Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical and economic challenges facing pharmacogenomics

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the clinical and economic challenges that face developers of and payers for personalized drugs and companion diagnostics. We review and summarize clinical, regulatory and reimbursement issues with respect to eight, high profile personalized medicines and their companion diagnostics. Subsequently, we determine Medicare parts B and D reimbursement of the eight drugs from publicly available databases. Finally, we utilize surveys—each tailored to three key stakeholders; payers, drug and diagnostic developers, and pharmacogenomic expert analysts—to assess reimbursement of diagnostics, analyze the role that different kinds of evidence have in informing prescribing and reimbursement decisions, as well as the specific clinical, regulatory and economic challenges that confront pharmacogenomics as it moves forward. We found that Medicare beneficiary access to physician-administered (Medicare part B) drugs is relatively unfettered, with a fixed patient co-insurance percentage of 20%. More reimbursement restrictions are placed on self-administered (Medicare part D) drugs, which translates into higher and more variable cost sharing, more use of prior authorization and quantity limits. There is a lack of comprehensive reimbursement of companion diagnostics, even in cases in which the diagnostic is on the label and recommended or required by the Food and Drug Administration. Lack of evidence linking diagnostic tests to health outcomes has caused payers to be skeptical about the clinical usefulness of tests. Expert analysts foresee moderate growth in post-hoc development of companion diagnostics to personalize already approved drugs, and limited growth in the concurrent co-development of companion diagnostics and personalized medicines. Lack of clinically useful diagnostics as well as an evidence gap in terms of knowledge of drug and diagnostic clinical effectiveness appear to be hindering growth in personalized medicine. An increase in comparative effectiveness research may help to close the evidence gap.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Phillips K . The intersection of biotechnology and pharmacogenomics: health policy implications. Health Aff 2006; 25: 1271–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Deverka P, Vernon J, McLeod H . Economic opportunities and challenges for pharmacogenomics. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2010; 50: 423–437.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shah J . Economic and regulatory consideration in pharmacogenomics for drug licensing and healthcare. Nat Biotechnol 2003; 21: 747–753.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gold H, Hall M, Blinder V, Schackman B . Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics testing for UGT1A1 before irinotecan administration for metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer 2009; 115: 3858–3867.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Deverka P . Pharmacogenomics, evidence, and the role of payers. Pub Health Gen 2009; 12: 149–157.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bodenheimer T, Chen E, Bennett H . Confronting the growing burden of chronic disease: can the US healthcare workforce do the job? Health Aff 2009; 28: 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Piccart-Gebhart M, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, Goldhirsch A, Untch M, Smith I . Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER-2 positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1659–1672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Romond E, Perez E, Bryant J, Suman V, Geyer C, Davidson J et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2 positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1673–1684.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Frueh F, Amur S, Mummaneni M, Epstein R, Aubert R, DeLuca T et al. Pharmacogenomic biomarker information in drug labels approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration: Prevalence of related drug use. Pharmacotherapy 2008; 28: 992–998.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lièvre A, Bachet J, Le Corre D, Boige V, Landi B, Emile J et al. KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 2006; 6: 3992–3995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown B, Diamantopoulos A, Bernier J, Schoffski P, Hieke K, Mantovani L et al. An economic evaluation of cetuximab combined with radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Val Health 2008; 1: 791–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Starling N, Tilden D, White J, Cunningham D . Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab/irinotecan vs. active/best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have failed previous chemotherapy treatment. Brit J Cancer 2007; 6: 206–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rogowski W, Grosse S, Khoury M . Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nat Rev Gen 2009; 10: 489–495.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Carver K . Companion diagnostics: evolving FDA regulation and issues for resolution. In: Danzis S, Flannery E (eds). In Vitro Diagnostics: The Complete Regulatory Guide. Food and Drug Law Institute: Washington, DC, 2010 pp 149–184.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lesko L . Personalized medicine: elusive dream or imminent reality? Clin Pharm Ther 2007; 81: 807–816.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. US Food and Drug Administration. Table of valid biomarkers in the context of approved drug labels. http://www.fda.gov/cder/genomics/genomics_biomarkers_table.htm Accessed 1 September 2010.

  17. Giaccone G . The role of gefitinib in lung cancer treatment. Clin Canc Res 2004; 10: 4233s–4237s.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lesko L, Woodcock J . Translation of pharmacogenomics and pharmacogenetics: a regulatory perspective. Nat Rev Drug Disc 2004; 3: 763–769.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Department of Health and Human Services: coverage and reimbursement of genetic tests and services: Report of the secretary's advisory committee on genetics, health, and society (2006)http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/sacghs/reports/CR_report.pdf Accessed 8 October 2010.

  20. Higashi M, Veenstra D, Midori Kondo L, McDonell M, Martin D, Wittkowsky A et al. Association between CYP2C9 genetic variants and anticoagulation-related outcomes during warfarin therapy. JAMA 2002; 287: 1690–1697.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: decision on Warfarin Testing. http://www.cms.gov/mcd/viewdraftdecisionmemo.asp?from2=viewdraftdecisionmemo.asp&id=224& Accessed 8 October 2010.

  22. Pollack A . Gene test for dosage of warfarin rebuffed. NY Times 2009.

  23. Thomson Reuters Drug Points http://online.statref.com/Document/Document.aspx?docAddress=n3XOOXDHK6e6_NjdPTXpRw%3d%3d&offset=7&SessionId=122622AROANINSLO Accessed 1 April 2011.

  24. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health: CEA Registry https://research.tufts-nemc.org/cear/Default.aspx accessed 30 May 2010.

  25. Pharmacy Benefit Management Institute: PBM Directory http://www.pbmi.com/pbmdir.asp accessed 3 June 2010.

  26. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Finder http://www.medicare.gov/MPDPF/Public/Include/DataSection/Questions/MPDPFIntro.asp accessed 5 November 2010.

  27. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Medicare Coverage Database. http://www.cms.gov/mcd/search.asp?clickon=search accessed 5 November 2010.

  28. Deverka P . Pharmacogenomics, evidence, and the role of payers. Pub Health Gen 2009; 12: 149–157.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Khoury M, Berg A, Coates R, Evans J, Teutsch, Bradley L et al. The evidence dilemma in genomic medicine. Health Aff 2008; 27: 1600–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ridge J . Reimbursement and coverage challenges associated with bringing emerging molecular diagnostics into the personalized medicine paradigm. Pers Med 2006; 3: 45–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gerber A, Tunis S . Does comparative-effectiveness research threaten personalized medicine? N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1925–1927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dendukuri N, Khetani K, McIsaac M, Brophy J . Testing for HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Can Med Assoc J 2007; 176: 1429–1434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Phillips K, Van Bebber S . A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of pharmacogenomic interventions. Pharmacogenomics 2004; 5: 1139–1149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hamburg M, Collins F . The path to personalized medicine. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 301–304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hallberg B, Palmer R . Crizotinib – latest champion in the cancer wars? N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1760–1762.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jenkins A . A dying wish. Forbes Mag 2011.

  37. Meckley L, Neumann P . Personalized medicine: factors influencing reimbursement. Health Pol 2010; 94: 91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Phillips K . The intersection of biotechnology and pharmacogenomics: health policy implications. Health Aff 2006; 5: 1271–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Paci D, Ibarreta D . Economic and cost-effectiveness considerations for pharmacogenetics tests: an integral part of translational research and innovation uptake in personalized medicine. Curr Pharmacogen Pers Med 2009; 7: 284–296.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Epstein R, Russell Teagarden J . Comparative effectiveness research and personalized medicine. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 8: 905–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hughes B . Novel risk-sharing scheme puts the spotlight on biomarkers. Nat Rev Drug Disc 2007; 6: 417–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Carlson J, Garrison L, Sullivan S . Paying for outcomes: innovative coverage and reimbursement schemes for pharmaceuticals. J Manag Care Pharm 2009; 15: 683–687.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tanisha C, Reginald D, Williams II A, Bridger P . Medicare's coverage of colorectal cancer drugs: a case study in evidence development and policy. Health Aff 2009; 25: 1231–1239.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J Cohen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cohen, J., Wilson, A. & Manzolillo, K. Clinical and economic challenges facing pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics J 13, 378–388 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/tpj.2011.63

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/tpj.2011.63

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links