Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to navigation Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Main|Search|PHGKB
Search PHGKB:

Last Posted: Aug 05, 2022
spot light Highlights

Modelling the Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of a Newborn Screening Program for Spinal Muscular Atrophy and Severe Combined Immunodeficiency
STF Shih et al, IJNS, July 20, 2022

Over a 60-year time horizon, screening every newborn in the population and treating diagnosed SCID by early hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and SMA by gene therapy, would result in 95 QALYs gained per 100,000 newborns, and result in cost savings of USD 8.6 million. Sensitivity analysis indicates 97% of simulated results are considered cost-effective against commonly used willingness-to-pay thresholds. The introduction of combined NBS for SCID and SMA is good value for money from the long-term clinical and economic perspectives, representing a cost saving to governments in the long-term, as well as improving and saving lives

Cost-effectiveness frameworks for comparing genome and exome sequencing versus conventional diagnostic pathways: A scoping review and recommended methods.
Ferket Bart S et al. Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 2022 7

We recommend the following considerations for each clinical scenario. For prenatal testing, performing comparative analyses of costs of ES strategies and postpartum care, as well as genetic diagnoses and pregnancy outcomes. For early diagnosis in pediatrics, modeling quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs over =20 years for rapid turnaround GS/ES. For hereditary cancer syndrome testing, modeling cumulative costs and QALYs for the individual tested and first/second/third-degree relatives. For tumor profiling, not restricting to treatment uptake or response and including QALYs and costs of downstream outcomes. For screening, modeling lifetime costs and QALYs and considering consequences of low penetrance and GS/ES reanalysis.

‘Diagnostic shock’: the impact of results from ultrarapid genomic sequencing of critically unwell children on aspects of family functioning
HB Smart et al, EJHG, July 13, 2022

Rapid genomic sequencing (rGS) is being increasingly used in neonatal and paediatric intensive care units. While there is emerging evidence of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness, concerns have been raised regarding the impact of delivering genomic results in an acute care setting. To help investigate these concerns, we analysed survey data collected from caregivers whose children had received rGS through a national rapid genomic diagnosis program.

Exome/Genome-Wide Testing in Newborn Screening: A Proportionate Path Forward
V Rahimzadeh et al, Frontiers in Genetics, May 2022

In this paper we consider recommendations from professional genetic societies in Europe and North America in light of scientific advances in ES/GS and our current understanding of the limitations of ES/GS approaches in the NBS context. We invoke the principle of proportionality—that benefits clearly outweigh associated risks—and the human right to benefit from science to argue that rigorous evidence is still needed for ES/GS that demonstrates clinical utility, accurate genomic variant interpretation, cost effectiveness and universal accessibility of testing and necessary follow-up care and treatment.


Disclaimer: Articles listed in the Public Health Genomics and Precision Health Knowledge Base are selected by the CDC Office of Public Health Genomics to provide current awareness of the literature and news. Inclusion in the update does not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor does it imply endorsement of the article's methods or findings. CDC and DHHS assume no responsibility for the factual accuracy of the items presented. The selection, omission, or content of items does not imply any endorsement or other position taken by CDC or DHHS. Opinion, findings and conclusions expressed by the original authors of items included in the update, or persons quoted therein, are strictly their own and are in no way meant to represent the opinion or views of CDC or DHHS. References to publications, news sources, and non-CDC Websites are provided solely for informational purposes and do not imply endorsement by CDC or DHHS.

TOP