Elvira D'Andrea1, Carolina Marzuillo1, Ferruccio Pelone2, Corrado De Vito1, Paolo Villari3. 1. Dip. Sanità pubblica e malattie infettive, Sapienza Università di Roma, Italy. 2. Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George's, University of London, London, UK. 3. Dip. Sanità pubblica e malattie infettive, Sapienza Università di Roma, Italy. paolo.villari@uniroma1.it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify those studies in which economic analysis of predictive genetic and pharmacogenetic testing programs have been carried out. Since the Italian National Prevention Plan 2014-2018 foresees the implementation of genetic testing for inherited breast cancer, special attention was given to the cost-effectiveness of BRCA1/2 testing programs. METHODS: A systematic review of primary economic evaluations (EEs) of predictive genetic and pharmacogenetic testing programs and an overview of previously published systematic reviews of economic evaluations (ERs) was performed. RESULTS: Overall 128 EEs and 11 ERs were identified. The methodological quality of both EEs and ERs was good on average. Both predictive genetic and pharmacogenetic testing programs were mainly concerned with oncological diseases. Seventeen percent of genetic testing programs are cost-saving, while a further 44% of cost/QALY ratios fall under the commonly used threshold of €37,000 per QALY. For BRCA1/2 testing, only cascade genetic screening programs, targeted to close relatives of carriers, show clear evidence of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Despite some limitations, EEs and ERs are powerful tools that provide indications to policy-makers on which genetic testing programs might be introduced into health care systems and public health practice.
OBJECTIVES: To identify those studies in which economic analysis of predictive genetic and pharmacogenetic testing programs have been carried out. Since the Italian National Prevention Plan 2014-2018 foresees the implementation of genetic testing for inherited breast cancer, special attention was given to the cost-effectiveness of BRCA1/2 testing programs. METHODS: A systematic review of primary economic evaluations (EEs) of predictive genetic and pharmacogenetic testing programs and an overview of previously published systematic reviews of economic evaluations (ERs) was performed. RESULTS: Overall 128 EEs and 11 ERs were identified. The methodological quality of both EEs and ERs was good on average. Both predictive genetic and pharmacogenetic testing programs were mainly concerned with oncological diseases. Seventeen percent of genetic testing programs are cost-saving, while a further 44% of cost/QALY ratios fall under the commonly used threshold of €37,000 per QALY. For BRCA1/2 testing, only cascade genetic screening programs, targeted to close relatives of carriers, show clear evidence of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Despite some limitations, EEs and ERs are powerful tools that provide indications to policy-makers on which genetic testing programs might be introduced into health care systems and public health practice.
Authors: Veda N Giri; Karen E Knudsen; William K Kelly; Wassim Abida; Gerald L Andriole; Chris H Bangma; Justin E Bekelman; Mitchell C Benson; Amie Blanco; Arthur Burnett; William J Catalona; Kathleen A Cooney; Matthew Cooperberg; David E Crawford; Robert B Den; Adam P Dicker; Scott Eggener; Neil Fleshner; Matthew L Freedman; Freddie C Hamdy; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Mark D Hurwitz; Colette Hyatt; William B Isaacs; Christopher J Kane; Philip Kantoff; R Jeffrey Karnes; Lawrence I Karsh; Eric A Klein; Daniel W Lin; Kevin R Loughlin; Grace Lu-Yao; S Bruce Malkowicz; Mark J Mann; James R Mark; Peter A McCue; Martin M Miner; Todd Morgan; Judd W Moul; Ronald E Myers; Sarah M Nielsen; Elias Obeid; Christian P Pavlovich; Stephen C Peiper; David F Penson; Daniel Petrylak; Curtis A Pettaway; Robert Pilarski; Peter A Pinto; Wendy Poage; Ganesh V Raj; Timothy R Rebbeck; Mark E Robson; Matt T Rosenberg; Howard Sandler; Oliver Sartor; Edward Schaeffer; Gordon F Schwartz; Mark S Shahin; Neal D Shore; Brian Shuch; Howard R Soule; Scott A Tomlins; Edouard J Trabulsi; Robert Uzzo; Donald J Vander Griend; Patrick C Walsh; Carol J Weil; Richard Wender; Leonard G Gomella Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Karl Johnson; Katherine W Saylor; Isabella Guynn; Karen Hicklin; Jonathan S Berg; Kristen Hassmiller Lich Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Charité N Ricker; Rachel B Koff; Chenxu Qu; Julie Culver; Duveen Sturgeon; Kerry E Kingham; Katrina Lowstuter; Nicolette M Chun; Courtney Rowe-Teeter; Alexandra Lebensohn; Peter Levonian; Katlyn Partynski; Karlena Lara-Otero; Christine Hong; Iva M Petrovchich; Meredith A Mills; Anne-Renee Hartman; Brian Allen; Uri Ladabaum; Kevin McDonnell; James M Ford; Stephen B Gruber; Allison W Kurian; Gregory E Idos Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Elvira D'Andrea; Carolina Marzuillo; Corrado De Vito; Marco Di Marco; Erica Pitini; Maria Rosaria Vacchio; Paolo Villari Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 8.822