Value for money? Array genomic hybridization for diagnostic testing for genetic causes of intellectual disability.
Array genomic hybridization (AGH) provides a higher detection rate than does conventional cytogenetic testing when searching for chromosomal imbalance causing intellectual disability (ID). AGH is more costly than conventional cytogenetic testing, and it remains unclear whether AGH provides good value for money. Decision analytic modeling was used to evaluate the trade-off between costs, clinical effectiveness, and benefit of an AGH testing strategy compared to a conventional testing strategy. The trade-off between cost and effectiveness was expressed via the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed via Monte Carlo simulation. The baseline AGH testing strategy led to an average cost increase of $217 (95% CI $172-$261) per patient and an additional 8.2 diagnoses in every 100 tested (0.082; 95% CI 0.044-0.119). The mean incremental cost per additional diagnosis was $2646 (95% CI $1619-$5296). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that there was a 95% probability that AGH would be cost effective if decision makers were willing to pay $4550 for an additional diagnosis. Our model suggests that using AGH instead of conventional karyotyping for most ID patients provides good value for money. Deterministic sensitivity analysis found that employing AGH after first-line cytogenetic testing had proven uninformative did not provide good value for money when compared to using AGH as first-line testing.
Regier
Dean A
DA
National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. dean.regier@sickkids.ca
Friedman
Jan M
JM
Marra
Carlo A
CA
D002648:Child; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D015894:Genome, Human; D006801:Humans; D008607:Intellectual Disability / Q000235:genetics*; D009693:Nucleic Acid Hybridization; D040841:Resource Allocation / Q000379:methods
Genet Med. 2009 Aug;11(8):570-4
19478683
Am J Hum Genet. 2005 Oct;77(4):606-16
16175506
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2008;9:71-86
18949852
J Med Genet. 2006 Aug;43(8):625-33
16490798
Neurology. 2003 Feb 11;60(3):367-80
12578916
J Med Genet. 2006 Feb;43(2):180-6
15980116
Am J Hum Genet. 2003 Dec;73(6):1261-70
14628292
Am J Med Genet A. 2005 Dec 15;139(3):173-85
16283669
Eur J Hum Genet. 2005 Jan;13(1):6-25
15523501
J Med Genet. 1998 Mar;35(3):177-82
9541099
J Med Genet. 2004 Apr;41(4):241-8
15060094
Med Decis Making. 2003 Jul-Aug;23(4):341-50
12926584
Am J Med Genet A. 2006 Feb 1;140(3):205-11
16419101
Am J Med Genet A. 2006 Oct 1;140(19):2063-74
16917849
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Jan;1151:157-66
19154522
J Med Genet. 2002 Aug;39(8):546-53
12161591
Dev Med Child Neurol. 1997 Feb;39(2):125-32
9062428
Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(7):659-85
15987225
CMAJ. 1992 Feb 15;146(4):473-81
1306034
J Med Genet. 2006 Jun;43(6):478-89
16199540
J Med Genet. 2005 Sep;42(9):699-705
16141005
Genet Med. 2007 Feb;9(2):74-9
17304048
Pediatr Neonatol. 2008 Dec;49(6):213-7
19166117
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2006;115(3-4):254-61
17124408
Genet Med. 2009 Aug;11(8):575-6
19623080
Clin Genet. 2009 Jun;75(6):514-21
19508416
Am J Hum Genet. 2006 Sep;79(3):500-13
16909388
Clin Genet. 2007 Oct;72(4):271-87
17850622