Top

The European Journal of Health Economics

Published in:

01-10-2012 | Original Paper

Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?

Authors: Fernando Antoñanzas, R. Rodríguez-Ibeas, M. F. Hutter, R. Lorente, C. Juárez, M. Pinillos

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 5/2012

Abstract

Objective

We review the published economic evaluation studies applied to genetic technologies in the EU to know the main diseases addressed by these studies, the ways the studies were conducted and to assess the efficiency of these new technologies. The final aim of this review was to understand the possibilities of the economic evaluations performed up to date as a tool to contribute to decision making in this area.

Methods

We have reviewed a set of articles found in several databases until March 2010. Literature searches were made in the following databases: PubMed; Euronheed; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination of the University of York—Health Technology Assessment, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, NHS Economic Evaluation Database; and Scopus. The algorithm was “(screening or diagnosis) and genetic and (cost or economic) and (country EU27)”. We included studies if they met the following criteria: (1) a genetic technology was analysed; (2) human DNA must be tested for; (3) the analysis was a real economic evaluation or a cost study, and (4) the articles had to be related to any EU Member State.

Results

We initially found 3,559 papers on genetic testing but only 92 articles of economic analysis referred to a wide range of genetic diseases matched the inclusion criteria. The most studied diseases were as follows: cystic fibrosis (12), breast and ovarian cancer (8), hereditary hemochromatosis (6), Down’s syndrome (7), colorectal cancer (5), familial hypercholesterolaemia (5), prostate cancer (4), and thrombophilia (4). Genetic tests were mostly used for screening purposes, and cost-effectiveness analysis is the most common type of economic study. The analysed gene technologies are deemed to be efficient for some specific population groups and screening algorithms according to the values of their cost-effectiveness ratios that were below the commonly accepted threshold of 30,000€.

Conclusions

Economic evaluation of genetic technologies matters but the number of published studies is still rather low as to be widely used for most of the decisions in different jurisdictions across the EU. Further, the decision bodies across EU27 are fragmented and the responsibilities are located at different levels of the decision process for what it is difficult to find out whether a given decision on genetic tests was somehow supported by the economic evaluation results.

Balmaña, J., Sanz, J., Bonfill, X., Casado, A., Rué, M., Gich, I., Díez, O., Sabaté, J.M., Baiget, M., Alonso, M.C.: Genetic counseling program in familial breast cancer: analysis of its effectiveness, cost and cost-effectiveness ratio. Int. J. Cancer 112(4), 647–652 (2004)PubMedCrossRef

Barré, S., Préaubert, N., Delaveyne, R., Cecchin, M.: An economic evaluation of screening for hereditary haemochromatosis in the French population. Journal d’Economie Médicale 23(1), 15–26 (2005)

Barrow, E., McMahon, R., Evans, D.G., Levine, E., Hill, J.: Cost analysis of biomarker testing for mismatch repair deficiency in node-positive colorectal cancer. Br. J. Surg. 95(7), 868–875 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

Brain, K., Gray, J., Norman, P., France, E., Anglim, C., Barton, G., Parsons, E., Clarke, A., Sweetland, H., Tischkowitz, M., Myring, J., Stansfield, K., Webster, D., Gower-Thomas, K., Daoud, R., Gateley, C., Monypenny, I., Singhal, H., Branston, L., Sampson, J., Roberts, E., Newcombe, R., Cohen, D.: Randomized trial of a specialist genetic assessment service for familial breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 92(16), 1345–1351 (2000)PubMedCrossRef

Caballero Villarraso J., Villegas Portero R. “Denaturing high performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC). Use and utility in massive genotyping”. Andalusian Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AETSA) 2006/2007

Carlson, J.J., Henrikson, N.B., Veenstra, D.L., Ramsey, S.D.: Economic analyses of human genetics services: a systematic review. Genet. Med. 7(8), 519–523 (2005)PubMedCrossRef

Calvert, N.W., Morgan, A.B., Catto, J.W., Hamdy, F.C., Akehurst, R.L., Mouncey, P., Paisley, S.: Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prognostic markers in prostate cancer. Br. J. Cancer 88(1), 31–35 (2003)PubMedCrossRef

Clark, P., Twaddle, S., Walker, I.D., Scott, L., Greer, I.A.: Cost-effectiveness of screening for the factor V Leiden mutation in pregnant women. Lancet 359(9321), 1919–1920 (2002)PubMedCrossRef

Cohen, D., Barton, G., Gray, J., Brain, K.: Health economics and genetic service development: a familial cancer genetic example. Familial Cancer 3(1), 61–67 (2004)PubMedCrossRef

10.

Cooper, K., Bryant, J., Picot, J., Clegg, A., Roderick, P.R., Rosenberg, W.M., Patch, C.: A decision analysis model for diagnostic strategies using DNA testing for hereditary haemochromatosis in at risk populations. QJM 101(8), 631–641 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

11.

Cuckle, H.S., Richardson, G.A., Sheldon, T.A., Quirke, P.: Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. BMJ 311(7018), 1460–1463 (1995). discussion 1463–1464PubMedCrossRef

12.

Desboeuf, K., Molinier, L., Carrere, M.O., Bugat, R., Boisseau, M., Machelard-Sauvage, M., Voigt, J.J., Pous, J.: Cost-effectiveness in diagnosis and treatment of carcinomas of unknown primary origin. Bulletin du Cancer 88(11), 1119–1127 (2001)PubMed

13.

Directorate E. (Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food), Survey on national legislation and activities in the filed of genetic testing in EU Member States. European Commission 2005

14.

Donaldson, C., Shackley, P., Abdalla, M.: Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisited. Health Econ. 6(2), 145–159 (1997)PubMedCrossRef

15.

Drummond, M.F., O’Brien, B.J., Stoddart, G.L., et al.: Methods for the Economics Evaluation of Health Care Programs, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York (1997)

16.

Eccles, D.M., Englefield, P., Soulby, M.A., Campbell, I.G.: BRCA1 mutations in Southern England. Br. J. Cancer 77(12), 2199–2203 (1998)PubMedCrossRef

17.

Fábregues, F., Tàssies, D., Reverter, J.C., Carmona, F., Ordinas, A., Balasch, J.: Prevalence of thrombophilia in women with severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and cost-effectiveness of screening. Fertil. Steril. 81(4), 989–995 (2004)PubMedCrossRef

18.

Gilbert, R.E., Augood, C., Gupta, R., Ades, A.E., Logan, S., Sculpher, M., van der Meulen, J.H.: Screening for Down’s syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies. BMJ 323(7310), 423–425 (2001)PubMedCrossRef

19.

Goard, B., Kate, L., Evers-Kiebooms, G., Aymé, S.: Population genetic screening programmes: principles, techniques, practices, and policies. Eur. J. Genet. 11(Sppl 2), 549–587 (2003)

20.

Goldgar, D.E., Easton, D.F.: Optimal strategies for mapping complex diseases in the presence of multiple loci. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 60(5), 1222–1232 (1997)PubMed

21.

Goldstein, H., Philip, J.: A cost-benefit analysis of prenatal diagnosis by amniocentesis in Denmark. Clin. Genet. 37(4), 241–263 (1990)PubMedCrossRef

22.

Guadagni, F., Ferroni, P., Carlini, S., Mariotti, S., Spila, A., Aloe, S., D’Alessandro, R., Carone, M.D., Cicchetti, A., Ricciotti, A., Venturo, I., Perri, P., Di Filippo, F., Cognetti, F., Botti, C., Roselli, M.: A re-evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as a serum marker for breast cancer: a prospective longitudinal study. Clinic. Cancer Res. 7(8), 2357–2362 (2001)

23.

Gustafsson, O., Carlsson, P., Norming, U., Nyman, C.R., Svensson, H.: Cost-effectiveness analysis in early detection of prostate cancer: an evaluation of six screening strategies in a randomly selected population of 2,400 men. Prostate 26(6), 299–309 (1995)PubMedCrossRef

24.

Haddow, J.E., Bradley, L.A., Palomaki, G.E., Doherty, R.A.: Issues in implementing prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis: results of a working conference. J. Med. Screen. 6(2), 60–66 (1999)PubMed

25.

Hagen, A., Hessabi, H.K., Gorenoi, V., Schönermark, M.P.: Cost-effectiveness evaluation of predictive molecular diagnostics using the example of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). Gesundheitswesen 70(1), 18–27 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

26.

Haillot, O., Villers, A., Soulie, M., Baron, J.C.: Screening of cancer of the prostate (IV). Economic approach: the costs of screening tests and treatment. Members of the sub-committee of the prostate of CCAFU. Prog. Urol. 8(4), 517–523 (1998)PubMed

27.

Hoogendoorn, M., Evers, S.M., Schielen, P.C., van Genugten, M.L., de Wit, G.A., Ament, A.J.: Costs and effects of prenatal screening methods for down syndrome and neural tube defects. Community Genet. 11(6), 359–367 (2008)PubMed

28.

Hutter, M.F., Antoñanzas, F.: Health economics evaluations: a comparative analysis of European studies. Pharmacoeconomics 27(7), 561–570 (2009)PubMedCrossRef

29.

Javaher, P., Käärläinen, H., Kristoffersson, U., Nippert, I.: EuroGentest: DNA-Based testing for heritable disorders in Europe. Community Genet. 11, 75–120 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

30.

Jusot, J.F., Colin, C.: Cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies for hepatitis C screening in French blood recipients. Eur. J. Public Health 11(4), 373–379 (2001)PubMedCrossRef

31.

Kievit, W., de Bruin, J.H., Adang, E.M., Severens, J.L., Kleibeuker, J.H., Sijmons, R.H., Ruers, T.J., Nagengast, F.M., Vasen, H.F., van Krieken, J.H., Ligtenberg, M.J., Hoogerbrugge, N.: Cost effectiveness of a new strategy to identify HNPCC patients. Gut 54(1), 97–102 (2005)PubMedCrossRef

32.

Kruper, L., Kurichi, J., Sonnad, S.: Methodologic quality of cost-effectiveness analyses of surgical procedures. Ann. Surg. 245, 147–151 (2007)PubMedCrossRef

33.

Marang-van de Mheen, P.J., ten Asbroek, A.H., Bonneux, L., Bonsel, G.J., Klazinga, N.S.: Cost-effectiveness of a family and DNA based screening programme on familial hypercholesterolaemia in The Netherlands. Eur. Heart J. 23(24), 1922–1930 (2002)PubMedCrossRef

34.

Marchetti, M., Quaglini, S., Barosi, G.: Cost-effectiveness of screening and extended anticoagulation for carriers of both factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A. QJM 94(7), 365–372 (2001)PubMedCrossRef

35.

Marks, D., Thorogood, M., Neil, A.W., Wonderling, D., Humphries, S.E.: Comparing costs and benefits over a 10 year period of strategies for familial hypercholesterolaemia screening. J. Public Health Med. 25(1), 47–52 (2003)PubMedCrossRef

36.

Marks, D., Wonderling, D., Thorogood, M., Lambert, H., Humphries, S.E., Andrew, H., Neil, W.: Cost effectiveness analysis of different approaches of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia. Bri. Med. J. 324(7349), 1303–1306 (2002)CrossRef

37.

Miedzybrodzka, Z.H., Yin, Z., Kelly, K.F., Haites, N.E.: Evaluation of laboratory methods for cystic fibrosis carrier screening: reliability, sensitivity, specificity, and costs. J. Med. Genet. 31(7), 545–550 (1994)PubMedCrossRef

38.

Miedzybrodzka, Z., Semper, J., Shackley, P., Abdalla, M., Donaldson, C.: Stepwise or couple antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis?: women’s preferences and willingness to pay. J. Med. Genet. 32(4), 282–283 (1995)PubMedCrossRef

39.

Neumann, P.J., Chi-Hui, F., Cohen, J.T.: 30 years of pharmaceutical cost-utility analyses. Growth, diversity and methodological improvement. Pharmacoeconomics 27(10), 861–872 (2009)PubMedCrossRef

40.

Nielsen, M., Hes, F.J., Vasen, H.F., van den Hout, W.B.: Cost-utility analysis of genetic screening in families of patients with germline MUTYH mutations. BMC Med. Genet. 8, 42 (2007)PubMedCrossRef

41.

Nielsen, R., Gyrd-Hansen, D.: Prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis: an economic analysis. Health Econ. 11(4), 285–299 (2002)PubMedCrossRef

42.

Oliva, J., López-Bastida, J., Moreno, S.G., Mata, P., Alonso, R.: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a genetic screening program in the close relatives of Spanish patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 62(1), 57–65 (2009)PubMedCrossRef

43.

Palareti, G., Legnani, C., Frascaro, M., Flamigni, C., Gammi, L., Gola, G., Fuschini, G., Coccheri, S.: Screening for activated protein C resistance before oral contraceptive treatment: a pilot study. Contraception. 59, 293–299 (1999)

44.

Patch, C., Roderick, P., Rosenberg, W.: Factors affecting the uptake of screening: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing a genotypic and a phenotypic strategy for screening for haemochromatosis. J. Hepatol. 43(1), 149–155 (2005)PubMedCrossRef

45.

Pinto-Basto, J., Guimaraes, B., Rantanen, E., Javaher, P., Nippert, I., Cassiman, J.J., Kääriäinen, H., Kristoffersson, U., Schmidtke, J., Sequeiros, J.: Scope of definitions of genetic testing: evidence from a EuroGentest survey. J. Community Genet. 1, 29–35 (2010)PubMedCrossRef

46.

Piñol, V., Castells, A., Andreu, M., Castellví-Bel, S., Alenda, C., Llor, X., Xicola, R.M., Rodríguez-Moranta, F., Payá, A., Jover, R., Bessa, X., Gastrointestinal Oncology Group of the Spanish Gastroenterological Association: Accuracy of revised Bethesda guidelines, microsatellite instability, and immunohistochemistry for the identification of patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. JAMA 293(16), 1986–1994 (2005)PubMedCrossRef

47.

Rogowski, W.: Genetic screening by DNA technology: a systematic review of health economic evidence. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 22(3), 327–337 (2006)PubMedCrossRef

48.

Rogowski, W.: Current impact of gene technology on health care: a map of economic assessments. Health Policy 80, 340–357 (2007)PubMedCrossRef

49.

Rogowski, W.H.: The cost-effectiveness of screening for hereditary hemochromatosis in Germany: a remodeling study. Med. Decis. Making 29(2), 224–238 (2009)PubMedCrossRef

50.

Ryan, M., Diack, J., Watson, V., Smith, N.: Rapid prenatal diagnostic testing for Down syndrome only or longer wait for full karyotype: the views of pregnant women. Prenat. Diagn. 13(13), 1206–1211 (2005)

51.

Schöffski, O., Schmidtke, J., Stuhrmann, M.: Cost-effectiveness of population-based genetic hemochromatosis screening. Community Genet. 3, 2–11 (2000)CrossRef

52.

Seror, V., Muller, F., Moatti, J.P., Le Gales, C., Boue, A.: Economic assessment of maternal serum screening for Down’s syndrome using human chorionic gonadotropin. Prenat. Diag. 13(4), 281–292 (1993)CrossRef

53.

Serra-Prat, M., Gallo, P., Jovell, A.J., Aymerich, M., Estrada, M.D.: Trade-offs in prenatal detection of Down syndrome. Am. J. Public Health 88, 551–557 (1998)PubMedCrossRef

54.

Sevilla, C., Moatti, J.P., Julian-Reynier, C., Eisinger, F., Stoppa-Lyonnet, D., Bressac-de Paillerets, B., Sobol, H.: Testing for BRCA1 mutations: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 10(10), 599–606 (2002)

55.

Sheldon, T.A., Simpson, J.: Appraisal of a new scheme for prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome. BMJ 302(6785), 1133–1136 (1991)PubMedCrossRef

56.

Simpson, N., Anderson, R., Sassi, F., Pitman, A., Lewis, P., Tu, K., Lannin, H.: The cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis: an analysis of alternative scenarios using a decision model. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 3, 8 (2005)PubMedCrossRef

57.

Sims, E.J., Mugford, M., Clark, A., Aitken, D., McCormick, J., Mehta, G., Mehta, A.: UD Cystic Fibrosis Database Steering Committee. “Economic implications of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: a cost of illness retrospective cohort study”. Lancet 369, 1187–1195 (2007)PubMedCrossRef

58.

Stuhrmann, M., Strassburg, C., Schmidtke, J.: Genotype-based screening for hereditary haemochromatosis. I: technical performance, costs and clinical relevance of a German pilot study. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 13(1), 69–78 (2005)PubMedCrossRef

59.

Van der Riet, A.A., van Hout, B.A., Rutten, F.F.: Cost effectiveness of DNA diagnosis for four monogenic diseases. J. Med. Genet. 34(9), 741–745 (1997)PubMedCrossRef

60.

Vegter, S., Boersma, C., Rozenbaum, M., Wilffert, B., Navis, G., Posta, M.J.: Pharmacoeconomic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and genomic screening programmes: a systematic review on content and adherence to guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 26(7), 569–587 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

61.

Weijers-Poppealaars, F.A., Wildhagen, M.F., Henneman, L., Cornel, M.C., Kate, L.P.: Preconception cystic fibrosis carrier screening: costs and consequences. Genet. Test 9(2), 158–166 (2005)CrossRef

62.

Wildhagen, M.F., ten Kate, L.P., Habbema, J.D.: Screening for cystic fibrosis and its evaluation. Br. Med. Bull. 54(4), 857–875 (1998)PubMedCrossRef

63.

Wildhagen, M.F., Hilderink, B.M., Verzijl, J.G., Verheij, J.B., Kooij, L., Tijmstra, T., Ten Kate, L.P., Habbema, J.D.: Costs, effects, and savings of screening for cystic fibrosis gene carriers. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 52(7), 459–467 (1998)PubMedCrossRef

64.

Wonderling, D., Umans-Eckenhausen, M.A., Marks, D., Defesche, J.C., Kastelein, J.J., Thorogood, M.: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the genetic screening program for familial hypercholesterolemia in The Netherlands. Semin. Vasc. Med. 4(1), 97–104 (2004)PubMedCrossRef

65.

Zika E., Gurwitz D., Ibarreta D. Pharmacogenetics and Pharmacogenomics: State-of-the-art and potential socio-economic impacts in the EU. Report EUR 22214 EN. Brusseles, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. 2006. (www.jrc.es/home/pages/detail.cjm?prs=1387)

Title: Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?
Authors: Fernando Antoñanzas
R. Rodríguez-Ibeas
M. F. Hutter
R. Lorente
C. Juárez
M. Pinillos
Publication date: 01-10-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 5/2012
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-011-0319-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2012

Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment

Cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy: a multilevel approach with propensity score matching

Does participation in clinical trials influence the costs of future management of patients?

Loss of labour productivity caused by disease and health problems: what is the magnitude of its effect on Spain’s Economy?

Cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus capecitabine in women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer who have received prior therapy with trastuzumab

Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale