Literature DB >> 9321760

Cost effectiveness of DNA diagnosis for four monogenic diseases.

A A van der Riet1, B A van Hout, F F Rutten.   

Abstract

In this paper the costs and benefits associated with DNA diagnosis of subjects who are at risk of having a child with a monogenic disease and who seek genetic counselling because of their reproductive plans are predicted under various assumptions using a mathematical model. Four monogenic diseases have been considered: cystic fibrosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, myotonic dystrophy, and fragile X syndrome. Counselling (triggered by previous information) on the basis of DNA diagnosis is compared to the situation that only risk evaluation based on pedigree analysis is possible. The results show for each disease that with DNA diagnosis, couples can be more confident in choosing (further) offspring leading to the birth of more healthy children while the number of affected children is reduced. The costs minus savings within the health care sector depend on the prior risks and on the future burden of the monogenic illness under consideration. DNA diagnosis of relative "low" prior risks of a child with CF (for example, 1:180, 1:240 and 1:480) leads to costs instead of savings. For higher prior risks of CF and for the three other diseases, DNA diagnosis produces considerable savings. This result remains valid when assumptions regarding behaviour, reproduction, and receiving DNA diagnosis under different circumstances are varied.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9321760      PMCID: PMC1051058          DOI: 10.1136/jmg.34.9.741

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Genet        ISSN: 0022-2593            Impact factor:   6.318


  9 in total

1.  [Preconception screening for carrier state in cystic fibrosis; testing against Health Council's criteria for genetic screening].

Authors:  J van de Laar; L P ten Kate
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  1996-03-02

2.  Cost of care of patients with cystic fibrosis in The Netherlands in 1990-1.

Authors:  M F Wildhagen; J B Verheij; J G Verzijl; H B Hilderink; L Kooij; T Tijmstra; L P ten Kate; J Gerritsen; W Bakker; J D Habbema; F Habbema
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 9.139

3.  Genetic counseling: a consumers' view.

Authors:  C O Leonard; G A Chase; B Childs
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1972-08-31       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  [Serum screening of pregnant women for fetal neural tube defects and Down syndrome; initial experiences in The Netherlands].

Authors:  J R Beekhuis; A Mantingh; B T de Wolf; J M van Lith; A S Breed
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  1993-06-26

5.  Prospective study of genetic counselling.

Authors:  A E Emery; J A Raeburn; R Skinner; S Holloway; P Lewis
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1979-05-12

6.  Guidelines for the diagnosis of fragile X syndrome. National Fragile X Foundation.

Authors:  B A Oostra; P B Jacky; W T Brown; F Rousseau
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 6.318

7.  Presymptomatic diagnosis of myotonic dystrophy.

Authors:  H G Brunner; W Nillesen; B A van Oost; G Jansen; B Wieringa; H H Ropers; H J Smeets
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 6.318

8.  Counselling risk figures for fragile X carrier females of varying band sizes for use in predicting the likelihood of retardation in their offspring.

Authors:  A M Turner; H Robinson; S Wake; S J Laing; D Leigh; G Turner
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1994-07-15

9.  Reproductive plans of genetic counseling clients not eligible for prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  J R Sorenson; N A Scotch; J P Swazey; D C Wertz; T C Heeren
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1987-10
  9 in total
  8 in total

1.  Genetic screening with the DNA chip: a new Pandora's box?

Authors:  W Henn
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?

Authors:  Fernando Antoñanzas; R Rodríguez-Ibeas; M F Hutter; R Lorente; C Juárez; M Pinillos
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-05-20

Review 3.  FMR1 and the fragile X syndrome: human genome epidemiology review.

Authors:  D C Crawford; J M Acuña; S L Sherman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 8.822

4.  Carrier screening and PGT for an autosomal recessive monogenic disorder: insights from virtual trials.

Authors:  Paul N Scriven
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 5.  Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Interventions That Affect Fertility and Childbearing: How Health Effects Are Measured Matters.

Authors:  Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Margaret L Brandeau
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 2.749

6.  Estimating the survival benefits gained from providing national cancer genetic services to women with a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  G L Griffith; R T Edwards; J Gray; C Wilkinson; J Turner; B France; P Bennett
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-05-17       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 7.  Cancer genetics services: a systematic review of the economic evidence and issues.

Authors:  G L Griffith; R T Edwards; J Gray
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-05-04       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Cost-effectiveness of the CFTR gene-sequencing test for asymptomatic carriers in the Colombian population

Authors:  Ernesto Andrade; Jorge Díaz
Journal:  Biomedica       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 0.935

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.