» Articles » PMID: 36006601

Integrating the Biology of Cardiovascular Disease into the Epidemiology of Economic Decision Modelling Via Mendelian Randomisation

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2022 Aug 25
PMID 36006601
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Health economic analyses are essential for health services research, providing decision-makers and payers with evidence about the value of interventions relative to their opportunity cost. However, many health economic approaches are still limited, especially regarding the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this article, we discuss some limitations to current health economic models and then outline an approach to address these via the incorporation of genomics into the design of health economic models for CVD. We propose that when a randomised clinical trial is not possible or practical, health economic models for primary prevention of CVD can be based on Mendelian randomisation analyses, a technique to assess causality in observational data. We discuss the advantages of this approach, such as integrating well-known disease biology into health economic models and how this may overcome current statistical approaches to assessing the benefits of interventions. We argue that this approach may provide the economic argument for integrating genomics into clinical practice and the efficient targeting of newer therapeutics, transforming our approach to the primary prevention of CVD, thereby moving from reactive to preventive healthcare. We end by discussing some limitations and potential pitfalls of this approach.

Citing Articles

Computational Biology in the Discovery of Biomarkers in the Diagnosis, Treatment and Management of Cardiovascular Diseases.

Batta I, Patial R, Sobti R, Agrawal D Cardiol Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 8(5):405-414.

PMID: 39328401 PMC: 11426419.


Celiac Disease Is a Risk Factor for Mature T and NK Cell Lymphoma: A Mendelian Randomization Study.

Martin-Masot R, Herrador-Lopez M, Navas-Lopez V, Carmona F, Nestares T, Bossini-Castillo L Int J Mol Sci. 2023; 24(8).

PMID: 37108375 PMC: 10139431. DOI: 10.3390/ijms24087216.

References
1.
Dixon P, Harrison S, Hollingworth W, Davies N, Davey Smith G . Estimating the causal effect of liability to disease on healthcare costs using Mendelian Randomization. Econ Hum Biol. 2022; 46:101154. DOI: 10.1016/j.ehb.2022.101154. View

2.
Gkatzionis A, Burgess S . Contextualizing selection bias in Mendelian randomization: how bad is it likely to be?. Int J Epidemiol. 2018; 48(3):691-701. PMC: 6659463. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyy202. View

3.
Ference B, Holmes M, Davey Smith G . Using Mendelian Randomization to Improve the Design of Randomized Trials. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2021; 11(7). PMC: 8247560. DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a040980. View

4.
Hartwig F, Davies N, Hemani G, Davey Smith G . Two-sample Mendelian randomization: avoiding the downsides of a powerful, widely applicable but potentially fallible technique. Int J Epidemiol. 2017; 45(6):1717-1726. PMC: 5722032. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyx028. View

5.
Schwappach D, Boluarte T, Suhrcke M . The economics of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease - a systematic review of economic evaluations. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2007; 5:5. PMC: 1876202. DOI: 10.1186/1478-7547-5-5. View