Matthew S GoodSmith1, M Reza Skandari2, Elbert S Huang3, Rochelle N Naylor4. 1. Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL matthew.goodsmith@uchospitals.edu. 2. Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, U.K. 3. Section of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 4. Section of Adult and Pediatric Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the U.S., genetic testing for maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) is frequently delayed because of difficulty with insurance coverage. Understanding the economic implications of clinical genetic testing is imperative to advance precision medicine for diabetes. The objective of this article is to assess the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing, preceded by biomarker screening and followed by cascade genetic testing of first-degree relatives, for subtypes of MODY in U.S. pediatric patients with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used simulation models of distinct forms of diabetes to forecast the clinical and economic consequences of a systematic genetic testing strategy compared with usual care over a 30-year time horizon. In the genetic testing arm, patients with MODY received treatment changes (sulfonylureas for HNF1A- and HNF4A-MODY associated with a 1.0% reduction in HbA1c; no treatment for GCK-MODY). Study outcomes included costs, life expectancy (LE), and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). RESULTS: The strategy of biomarker screening and genetic testing was cost-saving as it increased average quality of life (+0.0052 QALY) and decreased costs (-$191) per simulated patient relative to the control arm. Adding cascade genetic testing increased quality-of-life benefits (+0.0081 QALY) and lowered costs further (-$735). CONCLUSIONS: A combined strategy of biomarker screening and genetic testing for MODY in the U.S. pediatric diabetes population is cost-saving compared with usual care, and the addition of cascade genetic testing accentuates the strategy's benefits. Widespread implementation of this strategy could improve the lives of patients with MODY while saving the health system money, illustrating the potential population health benefits of personalized medicine.
OBJECTIVE: In the U.S., genetic testing for maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) is frequently delayed because of difficulty with insurance coverage. Understanding the economic implications of clinical genetic testing is imperative to advance precision medicine for diabetes. The objective of this article is to assess the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing, preceded by biomarker screening and followed by cascade genetic testing of first-degree relatives, for subtypes of MODY in U.S. pediatric patients with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used simulation models of distinct forms of diabetes to forecast the clinical and economic consequences of a systematic genetic testing strategy compared with usual care over a 30-year time horizon. In the genetic testing arm, patients with MODY received treatment changes (sulfonylureas for HNF1A- and HNF4A-MODY associated with a 1.0% reduction in HbA1c; no treatment for GCK-MODY). Study outcomes included costs, life expectancy (LE), and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). RESULTS: The strategy of biomarker screening and genetic testing was cost-saving as it increased average quality of life (+0.0052 QALY) and decreased costs (-$191) per simulated patient relative to the control arm. Adding cascade genetic testing increased quality-of-life benefits (+0.0081 QALY) and lowered costs further (-$735). CONCLUSIONS: A combined strategy of biomarker screening and genetic testing for MODY in the U.S. pediatric diabetes population is cost-saving compared with usual care, and the addition of cascade genetic testing accentuates the strategy's benefits. Widespread implementation of this strategy could improve the lives of patients with MODY while saving the health system money, illustrating the potential population health benefits of personalized medicine.
Authors: G Velho; H Blanché; M Vaxillaire; C Bellanné-Chantelot; V C Pardini; J Timsit; P Passa; I Deschamps; J J Robert; I T Weber; D Marotta; S J Pilkis; G M Lipkind; G I Bell; P Froguel Journal: Diabetologia Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Siri Atma W Greeley; Rochelle N Naylor; Lindsay S Cook; Susan E Tucker; Rebecca B Lipton; Louis H Philipson Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2011-07-01
Authors: T J McDonald; K Colclough; R Brown; B Shields; M Shepherd; P Bingley; A Williams; A T Hattersley; Sian Ellard Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Gillian D Sanders; Peter J Neumann; Anirban Basu; Dan W Brock; David Feeny; Murray Krahn; Karen M Kuntz; David O Meltzer; Douglas K Owens; Lisa A Prosser; Joshua A Salomon; Mark J Sculpher; Thomas A Trikalinos; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rochelle N Naylor; Priya M John; Aaron N Winn; David Carmody; Siri Atma W Greeley; Louis H Philipson; Graeme I Bell; Elbert S Huang Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 19.112
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: Paturi V Rao; Eric Bean; Dhanalakshmi Nair-Schaef; Siting Chen; Steven C Kazmierczak; Charles T Roberts; Srinivasa R Nagalla Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-03-17
Authors: Dinara E Ivanoshchuk; Elena V Shakhtshneider; Oksana D Rymar; Alla K Ovsyannikova; Svetlana V Mikhailova; Veniamin S Fishman; Emil S Valeev; Pavel S Orlov; Mikhail I Voevoda Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-01-18
Authors: Matthew C Riddle; Louis H Philipson; Stephen S Rich; Annelie Carlsson; Paul W Franks; Siri Atma W Greeley; John J Nolan; Ewan R Pearson; Philip S Zeitler; Andrew T Hattersley Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 19.112