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

Health Equity PHGKB

Specific PHGKB|Economic Evaluation PHGKB|PHGKB

Last Posted: Mar 21, 2023
spot light Spotlight

A systematic review of economic evaluations of whole-genome sequencing for the surveillance of bacterial pathogens.
Vivien Price et al. Microbial genomics 2023 2 (2)

Six hundred and eighty-one articles were identified, of which 49 proceeded to full-text screening, with 9 selected for inclusion. All had been published since 2019. Heterogeneity was high. Five studies assessed WGS for hospital surveillance and four analyzed foodborne pathogens. Four were cost-benefit analyses, one was a cost-utility analysis, one was a cost-effectiveness analysis, one was a combined cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis, one combined cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses and one was a partial analysis. All studies supported the use of WGS as a surveillance tool on economic grounds.

Economic evaluation of population-based expanded reproductive carrier screening for genetic diseases in Australia
D Schofield et al, Genetics in Medicine, February 12, 2023

Expanded RCS was cost-saving compared with no population screening and cost-effective compared to the three-condition screening (ICER of $6,287 per QALY gained) at an uptake rate of 50% for RCS, 59% for IVF and preimplantation genetic testing, 90% for prenatal diagnosis testing and 50% for elective termination of affected pregnancies and a cost of A$595 per couple screened.

Prioritizing the detection of rare pathogenic variants in population screening.
Lacaze Paul et al. Nature reviews. Genetics 2023 1

Population genomic screening to detect carriers of rare monogenic variants for medically actionable conditions is supported by substantial evidence of clinical utility and cost effectiveness. Much less evidence supports screening by polygenic risk scores, which do not detect rare variants. Using only polygenic scores in population screening initiatives, while ignoring the detection of higher-risk rare monogenic variants, is ill-advised.

Editorial: Digitalization for precision healthcare
F Cascini et al, Front Public Health, December 2022

The creation of digital infrastructure and technologies to collect, analyse and connect electronic health and life-science data supports—now more than ever—the growth of precision healthcare. However, the current adoption of digital health tools and infrastructures is geographically variable and often missing an assessment, as shown in a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of digital interventions. This lacking approach to the digitalisation of the health sector has the effect of wasting resources with no improvement in care.


news Latest News and Publications
Recalibration of a Deep Learning Model for Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Images to Inform Lung Cancer Screening Intervals. External Web Site Icon
Rebecca Landy et al. JAMA network open 2023 6(3) e233273
Capturing the Impact of Constraints on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cell and Gene Therapies: A Systematic Review. External Web Site Icon
Sean P Gavan et al. PharmacoEconomics 2023
Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis of Fetal Cystic Hygroma: A Retrospective Single-Center Study from China. External Web Site Icon
Yulin Zhou et al. Cytogenetic and genome research 2023 1-11
Risk-stratified screening for colorectal cancer using genetic and environmental risk factors: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on real-world data. External Web Site Icon
Rosita van den Puttelaar et al. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 2023
Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of non-squamous NSCLC: Evidence from China. External Web Site Icon
Hongbin Dai et al. Frontiers in medicine 2023 101122731
Cost-Effectiveness of Next-Generation Sequencing Versus Single-Gene Testing for the Molecular Diagnosis of Patients With Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer From the Perspective of Spanish Reference Centers. External Web Site Icon
Edurne Arriola et al. JCO precision oncology 2023 7e2200546
High-Throughput Screening for the Potential Inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 with Essential Dynamic Behavior. External Web Site Icon
Yang Zhiwei, et al. Current drug targets 2023 0 0.
Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Precision Approaches to Screening: Brave New World or Worlds Apart? External Web Site Icon
Fay Kastrinos et al. Gastroenterology 2023
Economic Evaluation of Next-generation Sequencing Techniques in Diagnosis of Genetic Disorders: A Systematic Review. External Web Site Icon
Aziz Rezapour et al. Clinical genetics 2023
The cost-effectiveness of coronary calcium score-guided statin therapy initiation for Australians with family histories of premature coronary artery disease. External Web Site Icon
Prasanna Venkataraman et al. The Medical journal of Australia 2023

More

About Economic Evaluation PHGKB

Economic Evaluation PHGKB is an online, continuously updated, searchable database of published scientific literature, CDC and NIH resources, and other materials that identify, measure, value, and compare the costs and consequences of genomic and other precision health interventions, policies and programs. Economic Evaluation PHGKB is a specialized database of the overall PHGKB.

Content Summary

Quick Links


Disclaimer: Articles listed in the Public 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