Value for money? Array genomic hybridization for diagnostic testing for genetic causes of intellectual disability
- PMID: 20398885
- PMCID: PMC2869008
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.03.009
Value for money? Array genomic hybridization for diagnostic testing for genetic causes of intellectual disability
Abstract
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.
Copyright (c) 2010 The American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Figures


Similar articles
-
Valuing the benefit of diagnostic testing for genetic causes of idiopathic developmental disability: willingness to pay from families of affected children.Clin Genet. 2009 Jun;75(6):514-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01193.x. Clin Genet. 2009. PMID: 19508416
-
Cost Effectiveness of Karyotyping, Chromosomal Microarray Analysis, and Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing of Patients with Unexplained Global Developmental Delay or Intellectual Disability.Mol Diagn Ther. 2018 Feb;22(1):129-138. doi: 10.1007/s40291-017-0309-5. Mol Diagn Ther. 2018. PMID: 29209992
-
High-resolution array genomic hybridization in prenatal diagnosis.Prenat Diagn. 2009 Jan;29(1):20-8. doi: 10.1002/pd.2129. Prenat Diagn. 2009. PMID: 19009552 Review.
-
Cost Effectiveness of Using Array-CGH for Diagnosing Learning Disability.Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015 Aug;13(4):421-32. doi: 10.1007/s40258-015-0172-7. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015. PMID: 25894741
-
The impact of array genomic hybridization on mental retardation research: a review of current technologies and their clinical utility.Clin Genet. 2007 Oct;72(4):271-87. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2007.00847.x. Clin Genet. 2007. PMID: 17850622 Review.
Cited by
-
From genetics to genomics of epilepsy.Neurol Res Int. 2012;2012:876234. doi: 10.1155/2012/876234. Epub 2012 May 8. Neurol Res Int. 2012. PMID: 22645681 Free PMC article.
-
Capturing the clinical utility of genomic testing: medical recommendations following pediatric microarray.Eur J Hum Genet. 2015 Sep;23(9):1135-41. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.260. Epub 2014 Dec 10. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015. PMID: 25491637 Free PMC article.
-
Prenatal diagnosis of fetal aneuploidies: post-genomic developments.Genome Med. 2010 Aug 5;2(8):50. doi: 10.1186/gm171. Genome Med. 2010. PMID: 20687900 Free PMC article.
-
Derivative chromosomes involving 5p large rearranged segments went unnoticed with the use of conventional cytogenetics.Mol Cytogenet. 2018 May 9;11:30. doi: 10.1186/s13039-018-0374-4. eCollection 2018. Mol Cytogenet. 2018. PMID: 29760780 Free PMC article.
-
A new case of de novo 19p13.2p13.12 deletion in a girl with overgrowth and severe developmental delay.Mol Cytogenet. 2014 Jun 5;7:40. doi: 10.1186/1755-8166-7-40. eCollection 2014. Mol Cytogenet. 2014. PMID: 24963350 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Roeleveld N., Zielhuis G.A., Gabreëls F. The prevalence of mental retardation: A critical review of recent literature. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 1997;39:125–132. - PubMed
-
- Shevell M., Ashwal S., Donley D., Flint J., Gingold M., Hirtz D., Majnemer A., Noetzel M., Sheth R.D., Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society Practice parameter: evaluation of the child with global developmental delay: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and The Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. Neurology. 2003;60:367–380. - PubMed
-
- Rauch A., Hoyer J., Guth S., Zweier C., Kraus C., Becker C., Zenker M., Hüffmeier U., Thiel C., Rüschendorf F. Diagnostic yield of various genetic approaches in patients with unexplained developmental delay or mental retardation. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2006;140:2063–2074. - PubMed
-
- van Karnebeek C.D., Jansweijer M.C., Leenders A.G., Offringa M., Hennekam R.C. Diagnostic investigations in individuals with mental retardation: A systematic literature review of their usefulness. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2005;13:6–25. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources