PURPOSE: Evaluation of genomic tests is often challenging because of the lack of direct evidence of clinical benefit compared with usual care and unclear evidence requirements. To address these issues, this study presents a risk-benefit framework for assessing the health-related utility of genomic tests. METHODS: We incorporated approaches from a variety of established fields including decision science, outcomes research, and health technology assessment to develop the framework. Additionally, we considered genomic test stakeholder perspectives and case studies. RESULTS: We developed a three-tiered framework: first, we use decision-analytic modeling techniques to synthesize data, project incidence of clinical events, and assess uncertainty. Second, we defined the health-related utility of genomic tests as improvement in health outcomes as measured by clinical event rates, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life-years. Finally, we displayed results using a risk-benefit policy matrix to facilitate the interpretation and implementation of findings from these analyses. CONCLUSION: A formal risk-benefit framework may accelerate the utilization and practice-based evidence development of genomic tests that pose low risk and offer plausible clinical benefit, while discouraging premature use of tests that provide little benefit or pose significant health risks compared with usual care.
PURPOSE: Evaluation of genomic tests is often challenging because of the lack of direct evidence of clinical benefit compared with usual care and unclear evidence requirements. To address these issues, this study presents a risk-benefit framework for assessing the health-related utility of genomic tests. METHODS: We incorporated approaches from a variety of established fields including decision science, outcomes research, and health technology assessment to develop the framework. Additionally, we considered genomic test stakeholder perspectives and case studies. RESULTS: We developed a three-tiered framework: first, we use decision-analytic modeling techniques to synthesize data, project incidence of clinical events, and assess uncertainty. Second, we defined the health-related utility of genomic tests as improvement in health outcomes as measured by clinical event rates, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life-years. Finally, we displayed results using a risk-benefit policy matrix to facilitate the interpretation and implementation of findings from these analyses. CONCLUSION: A formal risk-benefit framework may accelerate the utilization and practice-based evidence development of genomic tests that pose low risk and offer plausible clinical benefit, while discouraging premature use of tests that provide little benefit or pose significant health risks compared with usual care.
Authors: Michael A Hillman; Russell A Wilke; Steven H Yale; Humberto J Vidaillet; Michael D Caldwell; Ingrid Glurich; Richard L Berg; John Schmelzer; James K Burmester Journal: Clin Med Res Date: 2005-08
Authors: Steven M Teutsch; Linda A Bradley; Glenn E Palomaki; James E Haddow; Margaret Piper; Ned Calonge; W David Dotson; Michael P Douglas; Alfred O Berg Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Kirsten Neudoerffer Kangelaris; Stephen Bent; Robert L Nussbaum; David A Garcia; Jeffrey A Tice Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-03-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: J N Kohler; E Turbitt; K L Lewis; B S Wilfond; L Jamal; H L Peay; L G Biesecker; B B Biesecker Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Susan R Snyder; Jing Hao; Larisa H Cavallari; Zhi Geng; Amanda Elsey; Julie A Johnson; Zahurin Mohamed; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk; Huey Yi Chong; Maznah Dahlui; Fatiha H Shabaruddin; George P Patrinos; Christina Mitropoulou; Marc S Williams Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: James M Hoffman; Cyrine E Haidar; Mark R Wilkinson; Kristine R Crews; Donald K Baker; Nancy M Kornegay; Wenjian Yang; Ching-Hon Pui; Ulrike M Reiss; Aditya H Gaur; Scott C Howard; William E Evans; Ulrich Broeckel; Mary V Relling Journal: Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.908
Authors: Jennifer L Hall; John J Ryan; Bruce E Bray; Candice Brown; David Lanfear; L Kristin Newby; Mary V Relling; Neil J Risch; Dan M Roden; Stanley Y Shaw; James E Tcheng; Jessica Tenenbaum; Thomas N Wang; William S Weintraub Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2016-03-14