Iván Sánchez Fernández1, Tobias Loddenkemper1, Marina Gaínza-Lein1, Beth Rosen Sheidley1, Annapurna Poduri2. 1. From the Epilepsy Genetics Program (B.R.S., A.P.), Division of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology (I.S.F., T.L., M.G.-L., B.R.S., A.P.), Department of Neurology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Child Neurology (I.S.F.), Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Universidad de Barcelona, Spain; and Facultad de Medicina (M.G.-L.), Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia. 2. From the Epilepsy Genetics Program (B.R.S., A.P.), Division of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology (I.S.F., T.L., M.G.-L., B.R.S., A.P.), Department of Neurology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Child Neurology (I.S.F.), Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Universidad de Barcelona, Spain; and Facultad de Medicina (M.G.-L.), Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia. annapurna.poduri@childrens.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing strategies in patients with epilepsy of unknown etiology. METHODS: This meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness study compared strategies involving 3 genetic tests: chromosomal microarray (CMA), epilepsy panel (EP) with deletion/duplication testing, and whole-exome sequencing (WES) in a cost-effectiveness model, using "no genetic testing" as a point of comparison. RESULTS: Twenty studies provided information on the diagnostic yield of CMA (8 studies), EP (9 studies), and WES (6 studies). The diagnostic yield was highest for WES: 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33-0.57) (0.32 [95% CI: 0.22-0.44] adjusting for potential publication bias), followed by EP: 0.23 (95% CI: 0.18-0.29), and CMA: 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06-0.12). The most cost-effective test was WES with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $15,000/diagnosis. However, after adjusting for potential publication bias, the most cost-effective test was EP (ICER: $15,848/diagnosis) followed by WES (ICER: $34,500/diagnosis). Among combination strategies, the most cost-effective strategy was WES, then if nondiagnostic, EP, then if nondiagnostic, CMA (ICER: $15,336/diagnosis), although adjusting for potential publication bias, the most cost-effective strategy was EP ± CMA ± WES (ICER: $18,385/diagnosis). While the cost-effectiveness of individual tests and testing strategies overlapped, CMA was consistently less cost-effective than WES and EP. CONCLUSION: WES and EP are the most cost-effective genetic tests for epilepsy. Our analyses support, for a broad population of patients with unexplained epilepsy, starting with these tests. Although less expensive, CMA has lower yield, and its use as the first-tier test is thus not supported from a cost-effectiveness perspective.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing strategies in patients with epilepsy of unknown etiology. METHODS: This meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness study compared strategies involving 3 genetic tests: chromosomal microarray (CMA), epilepsy panel (EP) with deletion/duplication testing, and whole-exome sequencing (WES) in a cost-effectiveness model, using "no genetic testing" as a point of comparison. RESULTS: Twenty studies provided information on the diagnostic yield of CMA (8 studies), EP (9 studies), and WES (6 studies). The diagnostic yield was highest for WES: 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33-0.57) (0.32 [95% CI: 0.22-0.44] adjusting for potential publication bias), followed by EP: 0.23 (95% CI: 0.18-0.29), and CMA: 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06-0.12). The most cost-effective test was WES with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $15,000/diagnosis. However, after adjusting for potential publication bias, the most cost-effective test was EP (ICER: $15,848/diagnosis) followed by WES (ICER: $34,500/diagnosis). Among combination strategies, the most cost-effective strategy was WES, then if nondiagnostic, EP, then if nondiagnostic, CMA (ICER: $15,336/diagnosis), although adjusting for potential publication bias, the most cost-effective strategy was EP ± CMA ± WES (ICER: $18,385/diagnosis). While the cost-effectiveness of individual tests and testing strategies overlapped, CMA was consistently less cost-effective than WES and EP. CONCLUSION: WES and EP are the most cost-effective genetic tests for epilepsy. Our analyses support, for a broad population of patients with unexplained epilepsy, starting with these tests. Although less expensive, CMA has lower yield, and its use as the first-tier test is thus not supported from a cost-effectiveness perspective.
Authors: Magdalena Bartnik; Elżbieta Szczepanik; Katarzyna Derwińska; Barbara Wiśniowiecka-Kowalnik; Tomasz Gambin; Maciej Sykulski; Kamila Ziemkiewicz; Marta Kędzior; Monika Gos; Dorota Hoffman-Zacharska; Tomasz Mazurczak; Anetta Jeziorek; Dorota Antczak-Marach; Mariola Rudzka-Dybała; Hanna Mazurkiewicz; Alicja Goszczańska-Ciuchta; Zofia Zalewska-Miszkurka; Iwona Terczyńska; Małgorzata Sobierajewicz; Chad A Shaw; Anna Gambin; Hanna Mierzewska; Tadeusz Mazurczak; Ewa Obersztyn; Ewa Bocian; Paweł Stankiewicz Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2012-07-23 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: Johannes R Lemke; Erik Riesch; Tim Scheurenbrand; Max Schubach; Christian Wilhelm; Isabelle Steiner; Jörg Hansen; Carolina Courage; Sabina Gallati; Sarah Bürki; Susi Strozzi; Barbara Goeggel Simonetti; Sebastian Grunt; Maja Steinlin; Michael Alber; Markus Wolff; Thomas Klopstock; Eva C Prott; Rüdiger Lorenz; Christiane Spaich; Sabine Rona; Maya Lakshminarasimhan; Judith Kröll; Thomas Dorn; Günter Krämer; Matthis Synofzik; Felicitas Becker; Yvonne G Weber; Holger Lerche; Detlef Böhm; Saskia Biskup Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2012-05-21 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Heather C Mefford; Simone C Yendle; Cynthia Hsu; Joseph Cook; Eileen Geraghty; Jacinta M McMahon; Orvar Eeg-Olofsson; Lynette G Sadleir; Deepak Gill; Bruria Ben-Zeev; Tally Lerman-Sagie; Mark Mackay; Jeremy L Freeman; Eva Andermann; James T Pelakanos; Ian Andrews; Geoffrey Wallace; Evan E Eichler; Samuel F Berkovic; Ingrid E Scheffer Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 10.422
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: Heather C Mefford; Hiltrud Muhle; Philipp Ostertag; Sarah von Spiczak; Karen Buysse; Carl Baker; Andre Franke; Alain Malafosse; Pierre Genton; Pierre Thomas; Christina A Gurnett; Stefan Schreiber; Alexander G Bassuk; Michel Guipponi; Ulrich Stephani; Ingo Helbig; Evan E Eichler Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: Krishna R Veeramah; Laurel Johnstone; Tatiana M Karafet; Daniel Wolf; Ryan Sprissler; John Salogiannis; Asa Barth-Maron; Michael E Greenberg; Till Stuhlmann; Stefanie Weinert; Thomas J Jentsch; Marjorie Pazzi; Linda L Restifo; Dinesh Talwar; Robert P Erickson; Michael F Hammer Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Andrés Moreno-De-Luca; Francisca Millan; Denis R Pesacreta; Houda Z Elloumi; Matthew T Oetjens; Claire Teigen; Karen E Wain; Julie Scuffins; Scott M Myers; Rebecca I Torene; Vladimir G Gainullin; Kevin Arvai; H Lester Kirchner; David H Ledbetter; Kyle Retterer; Christa L Martin Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Heba Akbari; Ashwin Sunderraj; Nelson Sanchez-Pinto; Anne T Berg; Alfred L George; Andrea C Pardo Journal: Pediatr Neurol Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 4.210