P C Adams1, L S Valberg. 1. Department of Medicine, London Health Sciences Center, University of Western Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The identification of a gene for hereditary hemochromatosis in 69-100% of typical hemochromatosis patients has resulted in a genotypic test to identify persons with the typical missense mutation. Population screening by genotyping has the potential to reduce screening costs because of a high specificity of the genetic test. METHODS: Decision analysis techniques are used to compare the outcome, utility, and incremental cost savings of a plan to screen voluntary blood donors and their siblings for hemochromatosis using a genotypic test (C282Y mutation) with phenotypic tests (transferrin saturation, serum ferritin). RESULTS: Genotypic screening is less expensive than phenotypic screening only if the cost of the initial genetic test is less than $20. The screening program saves money (dominant strategy) if the cost of the initial genetic test is less than $28. Incremental cost saving declines as the cost of the gene test increases. At a gene test cost of $173, it costs $109,358 to identify a homozygote with potential life-threatening illness. Incremental cost saving also declines as the penetrance of the hemochromatosis gene in the population screened decreases. Phenotypic screening with confirmatory genetic testing results in a cost of $2,711 per homozygote with life-threatening complications. CONCLUSIONS: Population screening programs for hemochromatosis have the potential to save money. Optimal strategies for screening include initial testing for iron overload (phenotyping) with confirmatory genetic testing, or initial genetic testing if the test is less than $28.
OBJECTIVE: The identification of a gene for hereditary hemochromatosis in 69-100% of typical hemochromatosispatients has resulted in a genotypic test to identify persons with the typical missense mutation. Population screening by genotyping has the potential to reduce screening costs because of a high specificity of the genetic test. METHODS: Decision analysis techniques are used to compare the outcome, utility, and incremental cost savings of a plan to screen voluntary blood donors and their siblings for hemochromatosis using a genotypic test (C282Y mutation) with phenotypic tests (transferrin saturation, serum ferritin). RESULTS: Genotypic screening is less expensive than phenotypic screening only if the cost of the initial genetic test is less than $20. The screening program saves money (dominant strategy) if the cost of the initial genetic test is less than $28. Incremental cost saving declines as the cost of the gene test increases. At a gene test cost of $173, it costs $109,358 to identify a homozygote with potential life-threatening illness. Incremental cost saving also declines as the penetrance of the hemochromatosis gene in the population screened decreases. Phenotypic screening with confirmatory genetic testing results in a cost of $2,711 per homozygote with life-threatening complications. CONCLUSIONS: Population screening programs for hemochromatosis have the potential to save money. Optimal strategies for screening include initial testing for iron overload (phenotyping) with confirmatory genetic testing, or initial genetic testing if the test is less than $28.
Authors: Wolf H Rogowski; Scott D Grosse; Jürgen John; Helena Kääriäinen; Alastair Kent; Ulf Kristofferson; Jörg Schmidtke Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2010-10-16
Authors: Frauke Becker; Carla G van El; Dolores Ibarreta; Eleni Zika; Stuart Hogarth; Pascal Borry; Anne Cambon-Thomsen; Jean Jacques Cassiman; Gerry Evers-Kiebooms; Shirley Hodgson; A Cécile J W Janssens; Helena Kaariainen; Michael Krawczak; Ulf Kristoffersson; Jan Lubinski; Christine Patch; Victor B Penchaszadeh; Andrew Read; Wolf Rogowski; Jorge Sequeiros; Lisbeth Tranebjaerg; Irene M van Langen; Helen Wallace; Ron Zimmern; Jörg Schmidtke; Martina C Cornel Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: E Cadet; D Capron; M Gallet; M-L Omanga-Léké; H Boutignon; C Julier; K J H Robson; J Rochette Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Paul Adams; James C Barton; Gordon D McLaren; Ronald T Acton; Mark Speechley; Christine E McLaren; David M Reboussin; Catherine Leiendecker-Foster; Emily L Harris; Beverly M Snively; Thomas Vogt; Phyliss Sholinsky; Elizabeth Thomson; Fitzroy W Dawkins; Victor R Gordeuk; John H Eckfeldt Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.522