Value for money? Array genomic hybridization for diagnostic testing for genetic causes of intellectual disability.

Array genomic hybridization (AGH) provides a higher detection rate than does conventional cytogenetic testing when searching for chromosomal imbalance causing intellectual disability (ID). AGH is more costly than conventional cytogenetic testing, and it remains unclear whether AGH provides good value for money. Decision analytic modeling was used to evaluate the trade-off between costs, clinical effectiveness, and benefit of an AGH testing strategy compared to a conventional testing strategy. The trade-off between cost and effectiveness was expressed via the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed via Monte Carlo simulation. The baseline AGH testing strategy led to an average cost increase of $217 (95% CI $172-$261) per patient and an additional 8.2 diagnoses in every 100 tested (0.082; 95% CI 0.044-0.119). The mean incremental cost per additional diagnosis was $2646 (95% CI $1619-$5296). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that there was a 95% probability that AGH would be cost effective if decision makers were willing to pay $4550 for an additional diagnosis. Our model suggests that using AGH instead of conventional karyotyping for most ID patients provides good value for money. Deterministic sensitivity analysis found that employing AGH after first-line cytogenetic testing had proven uninformative did not provide good value for money when compared to using AGH as first-line testing.

[1]  G Mortier,et al.  Emerging patterns of cryptic chromosomal imbalance in patients with idiopathic mental retardation and multiple congenital anomalies: a new series of 140 patients and review of published reports , 2006, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[2]  Bassem A Bejjani,et al.  Clinical utility of contemporary molecular cytogenetics. , 2008, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[3]  Richard R Sharp,et al.  Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information , 2009, Genetics in Medicine.

[4]  Juliane Hoyer,et al.  Diagnostic yield of various genetic approaches in patients with unexplained developmental delay or mental retardation , 2006, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[5]  Carol A. Marra,et al.  Valuing the benefit of diagnostic testing for genetic causes of idiopathic developmental disability: willingness to pay from families of affected children , 2009, Clinical genetics.

[6]  M. Khoury,et al.  Personal utility and genomic information: Look before you leap , 2009, Genetics in Medicine.

[7]  M. Drummond,et al.  Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Public Policy@@@Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes , 1988 .

[8]  Y J Crow,et al.  Recurrence risks in mental retardation. , 1998, Journal of medical genetics.

[9]  N. Carter,et al.  Array-CGH detection of micro rearrangements in mentally retarded individuals: clinical significance of imbalances present both in affected children and normal parents , 2005, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[10]  Nel Roeleveld,et al.  The prevalence of mental retardation: a critical review of recent literature , 1997, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[11]  R. Hennekam,et al.  Prospective screening for subtelomeric rearrangements in children with mental retardation of unknown aetiology: the Amsterdam experience , 2002, Journal of medical genetics.

[12]  Sarah Barber,et al.  Oligonucleotide microarray analysis of genomic imbalance in children with mental retardation. , 2006, American journal of human genetics.

[13]  C. Ruivenkamp,et al.  Detection of chromosomal imbalances in children with idiopathic mental retardation by array based comparative genomic hybridisation (array-CGH) , 2005, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[14]  Naomichi Matsumoto,et al.  BAC array CGH reveals genomic aberrations in idiopathic mental retardation , 2006, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[15]  Ton Feuth,et al.  Array-based comparative genomic hybridization for the genomewide detection of submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities. , 2003, American journal of human genetics.

[16]  Ton Feuth,et al.  Diagnostic genome profiling in mental retardation. , 2005, American journal of human genetics.

[17]  M Somerville,et al.  Submicroscopic deletions and duplications in individuals with intellectual disability detected by array‐CGH , 2005, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[18]  Toshiyuki Yamamoto,et al.  Application of array-based comparative genome hybridization in children with developmental delay or mental retardation. , 2008, Pediatrics and neonatology.

[19]  Dean A. Regier,et al.  Evaluating health-related quality-of-life studies in paediatric populations , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[20]  A. Briggs,et al.  Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis for Decision Trees with Multiple Branches: Use of the Dirichlet Distribution in a Bayesian Framework , 2003, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[21]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation , 2006 .

[22]  Martin Offringa,et al.  Diagnostic investigations in individuals with mental retardation: a systematic literature review of their usefulness , 2005, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[23]  Simon Sanderson,et al.  Array-based comparative genomic hybridization for investigating chromosomal abnormalities in patients with learning disability: Systematic review meta-analysis of diagnostic and false-positive yields , 2007, Genetics in Medicine.

[24]  W. Sloos,et al.  Whole-genome array-CGH screening in undiagnosed syndromic patients: old syndromes revisited and new alterations , 2006, Cytogenetic and Genome Research.

[25]  F. Zahir,et al.  The impact of array genomic hybridization on mental retardation research: a review of current technologies and their clinical utility , 2007, Clinical genetics.

[26]  K. Hirschhorn,et al.  Clinical Utility of Array CGH for the Detection of Chromosomal Imbalances Associated with Mental Retardation and Multiple Congenital Anomalies , 2009, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[27]  M. Gingold,et al.  CME Practice parameter : Evaluation of the child with global developmental delay , 2003 .

[28]  M Bobrow,et al.  Microarray based comparative genomic hybridisation (array-CGH) detects submicroscopic chromosomal deletions and duplications in patients with learning disability/mental retardation and dysmorphic features , 2004, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[29]  D. Ledbetter,et al.  Subtelomere FISH analysis of 11 688 cases: an evaluation of the frequency and pattern of subtelomere rearrangements in individuals with developmental disabilities , 2005, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[30]  A S Detsky,et al.  How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. , 1992, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.