ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Genetic testing is routine practice for individuals with unexplained developmental disabilities and multiple congenital anomalies. However, current testing pathways can be costly and time consuming, and the diagnostic yield low. Genome-wide sequencing, including exome sequencing (ES) and genome sequencing (GS), can improve diagnosis, but at a higher cost. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of genome-wide sequencing in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a discrete event simulation from a public payer perspective. Six strategies involving ES or GS were compared. Outcomes reported were direct medical costs, number of molecular diagnoses, number of positive findings, and number of active treatment changes. RESULTS: If ES was used as a second-tier test (after the current first-tier, chromosomal microarray, fails to provide a diagnosis), it would be less costly and more effective than standard testing (CAN$6357 [95% CI: 6179-6520] vs. CAN$8783 per patient [95% CI: 2309-31,123]). If ES was used after standard testing, it would cost an additional CAN$15,228 to identify the genetic diagnosis for one additional patient compared with standard testing. The results remained robust when parameters and assumptions were varied. CONCLUSION: ES would likely be cost-saving if used earlier in the diagnostic pathway.
Subject(s)
Abnormalities, Multiple , Developmental Disabilities , Child , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Developmental Disabilities/diagnosis , Developmental Disabilities/genetics , Humans , Ontario , Exome SequencingABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The cost effectiveness of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been established for high-risk pregnancies but remains unclear for pregnancies at other risk levels. The aim was to assess the cost effectiveness of NIPT in average-risk pregnancies from the perspective of a provincial public payer in Canada. METHODS: A model was developed to compare traditional prenatal screening (TPS), NIPT as a second-tier test (performed only after a positive TPS result), and NIPT as a first-tier test (performed instead of TPS) for trisomies 21, 18, and 13; sex chromosome aneuploidies; and microdeletions in a hypothetical annual population cohort of average-risk pregnancies (142 000 to 148,000) in Ontario, Canada. A probabilistic analysis was conducted with 5000 repetitions. RESULTS: Compared with TPS, NIPT as a second-tier test detected more affected fetuses with trisomies 21, 18, and 13 (188 vs. 158), substantially reduced the number of diagnostic tests (i.e., chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis) performed (660 vs. 3107), and reduced the cost of prenatal screening ($26.7 million vs. $27.6 million) annually. Compared with second-tier NIPT, first-tier NIPT detected an additional 80 cases of trisomies 21, 18, and 13 at an additional cost of $33 million. The incremental cost per additional affected fetus detected was $412 411. Extending first-tier NIPT to include testing for sex chromosome aneuploidies and 22q11.2 deletion would increase the total screening cost. CONCLUSIONS: NIPT as a second-tier test is cost-saving compared with TPS alone. Compared with second-tier NIPT, first-tier NIPT detects more cases of chromosomal anomalies but at a substantially higher cost.
