Wolf H Rogowski1. 1. Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Neuherberg, Germany. Rogowski@helmholtz-muenchen.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Genetic tests for hereditary hemochromatosis (HH) are currently included in the German ambulatory care reimbursement scheme but only for symptomatic individuals and the offspring of HH patients. This study synthesizes the most current evidence to examine whether screening in the broader population is cost-effective and to identify the best choice of initial and follow-up screening tests. METHODS: A probabilistic decision-analytic model was constructed to calculate cost per life year gained (LYG) for HH screening among male Caucasians aged 30. Three strategies were considered in both the general population and male offspring of HH patients: phenotypic (transferrin saturation, TS), genotypic (C282Y mutation), and sequential (genotype if TS is elevated) screening. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness of sequential screening among male offspring, sequential population-wide screening, and genotypic screening is 41000, 124000, and 161000 Eero/LYG, respectively. All other strategies were subject to simple or extended dominance. The results are subject to high uncertainty. The most influential parameters in the deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis are discounting of life years gained and the adherence of patients to preventive phlebotomy. DISCUSSION: The current German policy of only screening at-risk individuals is consistent with health economic decision making based on typically accepted thresholds. However, conducting the DNA test after the first elevated TS result is more cost-effective than waiting for a second TS result as recommended by the German guidelines. Further empirical work regarding adherence to long-term prevention recommendations and explicit and well-justified guidance for the choice of discount rates in German economic evaluation are needed.
OBJECTIVE: Genetic tests for hereditary hemochromatosis (HH) are currently included in the German ambulatory care reimbursement scheme but only for symptomatic individuals and the offspring of HHpatients. This study synthesizes the most current evidence to examine whether screening in the broader population is cost-effective and to identify the best choice of initial and follow-up screening tests. METHODS: A probabilistic decision-analytic model was constructed to calculate cost per life year gained (LYG) for HH screening among male Caucasians aged 30. Three strategies were considered in both the general population and male offspring of HHpatients: phenotypic (transferrin saturation, TS), genotypic (C282Y mutation), and sequential (genotype if TS is elevated) screening. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness of sequential screening among male offspring, sequential population-wide screening, and genotypic screening is 41000, 124000, and 161000 Eero/LYG, respectively. All other strategies were subject to simple or extended dominance. The results are subject to high uncertainty. The most influential parameters in the deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis are discounting of life years gained and the adherence of patients to preventive phlebotomy. DISCUSSION: The current German policy of only screening at-risk individuals is consistent with health economic decision making based on typically accepted thresholds. However, conducting the DNA test after the first elevated TS result is more cost-effective than waiting for a second TS result as recommended by the German guidelines. Further empirical work regarding adherence to long-term prevention recommendations and explicit and well-justified guidance for the choice of discount rates in German economic evaluation are needed.
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: Marcin Krawczyk; Roman Müllenbach; Susanne N Weber; Vincent Zimmer; Frank Lammert Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 46.802
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: 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