Michael Abbott, Mandy Ryan, Rodolfo Hernández, Lynda McKenzie, Sebastian Heidenreich, Lynne Hocking, Caroline Clark, Morad Ansari, David Moore, Anne Lampe, Ruth McGowan, Jonathan Berg, Zosia Miedzybrodzka
{"title":"苏格兰是否应为罕见发育障碍的诊断提供全基因组测序?成本效益分析。","authors":"Michael Abbott, Mandy Ryan, Rodolfo Hernández, Lynda McKenzie, Sebastian Heidenreich, Lynne Hocking, Caroline Clark, Morad Ansari, David Moore, Anne Lampe, Ruth McGowan, Jonathan Berg, Zosia Miedzybrodzka","doi":"10.1007/s10198-024-01717-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the cost effectiveness of genetic and genomic testing strategies for the diagnosis of rare developmental disorders in NHS Scotland.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six genetic and genomic testing strategies were evaluated using a decision tree model. First-line, second-line and last-resort trio genome sequencing (GS), and second-line and last-resort trio exome sequencing (ES) were compared with standard genetic testing. The cost effectiveness of each strategy was expressed in terms of incremental cost per additional diagnosis. The impact of uncertainty on cost-effectiveness results was explored using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2nd-line ES was a cost-saving option, increasing diagnostic yield by 13.9% and decreasing cost by £1027 per trio compared to standard genetic testing. Compared to ES, strategies involving GS increased costs significantly, with only a moderate or zero improvement in diagnostic yield. Sensitivity analysis indicated that significant reductions in cost or improvements in diagnostic yield are required before 1st-line GS becomes cost effective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>2nd-line ES (after chromosomal microarray; replacing gene panel testing) for the diagnosis of developmental disorders is a cost-saving option for the Scottish NHS. Ongoing economic evaluation is required to monitor the evolving cost and diagnostic yield of GS and ES over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":51416,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should Scotland provide genome-wide sequencing for the diagnosis of rare developmental disorders? A cost-effectiveness analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Michael Abbott, Mandy Ryan, Rodolfo Hernández, Lynda McKenzie, Sebastian Heidenreich, Lynne Hocking, Caroline Clark, Morad Ansari, David Moore, Anne Lampe, Ruth McGowan, Jonathan Berg, Zosia Miedzybrodzka\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10198-024-01717-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the cost effectiveness of genetic and genomic testing strategies for the diagnosis of rare developmental disorders in NHS Scotland.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six genetic and genomic testing strategies were evaluated using a decision tree model. First-line, second-line and last-resort trio genome sequencing (GS), and second-line and last-resort trio exome sequencing (ES) were compared with standard genetic testing. The cost effectiveness of each strategy was expressed in terms of incremental cost per additional diagnosis. The impact of uncertainty on cost-effectiveness results was explored using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2nd-line ES was a cost-saving option, increasing diagnostic yield by 13.9% and decreasing cost by £1027 per trio compared to standard genetic testing. Compared to ES, strategies involving GS increased costs significantly, with only a moderate or zero improvement in diagnostic yield. Sensitivity analysis indicated that significant reductions in cost or improvements in diagnostic yield are required before 1st-line GS becomes cost effective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>2nd-line ES (after chromosomal microarray; replacing gene panel testing) for the diagnosis of developmental disorders is a cost-saving option for the Scottish NHS. Ongoing economic evaluation is required to monitor the evolving cost and diagnostic yield of GS and ES over time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Health Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Health Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01717-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01717-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究旨在评估苏格兰国家医疗服务体系用于诊断罕见发育障碍的基因和基因组检测策略的成本效益:采用决策树模型对六种基因和基因组检测策略进行了评估。将一线、二线和最后三线基因组测序(GS)以及二线和最后三线外显子组测序(ES)与标准基因检测进行了比较。每种策略的成本效益均以每次额外诊断的增量成本表示。结果:与标准基因检测相比,二线外显子测序可节省成本,诊断率提高了 13.9%,每三人组的成本降低了 1027 英镑。与 ES 相比,涉及 GS 的策略会显著增加成本,但诊断率仅有适度提高或为零。敏感性分析表明,在一线 GS 具有成本效益之前,需要大幅降低成本或提高诊断率。结论:对于苏格兰国家医疗服务体系而言,二线 ES(在染色体微阵列之后;取代基因组检测)诊断发育障碍是一种节约成本的选择。需要持续进行经济评估,以监测随着时间推移 GS 和 ES 的成本和诊断率的变化情况。
Should Scotland provide genome-wide sequencing for the diagnosis of rare developmental disorders? A cost-effectiveness analysis.
Aims: This study aims to evaluate the cost effectiveness of genetic and genomic testing strategies for the diagnosis of rare developmental disorders in NHS Scotland.
Methods: Six genetic and genomic testing strategies were evaluated using a decision tree model. First-line, second-line and last-resort trio genome sequencing (GS), and second-line and last-resort trio exome sequencing (ES) were compared with standard genetic testing. The cost effectiveness of each strategy was expressed in terms of incremental cost per additional diagnosis. The impact of uncertainty on cost-effectiveness results was explored using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
Results: 2nd-line ES was a cost-saving option, increasing diagnostic yield by 13.9% and decreasing cost by £1027 per trio compared to standard genetic testing. Compared to ES, strategies involving GS increased costs significantly, with only a moderate or zero improvement in diagnostic yield. Sensitivity analysis indicated that significant reductions in cost or improvements in diagnostic yield are required before 1st-line GS becomes cost effective.
Conclusion: 2nd-line ES (after chromosomal microarray; replacing gene panel testing) for the diagnosis of developmental disorders is a cost-saving option for the Scottish NHS. Ongoing economic evaluation is required to monitor the evolving cost and diagnostic yield of GS and ES over time.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Health Economics is a journal of Health Economics and associated disciplines. The growing demand for health economics and the introduction of new guidelines in various European countries were the motivation to generate a highly scientific and at the same time practice oriented journal considering the requirements of various health care systems in Europe. The international scientific board of opinion leaders guarantees high-quality, peer-reviewed publications as well as articles for pragmatic approaches in the field of health economics. We intend to cover all aspects of health economics:
• Basics of health economic approaches and methods
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Health Care Systems
• Pricing and Reimbursement Systems
• Quality-of-Life-Studies The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. The author will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements.
Officially cited as: Eur J Health Econ