Or rounding errors. b As reported in original study unless otherwise noted. No significant differences had been observed in P values with unadjusted analyses performed in existing overview.Ontario Well being Technology Assessment Series; Vol. 21: No. 13, pp. 114, AugustAugustTable A30: Remission Prices for Pharmacogenomic-Guided Medication Selection Compared With Therapy as Usual–Post-Hoc Stratifications and Subgroup Analyses by Baseline CharacteristicsAuthor, Year (Principal Study) Subgroup: Age Forester et al, 202067 (Greden et al, 201957) Perez et al, 201762 Age 65 y 86/98 20.1 7.4 NR .014 Remissiona Sub-population N PGx/TAU PGx TAU Summary Estimate (95 CI) as Reported P ValueSubgroup: Depression Severity HAM-D17 19b Inadequately controlledc 79/71 27.8 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) 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.two 20.three 22.2 ten.7 11.1 14.three NR NR NR .003 .008 .Abbreviations: CI, confidence 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 treatment; PP, per protocol; TAU, remedy as usual. a Benefits were determined by 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 did not specify which cohort was employed (moderate or severe + moderate depression). d Drugs were categorized as green bin (use as directed), Yellow bin (use with caution), or red bin (use with increased caution and much more frequent monitoring). e Switched was defined as stopping one medication and adding 1 medication.Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series; Vol. 21: No. 13, pp. 114, AugustAugustAppendix 9: Examples of Excluded Studies–Economic EvidenceFor transparency, we present a list of some research that readers may have expected to find out in the financial PDE7 Storage & Stability evidence overview but that did not meet the inclusion criteria, together with the primary explanation for exclusion. Key Reason for ExclusionIntervention: does not match criteria of a PGx test that contains a decision-support tool Study kind: costing analysis, ICER not BCRP Biological Activity estimated Population: wider spectrum, all psychiatric individuals 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 deciding on combined psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in big depression. Journal of Affective Disorders 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(six):324-32. Sluiter RL, Janzing JGE, van der Wilt GJ, Kievit W, Teichert M. An financial model with the cost-utility of pre-emptive genetic testing to support pharmacotherapy in sufferers with main depression in principal care. Pharmacogenomics 2019;19(5):480-9. Tanner JA, Brown LC, Yu K, Li J, Dechairo BM. Canadian medication price savings linked with combinatorial pharmacogenomic guidance for psychiatric drugs. Clinicoeconomics Outcomes Re.
