Yonghong Li1, Lori A Anderson2, Edward I Ginns3, James J Devlin2. 1. Quest Diagnostics, 33608 Ortega Highway, San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92675, USA. yonghong.x.li2@questdiagnostics.com. 2. Quest Diagnostics, 33608 Ortega Highway, San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92675, USA. 3. Quest Diagnostics, Marlborough, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic diagnosis of unexplained global developmental delay and intellectual disability (GDD/ID) often ends the diagnostic odyssey and can lead to changes in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the cost effectiveness of testing scenarios involving several methods used to diagnose GDD/ID: karyotyping, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), and targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS). METHODS: We used decision-tree models to estimate the number of genetic diagnoses, the cost from a payers' perspective in the USA, and the incremental cost per additional genetic diagnosis. Model parameters were taken from peer-reviewed literature and governmental fee schedules. RESULTS: CMA testing results in more genetic diagnoses at an incremental cost of US $2692 per additional diagnosis compared with karyotyping, which has an average cost per diagnosis of US $11,033. Performing both tests sequentially results in the same number of diagnoses, but the total cost is less when CMA testing is done first and karyotyping second. Furthermore, when CMA testing yields a variant of unknown significance, additional genetic diagnoses can be obtained at an incremental cost of US $4220 by CMA testing of both parents, and when parents are not available or the patient had a normal CMA result, targeted NGS of the patient can add diagnoses at a further incremental cost of US $12,295. CONCLUSION: These results provide a cost effectiveness rationale for the use of CMA as the first-tier test for the genetic diagnosis of unexplained GDD/ID and further indicate that testing of both parents may be cost effective when a variant of unknown significance is detected in the patient.
BACKGROUND: Genetic diagnosis of unexplained global developmental delay and intellectual disability (GDD/ID) often ends the diagnostic odyssey and can lead to changes in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the cost effectiveness of testing scenarios involving several methods used to diagnose GDD/ID: karyotyping, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), and targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS). METHODS: We used decision-tree models to estimate the number of genetic diagnoses, the cost from a payers' perspective in the USA, and the incremental cost per additional genetic diagnosis. Model parameters were taken from peer-reviewed literature and governmental fee schedules. RESULTS: CMA testing results in more genetic diagnoses at an incremental cost of US $2692 per additional diagnosis compared with karyotyping, which has an average cost per diagnosis of US $11,033. Performing both tests sequentially results in the same number of diagnoses, but the total cost is less when CMA testing is done first and karyotyping second. Furthermore, when CMA testing yields a variant of unknown significance, additional genetic diagnoses can be obtained at an incremental cost of US $4220 by CMA testing of both parents, and when parents are not available or the patient had a normal CMA result, targeted NGS of the patient can add diagnoses at a further incremental cost of US $12,295. CONCLUSION: These results provide a cost effectiveness rationale for the use of CMA as the first-tier test for the genetic diagnosis of unexplained GDD/ID and further indicate that testing of both parents may be cost effective when a variant of unknown significance is detected in the patient.
Authors: David T Miller; Margaret P Adam; Swaroop Aradhya; Leslie G Biesecker; Arthur R Brothman; Nigel P Carter; Deanna M Church; John A Crolla; Evan E Eichler; Charles J Epstein; W Andrew Faucett; Lars Feuk; Jan M Friedman; Ada Hamosh; Laird Jackson; Erin B Kaminsky; Klaas Kok; Ian D Krantz; Robert M Kuhn; Charles Lee; James M Ostell; Carla Rosenberg; Stephen W Scherer; Nancy B Spinner; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; James H Tepperberg; Erik C Thorland; Joris R Vermeesch; Darrel J Waggoner; Michael S Watson; Christa Lese Martin; David H Ledbetter Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Rolph Pfundt; Kat Kwiatkowski; Alan Roter; Anju Shukla; Eric Thorland; Richard Hockett; Barbara DuPont; Eric T Fung; Alka Chaubey Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Detelina Grozeva; Keren Carss; Olivera Spasic-Boskovic; Maria-Isabel Tejada; Jozef Gecz; Marie Shaw; Mark Corbett; Eric Haan; Elizabeth Thompson; Kathryn Friend; Zaamin Hussain; Anna Hackett; Michael Field; Alessandra Renieri; Roger Stevenson; Charles Schwartz; James A B Floyd; Jamie Bentham; Catherine Cosgrove; Bernard Keavney; Shoumo Bhattacharya; Matthew Hurles; F Lucy Raymond Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Yiping Shen; Kira A Dies; Ingrid A Holm; Carolyn Bridgemohan; Magdi M Sobeih; Elizabeth B Caronna; Karen J Miller; Jean A Frazier; Iris Silverstein; Jonathan Picker; Laura Weissman; Peter Raffalli; Shafali Jeste; Laurie A Demmer; Heather K Peters; Stephanie J Brewster; Sara J Kowalczyk; Beth Rosen-Sheidley; Caroline McGowan; Andrew W Duda; Sharyn A Lincoln; Kathryn R Lowe; Alison Schonwald; Michael Robbins; Fuki Hisama; Robert Wolff; Ronald Becker; Ramzi Nasir; David K Urion; Jeff M Milunsky; Leonard Rappaport; James F Gusella; Christopher A Walsh; Bai-Lin Wu; David T Miller Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 7.124