R, Li J, Dechairo BM. Economic Outcomes following combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing for elderly psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 2019;33(6):324-32. Sluiter RL, Janzing JGE, van der Wilt GJ, Kievit W, Teichert M. An economic model in the cost-utility of pre-emptive genetic testing to assistance pharmacotherapy in sufferers with main depression in primary care. Pharmacogenomics 2019;19(5):480-9. Tanner JA, Brown LC, Yu K, Li J, Dechairo BM. Canadian medication cost savings associated with combinatorial pharmacogenomic guidance for psychiatric medications. Clinicoeconomics Outcomes Re.
