Literature DB >> 20398885

Value for money? Array genomic hybridization for diagnostic testing for genetic causes of intellectual disability.

Dean A Regier1, Jan M Friedman, Carlo A Marra.   

Abstract

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. Copyright (c) 2010 The American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20398885      PMCID: PMC2869008          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.03.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Genet        ISSN: 0002-9297            Impact factor:   11.025


  28 in total

1.  Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for decision trees with multiple branches: use of the Dirichlet distribution in a Bayesian framework.

Authors:  Andrew H Briggs; A E Ades; Martin J Price
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 2.  Diagnostic investigations in individuals with mental retardation: a systematic literature review of their usefulness.

Authors:  Clara D M van Karnebeek; Maaike C E Jansweijer; Arnold G E Leenders; Martin Offringa; Raoul C M Hennekam
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations.

Authors:  A Laupacis; D Feeny; A S Detsky; P X Tugwell
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-02-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 4.  The prevalence of mental retardation: a critical review of recent literature.

Authors:  N Roeleveld; G A Zielhuis; F Gabreëls
Journal:  Dev Med Child Neurol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 5.449

Review 5.  Recurrence risks in mental retardation.

Authors:  Y J Crow; J L Tolmie
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 6.318

Review 6.  Evaluating health-related quality-of-life studies in paediatric populations: some conceptual, methodological and developmental considerations and recent applications.

Authors:  Mirella De Civita; Dean Regier; Abul H Alamgir; Aslam H Anis; Mark J Fitzgerald; Carlo A Marra
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Prospective screening for subtelomeric rearrangements in children with mental retardation of unknown aetiology: the Amsterdam experience.

Authors:  C D M van Karnebeek; C Koevoets; S Sluijter; E K Bijlsma; D F M C Smeets; E J Redeker; R C M Hennekam; J M N Hoovers
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 6.318

8.  Microarray based comparative genomic hybridisation (array-CGH) detects submicroscopic chromosomal deletions and duplications in patients with learning disability/mental retardation and dysmorphic features.

Authors:  C Shaw-Smith; R Redon; L Rickman; M Rio; L Willatt; H Fiegler; H Firth; D Sanlaville; R Winter; L Colleaux; M Bobrow; N P Carter
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 6.318

9.  Array-based comparative genomic hybridization for the genomewide detection of submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities.

Authors:  Lisenka E L M Vissers; Bert B A de Vries; Kazutoyo Osoegawa; Irene M Janssen; Ton Feuth; Chik On Choy; Huub Straatman; Walter van der Vliet; Erik H L P G Huys; Anke van Rijk; Dominique Smeets; Conny M A van Ravenswaaij-Arts; Nine V Knoers; Ineke van der Burgt; Pieter J de Jong; Han G Brunner; Ad Geurts van Kessel; Eric F P M Schoenmakers; Joris A Veltman
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2003-11-18       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  Personal utility and genomic information: look before you leap.

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Colleen M McBride; James P Evans; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  25 in total

1.  Lack of microarray uptake compromises diagnosis of young.

Authors:  Virginia Hughes
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 53.440

2.  Cost Effectiveness of Karyotyping, Chromosomal Microarray Analysis, and Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing of Patients with Unexplained Global Developmental Delay or Intellectual Disability.

Authors:  Yonghong Li; Lori A Anderson; Edward I Ginns; James J Devlin
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.074

Review 3.  Epilepsy and the new cytogenetics.

Authors:  John C Mulley; Heather C Mefford
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 5.864

4.  Prenatal diagnosis of fetal aneuploidies: post-genomic developments.

Authors:  Sinuhe Hahn; Laird G Jackson; Bernhard G Zimmermann
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2010-08-05       Impact factor: 11.117

5.  Comparative effectiveness of next generation genomic sequencing for disease diagnosis: design of a randomized controlled trial in patients with colorectal cancer/polyposis syndromes.

Authors:  Carlos J Gallego; Caroline S Bennette; Patrick Heagerty; Bryan Comstock; Martha Horike-Pyne; Fuki Hisama; Laura M Amendola; Robin L Bennett; Michael O Dorschner; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; William M Grady; S Malia Fullerton; Susan B Trinidad; Dean A Regier; Deborah A Nickerson; Wylie Burke; Donald L Patrick; Gail P Jarvik; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Dean A Regier; Stuart J Peacock; Reka Pataky; Kimberly van der Hoek; Gail P Jarvik; Jeffrey Hoch; David Veenstra
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Genetic testing and genetic counseling among Medicaid-enrolled children with autism spectrum disorder in 2001 and 2007.

Authors:  Lindsay Shea; Craig J Newschaffer; Ming Xie; Scott M Myers; David S Mandell
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2013-09-15       Impact factor: 4.132

8.  An economic analysis of prenatal cytogenetic technologies for sonographically detected fetal anomalies.

Authors:  Lorie M Harper; Amelia L M Sutton; Ryan E Longman; Anthony O Odibo
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2014-03-24       Impact factor: 2.802

9.  A microcosting and cost-consequence analysis of clinical genomic testing strategies in autism spectrum disorder.

Authors:  Kate Tsiplova; Richard M Zur; Christian R Marshall; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; Sergio L Pereira; Daniele Merico; Edwin J Young; Wilson W L Sung; Stephen W Scherer; Wendy J Ungar
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Issues surrounding the health economic evaluation of genomic technologies.

Authors:  James Buchanan; Sarah Wordsworth; Anna Schuh
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.533

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.