PURPOSE: This study investigated whole-exome sequencing (WES) yield in a subset of intellectually disabled patients referred to our clinical diagnostic center and calculated the total costs of these patients' diagnostic trajectory in order to evaluate early WES implementation. METHODS: We compared 17 patients' trio-WES yield with the retrospective costs of diagnostic procedures by comprehensively examining patient records and collecting resource use information for each patient, beginning with patient admittance and concluding with WES initiation. We calculated cost savings using scenario analyses to evaluate the costs replaced by WES when used as a first diagnostic tool. RESULTS: WES resulted in diagnostically useful outcomes in 29.4% of patients. The entire traditional diagnostic trajectory average cost was $16,409 per patient, substantially higher than the $3,972 trio-WES cost. WES resulted in average cost savings of $3,547 for genetic and metabolic investigations in diagnosed patients and $1,727 for genetic investigations in undiagnosed patients. CONCLUSION: The increased causal variant detection yield by WES and the relatively high costs of the entire traditional diagnostic trajectory suggest that early implementation of WES is a relevant and cost-efficient option in patient diagnostics. This information is crucial for centers considering implementation of WES and serves as input for future value-based research into diagnostics.Genet Med 18 9, 949-956.
PURPOSE: This study investigated whole-exome sequencing (WES) yield in a subset of intellectually disabled patients referred to our clinical diagnostic center and calculated the total costs of these patients' diagnostic trajectory in order to evaluate early WES implementation. METHODS: We compared 17 patients' trio-WES yield with the retrospective costs of diagnostic procedures by comprehensively examining patient records and collecting resource use information for each patient, beginning with patient admittance and concluding with WES initiation. We calculated cost savings using scenario analyses to evaluate the costs replaced by WES when used as a first diagnostic tool. RESULTS: WES resulted in diagnostically useful outcomes in 29.4% of patients. The entire traditional diagnostic trajectory average cost was $16,409 per patient, substantially higher than the $3,972 trio-WES cost. WES resulted in average cost savings of $3,547 for genetic and metabolic investigations in diagnosed patients and $1,727 for genetic investigations in undiagnosed patients. CONCLUSION: The increased causal variant detection yield by WES and the relatively high costs of the entire traditional diagnostic trajectory suggest that early implementation of WES is a relevant and cost-efficient option in patient diagnostics. This information is crucial for centers considering implementation of WES and serves as input for future value-based research into diagnostics.Genet Med 18 9, 949-956.
Authors: Gregory M Cooper; Eric A Stone; George Asimenos; Eric D Green; Serafim Batzoglou; Arend Sidow Journal: Genome Res Date: 2005-06-17 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Anita Rauch; Dagmar Wieczorek; Elisabeth Graf; Thomas Wieland; Sabine Endele; Thomas Schwarzmayr; Beate Albrecht; Deborah Bartholdi; Jasmin Beygo; Nataliya Di Donato; Andreas Dufke; Kirsten Cremer; Maja Hempel; Denise Horn; Juliane Hoyer; Pascal Joset; Albrecht Röpke; Ute Moog; Angelika Riess; Christian T Thiel; Andreas Tzschach; Antje Wiesener; Eva Wohlleber; Christiane Zweier; Arif B Ekici; Alexander M Zink; Andreas Rump; Christa Meisinger; Harald Grallert; Heinrich Sticht; Annette Schenck; Hartmut Engels; Gudrun Rappold; Evelin Schröck; Peter Wieacker; Olaf Riess; Thomas Meitinger; André Reis; Tim M Strom Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sarah E Soden; Carol J Saunders; Laurel K Willig; Emily G Farrow; Laurie D Smith; Josh E Petrikin; Jean-Baptiste LePichon; Neil A Miller; Isabelle Thiffault; Darrell L Dinwiddie; Greyson Twist; Aaron Noll; Bryce A Heese; Lee Zellmer; Andrea M Atherton; Ahmed T Abdelmoity; Nicole Safina; Sarah S Nyp; Britton Zuccarelli; Ingrid A Larson; Ann Modrcin; Suzanne Herd; Mitchell Creed; Zhaohui Ye; Xuan Yuan; Robert A Brodsky; Stephen F Kingsmore Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Alma Kuechler; Marjolein H Willemsen; Beate Albrecht; Carlos A Bacino; Dennis W Bartholomew; Hans van Bokhoven; Marie Jose H van den Boogaard; Nuria Bramswig; Christian Büttner; Kirsten Cremer; Johanna Christina Czeschik; Hartmut Engels; Koen van Gassen; Elisabeth Graf; Mieke van Haelst; Weimin He; Jacob S Hogue; Marlies Kempers; David Koolen; Glen Monroe; Sonja de Munnik; Matthew Pastore; André Reis; Miriam S Reuter; David H Tegay; Joris Veltman; Gepke Visser; Peter van Hasselt; Eric E J Smeets; Lisenka Vissers; Thomas Wieland; Willemijn Wissink; Helger Yntema; Alexander Michael Zink; Tim M Strom; Hermann-Josef Lüdecke; Tjitske Kleefstra; Dagmar Wieczorek Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2014-10-19 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Helen V Firth; Shola M Richards; A Paul Bevan; Stephen Clayton; Manuel Corpas; Diana Rajan; Steven Van Vooren; Yves Moreau; Roger M Pettett; Nigel P Carter Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2009-04-02 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Paldeep Singh Atwal; Marie-Louise Brennan; Rachel Cox; Michael Niaki; Julia Platt; Margaret Homeyer; Andrea Kwan; Sylvie Parkin; Susan Schelley; Leah Slattery; Yael Wilnai; Jonathan Adam Bernstein; Gregory M Enns; Louanne Hudgins Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Lindsay B Henderson; Carolyn D Applegate; Elizabeth Wohler; Molly B Sheridan; Julie Hoover-Fong; Denise A S Batista Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: S Anazi; S Maddirevula; E Faqeih; H Alsedairy; F Alzahrani; H E Shamseldin; N Patel; M Hashem; N Ibrahim; F Abdulwahab; N Ewida; H S Alsaif; H Al Sharif; W Alamoudi; A Kentab; F A Bashiri; M Alnaser; A H AlWadei; M Alfadhel; W Eyaid; A Hashem; A Al Asmari; M M Saleh; A AlSaman; K A Alhasan; M Alsughayir; M Al Shammari; A Mahmoud; Z N Al-Hassnan; M Al-Husain; R Osama Khalil; N Abd El Meguid; A Masri; R Ali; T Ben-Omran; P El Fishway; A Hashish; A Ercan Sencicek; M State; A M Alazami; M A Salih; N Altassan; S T Arold; M Abouelhoda; S M Wakil; D Monies; R Shaheen; F S Alkuraya Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Terry Vrijenhoek; Eline M Middelburg; Glen R Monroe; Koen L I van Gassen; Joost W Geenen; Anke M Hövels; Nine V Knoers; Hans Kristian Ploos van Amstel; Gerardus W J Frederix Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: I Borget; J Bonastre; Arnaud Bayle; N Droin; B Besse; Z Zou; Y Boursin; S Rissel; E Solary; L Lacroix; E Rouleau Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2021-03-25
Authors: Tiong Yang Tan; Oliver James Dillon; Zornitza Stark; Deborah Schofield; Khurshid Alam; Rupendra Shrestha; Belinda Chong; Dean Phelan; Gemma R Brett; Emma Creed; Anna Jarmolowicz; Patrick Yap; Maie Walsh; Lilian Downie; David J Amor; Ravi Savarirayan; George McGillivray; Alison Yeung; Heidi Peters; Susan J Robertson; Aaron J Robinson; Ivan Macciocca; Simon Sadedin; Katrina Bell; Alicia Oshlack; Peter Georgeson; Natalie Thorne; Clara Gaff; Susan M White Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Katherine B Howell; Stefanie Eggers; Kim Dalziel; Jessica Riseley; Simone Mandelstam; Candace T Myers; Jacinta M McMahon; Amy Schneider; Gemma L Carvill; Heather C Mefford; Ingrid E Scheffer; A Simon Harvey Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 5.864