The cost of proband and trio exome and genome analysis in rare disease: A micro-costing study.

PURPOSE: Rare disease genomic testing is a complex process involving various resources. Accurate resource estimation is required for informed prioritization and reimbursement decisions. This study aims to analyze the costs and cost drivers of clinical genomic testing. METHODS: Based on genomic sequencing workflows we microcosted limited virtual panel analysis on exome sequencing backbone, proband and trio exome, and genome testing for proband and trio analysis in 2023 Australian Dollars ($). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Panel testing costs AUD $2373 ($733-$6166), and exome sequencing costs $2823 ($802-$7206) and $5670 ($2006-$11,539) for proband and trio analysis, respectively. Genome sequencing costs $4840 ($2153-$9890) and $11,589 ($5842-$16,562) for proband and trio analysis. The most expensive cost component of genomic testing was sequencing (36.9%-69.4% of total cost), with labor accounting for 27.1%-63.2% of total cost. CONCLUSION: We provide a comprehensive analysis of rare disease genomic testing costs, for a range of clinical testing types and contexts. This information will accurately inform economic evaluations of rare disease genomic testing and decision making on policy settings that assist with implementation, such as genomic testing reimbursement.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of genomic sequencing in a prospective versus historical cohort of complex pediatric patients.

PURPOSE: Cost-effectiveness evaluations of first-line genomic sequencing (GS) in the diagnosis of children with genetic conditions are limited by the lack of well-defined comparative cohorts. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early GS in pediatric patients with complex monogenic conditions compared with a matched historical cohort. METHODS: Data, including investigation costs, were collected in a prospective cohort of 92 pediatric patients undergoing singleton GS over an 18-month period (2016-2017) with two of the following: a condition with high mortality, multisystem disease involving three or more organs, or severe limitation of daily function. Comparative data were collected in a matched historical cohort who underwent traditional investigations in the years 2012-2013. RESULTS: GS yielded a diagnosis in 42% while traditional investigations yielded a diagnosis in 23% (p = 0.003). A change in management was experienced by 74% of patients diagnosed following GS, compared with 32% diagnosed following traditional investigations. Singleton GS at a cost of AU$3100 resulted in a mean saving per person of AU$3602 (95% confidence interval [CI] AU$2520-4685). Cost savings occurred across all investigation subtypes and were only minimally offset by clinical management costs. CONCLUSION: GS in complex pediatric patients saves significant costs and doubles the diagnostic yield of traditional approaches.

A head-to-head evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy and costs of trio versus singleton exome sequencing analysis.

Diagnostic exome sequencing (ES) can be performed on the proband only (singleton; sES) or with additional samples, often including both biological parents with the proband (trio; tES). In this study we sought to compare the efficiencies of exome sequencing (ES) by trio (tES) versus singleton (sES) approach, determine costs, and identify factors to consider when deciding on optimal implementation strategies for the diagnosis of monogenic disorders. We undertook ES in 30 trios and analysed each proband's sES and tES data in parallel. Two teams were randomly allocated to either sES or tES analysis for each case and blinded to each other's work. Each task was timed and cost analyses were based on time taken and diagnostic yield. We modelled three scenarios to determine the factors to consider in the implementation of tES. sES diagnosed 11/30 (36.7%) cases and tES identified one additional diagnosis (12/30 (40.0%)). tES obviated the need for Sanger segregation, reduced the number of variants for curation, and had lower cost-per-diagnosis when considering analysis alone. When sequencing costs were included, tES nearly doubled the cost of sES. Reflexing to tES in those who remain undiagnosed after sES was cost-saving over tES in all as first-line. This approach requires a large differential in diagnostic yield between sES and tES for maximal benefit given current sequencing costs. tES may be preferable when scaling up laboratory throughput due to efficiency gains and opportunity cost considerations. Our findings are relevant to clinicians, laboratories and health services considering tES over sES.

Meeting the challenges of implementing rapid genomic testing in acute pediatric care.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to implement and prospectively evaluate the outcomes of a rapid genomic diagnosis program at two pediatric tertiary centers. METHODS: Rapid singleton whole-exome sequencing (rWES) was performed in acutely unwell pediatric patients with suspected monogenic disorders. Laboratory and clinical barriers to implementation were addressed through continuous multidisciplinary review of process parameters. Diagnostic and clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of rWES were assessed. RESULTS: Of 40 enrolled patients, 21 (52.5%) received a diagnosis, with median time to report of 16 days (range 9-109 days). A result was provided during the first hospital admission in 28 of 36 inpatients (78%). Clinical management changed in 12 of the 21 diagnosed patients (57%), including the provision of lifesaving treatment, avoidance of invasive biopsies, and palliative care guidance. The cost per diagnosis was AU$13,388 (US$10,453). Additional cost savings from avoidance of planned tests and procedures and reduced length of stay are estimated to be around AU$543,178 (US$424,101). The clear relative advantage of rWES, joint clinical and laboratory leadership, and the creation of a multidisciplinary "rapid team" were key to successful implementation. CONCLUSION: Rapid genomic testing in acute pediatrics is not only feasible but also cost-effective, and has high diagnostic and clinical utility. It requires a whole-of-system approach for successful implementation.

Diagnostic Impact and Cost-effectiveness of Whole-Exome Sequencing for Ambulant Children With Suspected Monogenic Conditions.

Importance: Optimal use of whole-exome sequencing (WES) in the pediatric setting requires an understanding of who should be considered for testing and when it should be performed to maximize clinical utility and cost-effectiveness. Objectives: To investigate the impact of WES in sequencing-naive children suspected of having a monogenic disorder and evaluate its cost-effectiveness if WES had been available at different time points in their diagnostic trajectory. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective study was part of the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance demonstration project. At the ambulatory outpatient clinics of the Victorian Clinical Genetics Services at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, children older than 2 years suspected of having a monogenic disorder were prospectively recruited from May 1 through November 30, 2015, by clinical geneticists after referral from general and subspecialist pediatricians. All children had nondiagnostic microarrays and no prior single-gene or panel sequencing. Exposures: All children underwent singleton WES with targeted phenotype-driven analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study examined the clinical utility of a molecular diagnosis and the cost-effectiveness of alternative diagnostic trajectories, depending on timing of WES. Results: Of 61 children originally assessed, 44 (21 [48%] male and 23 [52%] female) aged 2 to 18 years (mean age at initial presentation, 28 months; range, 0-121 months) were recruited, and a diagnosis was achieved in 23 (52%) by singleton WES. The diagnoses were unexpected in 8 of 23 (35%), and clinical management was altered in 6 of 23 (26%). The mean duration of the diagnostic odyssey was 6 years, with each child having a mean of 19 tests and 4 clinical genetics and 4 nongenetics specialist consultations, and 26 (59%) underwent a procedure while under general anesthetic for diagnostic purposes. Economic analyses of the diagnostic trajectory identified that WES performed at initial tertiary presentation resulted in an incremental cost savings of A$9020 (US$6838) per additional diagnosis (95% CI, A$4304-A$15 404 [US$3263-US$11 678]) compared with the standard diagnostic pathway. Even if WES were performed at the first genetics appointment, there would be an incremental cost savings of A$5461 (US$4140) (95% CI, A$1433-A$10 557 [US$1086- US$8004]) per additional diagnosis compared with the standard diagnostic pathway. Conclusions and Relevance: Singleton WES in children with suspected monogenic conditions has high diagnostic yield, and cost-effectiveness is maximized by early application in the diagnostic pathway. Pediatricians should consider early referral of children with undiagnosed syndromes to clinical geneticists.

Diagnostic and cost utility of whole exome sequencing in peripheral neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the diagnostic utility and cost effectiveness of whole exome sequencing (WES) in a cohort of individuals with peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: Singleton WES was performed in individuals recruited though one pediatric and one adult tertiary center between February 2014 and December 2015. Initial analysis was restricted to a virtual panel of 55 genes associated with peripheral neuropathies. Patients with uninformative results underwent expanded analysis of the WES data. Data on the cost of prior investigations and assessments performed for diagnostic purposes in each patient was collected. RESULTS: Fifty patients with a peripheral neuropathy were recruited (median age 18 years; range 2-68 years). The median time from initial presentation to study enrollment was 6 years 9 months (range 2 months-62 years), and the average cost of prior investigations and assessments for diagnostic purposes AU$4013 per patient. Eleven individuals received a diagnosis from the virtual panel. Eight individuals received a diagnosis following expanded analysis of the WES data, increasing the overall diagnostic yield to 38%. Two additional individuals were diagnosed with pathogenic copy number variants through SNP microarray. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that WES has a high diagnostic utility and is cost effective in patients with a peripheral neuropathy. Expanded analysis of WES data significantly improves the diagnostic yield in patients in whom a diagnosis is not found on the initial targeted analysis. This is primarily due to diagnosis of conditions caused by newly discovered genes and the resolution of complex and atypical phenotypes.