Cost-Utility Analysis of Using Polygenic Risk Scores to Guide Statin Therapy for Cardiovascular Disease

Abstract

Introduction: There are no economic evaluations to determine the value of PRSs. The objective of this study was to determine if the addition of a PRS to traditional risk factors to guide statin therapy is a cost-effective intervention for the prevention of primary MI cases in the Ontario healthcare payer perspective.

Methods: A PRS cost-effectiveness model was constructed to produce various statin prescription strategies in conjunction with the FRS. Upper PRS thresholds (between 25% to 70%) were set such that individuals falling into them would be eligible for statins while those in lower PRS thresholds (between 1% to 25%) were deemed protected and removed from consideration. The model determined number of incident MIs saved or not saved by statins, costs, quality of life, and the effect of statins on preventing MIs over a 10-year time horizon, discounted at 1.5% annually. One-way sensitivity analysis and a PSA were performed by varying all model parameters. Non-related participants of white British descent from 96,736 participants in the UK Biobank at intermediate risk for cardiovascular disease, determined using the Canadian Cardiovascular Society dyslipidemia guidelines of 2016, were used for the study.

Results: The optimal clinical and economic strategy was one whereby the top 70% PRS individuals are eligible for statins, with the lower 5% PRS excluded. A base-case analysis at a PRS cost of $70 produced an ICER of $747,184.10/QALY, ranging from $525,678.90/QALY to $930,144.40/QALY in a one-way sensitivity analysis. In the PSA, the intervention has approximately a 50% probability of being cost-effective at $750,000/QALY. At a genotyping cost of $0, statin strategies guided by PRS dominated standard care when at least 12% of the lower PRS individuals were withheld from statins. When the predictive performance of the PRS is increased, the ICER drops drastically depending on the cost of genotyping and statin strategy.

Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness model considers MI cases exclusively and a short, 10-year time horizon which likely overestimate the ICER. However, this study elucidates that the PRS has the potential to be extremely cost-effective in the future.