Rochelle Naylor1. 1. The University of Chicago Medicine, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 5053, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. rnaylor@bsd.uchicago.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Monogenic diabetes is an uncommon but important form of diabetes, with the most common causes benefitting from management that accounts for the genetic mutation. This often results in decreased costs and treatment burden for affected individuals. Misdiagnosis as type 1 and type 2 diabetes is common. Given the significant burden of diabetes costs to the healthcare system, it is important to assess the economic impact of incorporating genetic testing for monogenic diabetes into clinical care through formal cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). This article briefly summarizes the barriers to timely monogenic diabetes diagnosis and then summarizes findings from CEAs on genetic testing for monogenic diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: CEAs have shown that routine genetic testing of all patients with a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes can be cost-saving when applied to the scenarios of neonatal diabetes or in a pediatric population. Routine screening has not been shown to be cost-effective in adult populations. However, next-generation sequencing strategies and applying biomarkers to identify and limit genetic testing to people most likely to have monogenic diabetes are promising ways to make testing strategies cost-effective. CEAs have shown that genetic testing for monogenic diabetes diagnosis can be cost-effective or cost-saving and should guide insurers to consider broader coverage of these tests, which would lead to accurate and timely diagnosis and impact treatment and clinical outcomes.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Monogenic diabetes is an uncommon but important form of diabetes, with the most common causes benefitting from management that accounts for the genetic mutation. This often results in decreased costs and treatment burden for affected individuals. Misdiagnosis as type 1 and type 2 diabetes is common. Given the significant burden of diabetes costs to the healthcare system, it is important to assess the economic impact of incorporating genetic testing for monogenic diabetes into clinical care through formal cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). This article briefly summarizes the barriers to timely monogenic diabetes diagnosis and then summarizes findings from CEAs on genetic testing for monogenic diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: CEAs have shown that routine genetic testing of all patients with a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes can be cost-saving when applied to the scenarios of neonatal diabetes or in a pediatric population. Routine screening has not been shown to be cost-effective in adult populations. However, next-generation sequencing strategies and applying biomarkers to identify and limit genetic testing to people most likely to have monogenic diabetes are promising ways to make testing strategies cost-effective. CEAs have shown that genetic testing for monogenic diabetes diagnosis can be cost-effective or cost-saving and should guide insurers to consider broader coverage of these tests, which would lead to accurate and timely diagnosis and impact treatment and clinical outcomes.
Authors: S E Inzucchi; R M Bergenstal; J B Buse; M Diamant; E Ferrannini; M Nauck; A L Peters; A Tsapas; R Wender; D R Matthews Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Kevin Colclough; Christine Bellanne-Chantelot; Cecile Saint-Martin; Sarah E Flanagan; Sian Ellard Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Anna M Steele; Beverley M Shields; Kirsty J Wensley; Kevin Colclough; Sian Ellard; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Itamar Raz; Matthew C Riddle; Julio Rosenstock; John B Buse; Silvio E Inzucchi; Philip D Home; Stefano Del Prato; Ele Ferrannini; Juliana C N Chan; Lawrence A Leiter; Derek Leroith; Ralph Defronzo; William T Cefalu Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Amanda Stride; Beverley Shields; Olivia Gill-Carey; Ali J Chakera; Kevin Colclough; Sian Ellard; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Wendy K Chung; Karel Erion; Jose C Florez; Andrew T Hattersley; Marie-France Hivert; Christine G Lee; Mark I McCarthy; John J Nolan; Jill M Norris; Ewan R Pearson; Louis Philipson; Allison T McElvaine; William T Cefalu; Stephen S Rich; Paul W Franks Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Tiago da Silva Santos; Liliana Fonseca; Sílvia Santos Monteiro; Diana Borges Duarte; Ana Martins Lopes; André Couto de Carvalho; Maria João Oliveira; Teresa Borges; Francisco Laranjeira; María Luz Couce; Maria Helena Cardoso Journal: Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Date: 2022-07-12
Authors: Maria I Alvelos; Catarina I Gonçalves; Eduarda Coutinho; Joana T Almeida; Margarida Bastos; Maria L Sampaio; Miguel Melo; Sofia Martins; Isabel Dinis; Alice Mirante; Leonor Gomes; Joana Saraiva; Bernardo D Pereira; Susana Gama-de-Sousa; Carolina Moreno; Daniela Guelho; Diana Martins; Carla Baptista; Luísa Barros; Mara Ventura; Maria M Gomes; Manuel C Lemos Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 4.241