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: Sep 21, 2023
spot light Spotlight

Long-term cost-effectiveness of a melanoma prevention program using genomic risk information compared with standard prevention advice in Australia
CK Law et al, Genetics in Medicine, August 30, 2023

From the abstract: "Evidence indicates a melanoma prevention program using personalized genomic risk provision and genetic counselling, can impact prevention behaviors, including reducing sunburns in adults with no melanoma history. This analysis evaluated its longer-term cost-effectiveness from an Australian health system perspective. We found that genomic risk provision targeted to high-traditional melanoma risk individuals is likely a cost-effective strategy for reducing sunburns and will likely prevent future melanomas and keratinocyte carcinomas."

Cost effectiveness review of text messaging, smartphone application, and website interventions targeting T2DM or hypertension.
Ruben Willems et al. NPJ Digit Med 2023 8 (1) 150

Digital health interventions have been shown to be clinically-effective for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension prevention and treatment. This study synthesizes and compares the cost-effectiveness of text-messaging, smartphone application, and websites. We found that digital interventions are cost-effective without substantial differences between the different delivery modes. Future health economic studies should increase transparency, conduct sufficient sensitivity analyses, and appraise the ICUR more critically in light of a reasoned willingness-to-pay threshold.

AI-based skin cancer detection: the balance between access and overutilization
KP Venkatesh et al, NPJ Digital Medicine, August 15, 2023

A recent study evaluated the healthcare implications and costs of an AI-enabled mobile health app for skin cancer detection, involving 18,960 beneficiaries of a Netherlands insurer. They report a 32% increase in claims for premalignant and malignant skin lesions among app users, largely attributed to benign skin lesions and leading to higher annual costs for app users (€64.97) compared to controls (€43.09). Cost-effectiveness analysis showed a comparable cost to dermatologist-based diagnosis alone. This editorial emphasizes the balance in AI-based dermatology between increased access and increased false positives resulting in overutilization.

The English National Lynch Syndrome Transformation Project
Brit Soc Gastro, July 14, 2023

Lynch syndrome (LS) affects approximately 1 in 400 individuals and predisposes to multiple cancers including colorectal, endometrial, gastric, small bowel, cholangiocarinoma and other tumors. Although a common condition, it is estimated that only 5% of patients with LS are known in the UK. There is consistent evidence of the cost-effectiveness and clinical benefit of a structured diagnostic pathway in patients with LS following a diagnosis of cancer linked to cascade testing in families. NICE DG27 and DG42 guidelines recommend universal testing of newly diagnosed colorectal and endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome (LS), however there is strong evidence of variation in delivery of these guidelines by clinical services.


news Latest News and Publications
Cost-effectiveness of genetic-based screening strategies for maturity-onset diabetes of the young. External Web Site Icon
Gábor Kovács et al. Per Med 2023
Economic evaluations of artificial intelligence-based healthcare interventions: a systematic literature review of best practices in their conduct and reporting. External Web Site Icon
Jai Vithlani et al. Front Pharmacol 2023 141220950
Carrier Screening Programs for Cystic Fibrosis, Fragile X Syndrome, Hemoglobinopathies and Thalassemia, and Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Health Technology Assessment. External Web Site Icon
et al. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 2023 23(4) 1-398
Cost-effectiveness of preventive aspirin use and intensive downstaging polypectomy in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: A microsimulation modeling study. External Web Site Icon
Eiko Saito et al. Cancer Med 2023
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pharmacogenomics (PGx)-Based Warfarin, Apixaban, and Rivaroxaban Versus Standard Warfarin for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Ontario, Canada. External Web Site Icon
Aneeka Hafeez et al. Pharmacoeconomics 2023
Economic evaluations of predictive genetic testing: A scoping review. External Web Site Icon
Qin Xi et al. PLoS One 2023 18(8) e0276572
Implementation and Feasibility of Clinical Genome Sequencing Embedded Into the Outpatient Nephrology Care for Patients With Proteinuric Kidney Disease. External Web Site Icon
Maddalena Marasa et al. Kidney Int Rep 2023 8(8) 1638-1647
Molecular testing for indeterminate thyroid nodules: past, present, and future. External Web Site Icon
Rajam Raghunathan et al. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2023
Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing polygenic risk score in a workplace cardiovascular disease prevention program. External Web Site Icon
Deo Mujwara et al. Front Public Health 2023 111139496
Genomic testing for suspected monogenic kidney disease in children and adults: a health economic evaluation. External Web Site Icon
You Wu et al. Genet Med 2023 100942

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