1
|
Smith HS, Regier DA, Goranitis I, Bourke M, IJzerman MJ, Degeling K, Montgomery T, Phillips KA, Wordsworth S, Buchanan J, Marshall DA. Approaches to Incorporation of Preferences into Health Economic Models of Genomic Medicine: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis and Conceptual Framework. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY 2025; 23:337-358. [PMID: 39832089 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-025-00945-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/02/2025] [Indexed: 01/22/2025]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Genomic medicine has features that make it preference sensitive and amenable to model-based health economic evaluation. Preferences of patients, caregivers, and clinicians related to the uptake and delivery of genomic medicine technologies and services that are not captured in health state utility weights can affect the intervention's cost-effectiveness and budget impact. However, there is currently no established or agreed-on approach for integrating preference information into economic evaluations. The objective of this study was to explore approaches for incorporating preferences into model-based economic evaluations of genomic medicine and to develop a conceptual framework to consider preferences in health economic models. METHODS We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis of published literature guided by the following question: how have preferences been incorporated into model-based economic evaluations of genomic medicine interventions? We integrated findings from the literature and expert opinion to develop a conceptual framework of ways in which preferences influence economic value in the context of genomic medicine. RESULTS Our synthesis included 14 articles. Revealed and stated preference data were used to estimate choice probabilities and to value outcomes. Our conceptual framework situates preference data in the context of health system, patient, clinician, and family characteristics. Preference data were sourced from clinicians, patients and families impacted by a condition or intervention, and the general public. Evaluations employed various types of models, including discrete event simulation, microsimulation, Markov, and decision tree models. CONCLUSION When evaluating the broad benefits and costs of implementing new interventions, sufficiently accounting for preferences in the form of model inputs and valuation of outcomes in economic evaluations is important to avoid biased implementation decisions. Incorporation of preference data may improve alignment between predicted and real-world uptake and more accurately estimate welfare impacts, and this study provides critical insights to support researchers who seek to incorporate preference information into model-based health economic evaluations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hadley Stevens Smith
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, 401 Park Drive Suite 401, Boston, MA, USA, 02215.
| | - Dean A Regier
- School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Melbourne Health Economics, Centre for Health Policy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Mackenzie Bourke
- Melbourne Health Economics, Centre for Health Policy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Maarten J IJzerman
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Koen Degeling
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Taylor Montgomery
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, 401 Park Drive Suite 401, Boston, MA, USA, 02215
| | - Kathryn A Phillips
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy, UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Precision Medicine (TRANSPERS), San Fransisco, CA, USA
| | - Sarah Wordsworth
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford and Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
| | - James Buchanan
- Health Economics and Policy Research Unit (HEPRU), Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abbott M, Ryan M, Hernández R, Heidenreich S, Miedzybrodzka Z. Beyond the Diagnosis: Valuing Genome-Wide Sequencing for Rare Disease Diagnosis Using Contingent Valuation. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY 2025; 23:425-439. [PMID: 40082384 PMCID: PMC12052812 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-025-00948-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/19/2025] [Indexed: 03/16/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE The utility of genome-wide sequencing is often quantified in terms of its diagnostic yield. Although obtaining a diagnosis is a fundamental aspect of value, service users also value broader clinical, informational, process and psychological factors in the provision of genomic testing. This study aims to value genome-wide sequencing from the user perspective in Scotland. METHODS A survey was developed and administered to 1014 patients and families with experience of genome-wide sequencing to diagnose a rare condition in Scotland. Participants' willingness to pay for genomic testing was elicited using a contingent valuation payment card. The survey included two genomic-related patient-reported outcome measures: (i) the Personal Utility Scale (PrU) to generate scores for the personal utility of genome-wide sequencing; and (ii) a subscale of the Feelings About Genomic Testing Results (FACTOR) questionnaire to measure negative psychological outcomes. Data were also collected on participants' prior experiences of genomic testing services. A double-hurdle regression model investigated the predictors of patients' willingness to pay for genomic testing. RESULTS Of the 1014 invitations sent, 171 contingent valuation questionnaires were returned. Diagnosed participants reported higher personal utility on PrU than undiagnosed participants. However, both groups reported similar negative psychological outcomes on FACTOR. Diagnosed participants were willing to pay £2043 for genome-wide sequencing, compared with £835 for undiagnosed participants. Diagnostic status, waiting time for results and FACTOR scores (negative psychological outcomes) influenced users' valuations of genome-wide sequencing. CONCLUSIONS Obtaining a diagnosis is a fundamental component of utility in the provision of genomic testing. However, there is still value to those who do not receive a diagnosis. These results have implications for service delivery, such as providing targeted pre-test and post-test genetic counselling, and investing in efficient genome sequencing pipelines to reduce waiting times. Valuing the user experience of genomic testing aligns with patient-centred approaches to the provision of healthcare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Abbott
- Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
| | - Mandy Ryan
- Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Rodolfo Hernández
- Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Goranitis I, Sheen D, Fehlberg Z, Mallett AJ, Best S, Stark Z. A Standardized Measurement and Valuation Scale of Genomic Utility for Policy Decisions: The GUV Scale. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2025; 28:184-190. [PMID: 39725011 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.11.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2024] [Revised: 11/10/2024] [Accepted: 11/25/2024] [Indexed: 12/28/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The multifaceted ways in which genomics can be valuable to clinicians, patients, families, and society are important for informing prioritization decisions by policy makers. This study aims to develop a standardized, cumulative, and preference-weighted genomic utility valuation (GUV) on a scale of 0% to 100%. METHODS A multicriteria decision analysis was conducted with experts involved in policy, clinical, research, and consumer advocacy leadership in Australia for the valuation of policy priority indicators of genomic utility. The use of the GUV scale to support policy decisions is illustrated through a stylized example, and benchmark scoring thresholds of genomic utility were identified by mapping evidence from real-world health technology assessments leading to the public reimbursement of genomic testing in Australia onto the GUV scale. RESULTS In total, 33 (73%) invited experts participated in the study. Clinical utility had the highest priority, followed by societal, diagnostic, economic, and family utilities. Improving health outcomes had the highest preference value (29.5%), followed by improving equity (22.6%), Having high diagnostic yield (22.2%), improving symptom management (15.5%), being cost saving (14.3%), having average diagnostic yield (13.1%), enabling access to clinical trials (12.3%), and enabling reproductive family planning (11.5%). Genomic testing scores from real-world health technology assessments ranged from 46% for syndromic and nonsyndromic intellectual disability to about 60% for mitochondrial conditions and genetic kidney diseases. CONCLUSIONS Comparisons of genomic utility across different clinical contexts may seem difficult because of the multiple criteria required to be weighted to support policy decisions. This comparison is now facilitated in a standardized manner with the GUV scale.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ilias Goranitis
- Economics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Daniel Sheen
- Economics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Zoe Fehlberg
- Economics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Andrew J Mallett
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), Melbourne, VIC, Australia; College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia; Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia; Department of Renal Medicine, Townsville University Hospital, Queensland, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Meng J, Yan F, Chen M, Ding Y, Feng Z, Lu W, Geng J. Preferences for public health insurance coverage of new anticancer drugs: a discrete choice experiment among non-small cell lung cancer patients in China. BMC Public Health 2025; 25:164. [PMID: 39815238 PMCID: PMC11734541 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-20951-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2023] [Accepted: 12/03/2024] [Indexed: 01/18/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ensuring equal access to affordable, high-quality, and satisfied healthcare for cancer patients is a challenge worldwide. Our study aimed to investigate preferences for public health insurance coverage of new anticancer drugs among non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in China. METHODS We identified six attributes of new anticancer drugs and adopted a Bayesian-efficient design to generate choice scenarios for a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The one-on-one, face-to-face DCE was conducted in four cities in Jiangsu Province. The mixed logit regression model was used to estimate patient-reported preferences for each attribute. The interaction model was used to investigate preference heterogeneity. RESULTS Data from 486 patients were available for analysis. The most valuable attribute was the out-of-pocket cost if reimbursed (RI = 32.25%), followed by extension of overall survival (RI = 15.99%), and low incidence of serious side effects (RI = 14.45%). Patients had the highest willingness to pay for the comparative 9-month' extension of overall survival. Patients with advanced NSCLC were more likely to expect new anticancer drugs could improve HRQoL (p < 0.01) and require fewer out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.01). Older patients and patients with low income cared more about the out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Health insurance policymakers need to consider the affordability, comparative survival benefits, comparative safety, and comparative patient-reported outcomes of new anticancer drugs. The findings also highlight the need to ensure affordability for older patients, low-income patients, and patients with advanced cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jingyi Meng
- Medical School of Nantong University, Nantong, 226001, Jiangsu, China
| | - Feifei Yan
- Medical School of Nantong University, Nantong, 226001, Jiangsu, China
| | - Maochun Chen
- Department of General Surgery, Affiliated Dongtai Hospital of Nantong University, Yancheng, 224200, Jiangsu, China
| | - Yuchen Ding
- Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong, 226001, Jiangsu, China
| | - Zhe Feng
- Medical School of Nantong University, Nantong, 226001, Jiangsu, China
- Medical Records Department, Wuxi Xishan People's Hospital, Wuxi, 214105, Jiangsu, China
| | - Wenzhang Lu
- Department of Respiratory, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong, 226001, Jiangsu, China
| | - Jinsong Geng
- Medical School of Nantong University, Nantong, 226001, Jiangsu, China.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Fehlberg Z, Goranitis I, Mallett AJ, Stark Z, Best S. Determining priority indicators of utility for genomic testing in rare disease: A Delphi study. Genet Med 2024; 26:101116. [PMID: 38459833 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2024.101116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2023] [Revised: 03/01/2024] [Accepted: 03/04/2024] [Indexed: 03/10/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Determining the value of genomic tests in rare disease necessitates a broader conceptualization of genomic utility beyond diagnostic yield. Despite widespread discussion, consensus toward which aspects of value to consider is lacking. This study aimed to use expert opinion to identify and refine priority indicators of utility in rare disease genomic testing. METHODS We used 2 survey rounds following Delphi methodology to obtain consensus on indicators of utility among experts involved in policy, clinical, research, and consumer advocacy leadership in Australia. We analyzed quantitative and qualitative data to identify, define, and determine priority indicators. RESULTS Twenty-five experts completed round 1 and 18 completed both rounds. Twenty indicators reached consensus as a priority in value assessment, including those relating to prognostic information, timeliness of results, practical and health care outcomes, clinical accreditation, and diagnostic yield. Whereas indicators pertaining to discovery research, disutility, and factors secondary to primary reason for testing were considered less of a priority and were removed. CONCLUSION This study obtained expert consensus on different utility indicators that are considered a priority in determining the value of genomic testing in rare disease in Australia. Indicators may inform a standardized approach to evidence generation and assessment to guide future research, decision making, and implementation efforts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zoe Fehlberg
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Andrew J Mallett
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Douglas, QLD, Australia; Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia; Department of Renal Medicine, Townsville University Hospital, Douglas, QLD, Australia
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Meng Y, Best S, Amor DJ, Braden R, Morgan AT, Goranitis I. The value of genomic testing in severe childhood speech disorders. Eur J Hum Genet 2024; 32:440-447. [PMID: 38308083 PMCID: PMC10999408 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-024-01534-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2023] [Revised: 10/25/2023] [Accepted: 01/09/2024] [Indexed: 02/04/2024] Open
Abstract
With increasing gene discoveries for severe speech disorders, genomic testing can alter the diagnostic and clinical paradigms, enabling better life outcomes for children and their families. However, evidence on the value of the outcomes generated is lacking, impeding optimal translation into health care. This study aims to estimate the value and uptake of genomic testing for severe childhood speech disorders. A discrete choice experiment was undertaken to elicit preferences for genomic testing from the perspective of the Australian public (n = 951) and parents of children experiencing severe speech disorder (n = 56). Choice attributes associated with genomic testing were identified through focus groups. A Bayesian D-efficient design was used to develop choice scenarios and choice data were analyzed using a panel error component mixed logit model and a latent class model. Statistically significant preferences were identified across all seven attributes. The mean monetary value of the benefits of genomic testing relative to standard diagnostic care in Australia was estimated at AU$7489 (US$5021) and AU$4452 (US$2985) from the perspectives of the Australian public and families with lived experience of severe speech disorders, with a corresponding test uptake of 94.2% and 99.6%. To ensure fair prioritization of genomics, decision-makers need to consider the wide range of risks and benefits associated with genomic information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yan Meng
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Center, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - David J Amor
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Ruth Braden
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Angela T Morgan
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
- Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Morrish N, Snowsill T, Dodman S, Medina-Lara A. Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments. Med Decis Making 2024; 44:252-268. [PMID: 38323553 PMCID: PMC10988993 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x241227425] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2023] [Accepted: 01/03/2024] [Indexed: 02/08/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Understanding service user preferences is key to effective health care decision making and efficient resource allocation. It is of particular importance in the management of high-risk patients in whom predictive genetic testing can alter health outcomes. PURPOSE This review aims to identify the relative importance and willingness to pay for attributes of genetic testing in hereditary cancer syndromes. DATA SOURCES Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, Web of Science, and EconLit using discrete choice experiment (DCE) terms combined with terms related to hereditary cancer syndromes, malignancy synonyms, and genetic testing. STUDY SELECTION Following independent screening by 3 reviewers, 7 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, being a DCE investigating patient or public preferences related to predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes. DATA EXTRACTION Extracted data included study and respondent characteristics, DCE attributes and levels, methods of data analysis and interpretation, and key study findings. DATA SYNTHESIS Studies covered colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer syndromes. Results were summarized in a narrative synthesis and the quality assessed using the Lancsar and Louviere framework. LIMITATIONS This review focuses only on DCE design and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes rather than other complex diseases. Challenges also arose from heterogeneity in attributes and levels. CONCLUSIONS Test effectiveness and detection rates were consistently important to respondents and thus should be prioritized by policy makers. Accuracy, cost, and wait time, while also important, showed variation between studies, although overall reduction in cost may improve uptake. Patients and the public would be willing to pay for improved detection and clinician over insurance provider involvement. Future studies should seek to contextualize findings by considering the impact of sociodemographic characteristics, health system coverage, and insurance policies on preferences. HIGHLIGHTS Test effectiveness and detection rates are consistently important to respondents in genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.Reducing the cost of genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes may improve uptake.Individuals are most willing to pay for a test that improves detection rates, identifies multiple cancers, and for which results are shared with a doctor rather than with an insurance provider.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N. Morrish
- Public Health Economics Group, Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - T. Snowsill
- Health Economics Group, Health and Community Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | | | - A. Medina-Lara
- Public Health Economics Group, Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Goranitis I, Meng Y, Martyn M, Best S, Bouffler S, Bombard Y, Gaff C, Stark Z. Eliciting parental preferences and values for the return of additional findings from genomic sequencing. NPJ Genom Med 2024; 9:10. [PMID: 38355752 PMCID: PMC10867021 DOI: 10.1038/s41525-024-00399-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2023] [Accepted: 01/19/2024] [Indexed: 02/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Health economic evidence is needed to inform the design of high-value and cost-effective processes for returning genomic results from analyses for additional findings (AF). This study reports the results of a discrete-choice experiment designed to elicit preferences for the process of returning AF results from the perspective of parents of children with rare conditions and to estimate the value placed on AF analysis. Overall, 94 parents recruited within the Australian Genomics and Melbourne Genomics programmes participated in the survey, providing preferences in a total of 1128 choice scenarios. Statistically significant preferences were identified for the opportunity to change the choices made about AF; receiving positive AF in person from a genetic counsellor; timely access to a medical specialist and high-quality online resources; receiving automatic updates through a secure online portal if new information becomes available; and lower costs. For AF uptake rates ranging between 50-95%, the mean per person value from AF analysis was estimated at AU$450-$1700 (US$300-$1140). The findings enable the design of a value-maximising process of analysis for AF in rare-disease genomic sequencing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ilias Goranitis
- Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Yan Meng
- Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Melissa Martyn
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Sophie Bouffler
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Yvonne Bombard
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Genomics Health Services Research Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Clara Gaff
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Pan T, Wu Y, Buchanan J, Goranitis I. QALYs and rare diseases: exploring the responsiveness of SF-6D, EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D following genomic testing for childhood and adult-onset rare genetic conditions in Australia. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2023; 21:132. [PMID: 38087302 PMCID: PMC10717517 DOI: 10.1186/s12955-023-02216-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2023] [Accepted: 12/02/2023] [Indexed: 12/18/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Genomic testing transforms the diagnosis and management of rare conditions. However, uncertainty exists on how to best measure genomic outcomes for informing healthcare priorities. Using the HTA-preferred method should be the starting point to improve the evidence-base. This study explores the responsiveness of SF-6D, EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D following genomic testing across childhood and adult-onset genetic conditions. METHOD Self-reported patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were obtained from: primary caregivers of children with suspected neurodevelopmental disorders (NDs) or genetic kidney diseases (GKDs) (carers' own PRO), adults with suspected GKDs using SF-12v2; adults with suspected complex neurological disorders (CNDs) using EQ-5D-5L; and adults with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) using AQol-8D. Responsiveness was assessed using the standardised response mean effect-size based on diagnostic (having a confirmed genomic diagnosis), personal (usefulness of genomic information to individuals or families), and clinical (clinical usefulness of genomic information) utility anchors. RESULTS In total, 254 people completed PRO measures before genomic testing and after receiving results. For diagnostic utility, a nearly moderate positive effect size was identified by the AQoL-8D in adult DCM patients. Declines in physical health domains masked any improvements in mental or psychosocial domains in parents of children affected by NDs and adult CNDs and DCM patients with confirmed diagnosis. However, the magnitude of the changes was small and we did not find statistically significant evidence of these changes. No other responsiveness evidence related to diagnostic, clinical, and personal utility of genomic testing was identified. CONCLUSION Generic PRO measures may lack responsiveness to the diagnostic, clinical and personal outcomes of genomics, but further research is needed to establish their measurement properties and relevant evaluative space in the context of rare conditions. Expected declines in the physical health of people experiencing rare conditions may further challenge the conventional application of quality of life assessments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tianxin Pan
- Economics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - You Wu
- Economics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - James Buchanan
- Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Health Economics and Policy Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Economics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Guzman H, Yazdani S, Harmon JL, Chapman KA, Vitola B, Pyle L, McKnight H, Sigal W, Lord K, De Leon DD, Merchant N, Ganetzky R. Case report: Two unexpected cases of DGUOK-related mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome presenting with hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2023; 14:1268135. [PMID: 38027095 PMCID: PMC10646319 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1268135] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2023] [Accepted: 10/02/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Timely diagnosis of persistent neonatal hypoglycemia is critical to prevent neurological sequelae, but diagnosis is complicated by the heterogenicity of the causes. We discuss two cases at separate institutions in which clinical management was fundamentally altered by the results of molecular genetic testing. In both patients, critical samples demonstrated hypoketotic hypoglycemia and a partial glycemic response to glucagon stimulation, thereby suggesting hyperinsulinism (HI). However, due to rapid genetic testing, both patients were found to have deoxyguanosine kinase (DGUOK)-related mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, an unexpected diagnosis. Patients with this disease typically present with either hepatocerebral disease in the neonatal period or isolated hepatic failure in infancy. The characteristic features involved in the hepatocerebral form of the disease include lactic acidosis, hypoglycemia, cholestasis, progressive liver failure, and increasing neurologic dysfunction. Those with isolated liver involvement experience hepatomegaly, cholestasis, and liver failure. Although liver transplantation is considered, research has demonstrated that for patients with DGUOK-related mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome and neurologic symptoms, early demise occurs. Our report advocates for the prompt initiation of genetic testing in patients presenting with persistent neonatal hypoglycemia and for the incorporation of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndromes in the differential diagnosis of HI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Herodes Guzman
- Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States
- Division of Genetics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Sahr Yazdani
- Division of General Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Jennifer L. Harmon
- Rare Disease Institute, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Kimberly A. Chapman
- Rare Disease Institute, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Bernadette Vitola
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
- Transplant Institute, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Louise Pyle
- Rare Disease Institute, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Heather McKnight
- Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Winnie Sigal
- Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States
- Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Katherine Lord
- Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States
- Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Diva D. De Leon
- Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States
- Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Nadia Merchant
- Rare Disease Institute, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
- Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Rebecca Ganetzky
- Division of Genetics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States
- Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Mallett A, Stark Z, Fehlberg Z, Best S, Goranitis I. Determining the utility of diagnostic genomics: a conceptual framework. Hum Genomics 2023; 17:75. [PMID: 37587497 PMCID: PMC10433656 DOI: 10.1186/s40246-023-00524-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2023] [Accepted: 08/09/2023] [Indexed: 08/18/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diagnostic efficacy is now well established for diagnostic genomic testing in rare disease. Assessment of overall utility is emerging as a key next step, however ambiguity in the conceptualisation and measurement of utility has impeded its assessment in a comprehensive manner. We propose a conceptual framework to approach determining the broader utility of diagnostic genomics encompassing patients, families, clinicians, health services and health systems to assist future evidence generation and funding decisions. BODY: Building upon previous work, our framework posits that utility of diagnostic genomics consists of three dimensions: the domain or type and extent of utility (what), the relationship and perspective of utility (who), and the time horizon of utility (when). Across the description, assessment, and summation of these three proposed dimensions of utility, one could potentially triangulate a singular point of utility axes of type, relationship, and time. Collectively, the multiple different points of individual utility might be inferred to relate to a concept of aggregate utility. CONCLUSION This ontological framework requires retrospective and prospective application to enable refinement and validation. Moving forward our framework, and others which have preceded it, promote a better characterisation and description of genomic utility to inform decision-making and optimise the benefits of genomic diagnostic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Mallett
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Douglas, QLD, Australia.
- Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.
- Department of Renal Medicine, Townsville University Hospital, Douglas, QLD, 4029, Australia.
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Zoe Fehlberg
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Stark Z, Boughtwood T, Haas M, Braithwaite J, Gaff CL, Goranitis I, Spurdle AB, Hansen DP, Hofmann O, Laing N, Metcalfe S, Newson AJ, Scott HS, Thorne N, Ward RL, Dinger ME, Best S, Long JC, Grimmond SM, Pearson J, Waddell N, Barnett CP, Cook M, Field M, Fielding D, Fox SB, Gecz J, Jaffe A, Leventer RJ, Lockhart PJ, Lunke S, Mallett AJ, McGaughran J, Mileshkin L, Nones K, Roscioli T, Scheffer IE, Semsarian C, Simons C, Thomas DM, Thorburn DR, Tothill R, White D, Dunwoodie S, Simpson PT, Phillips P, Brion MJ, Finlay K, Quinn MC, Mattiske T, Tudini E, Boggs K, Murray S, Wells K, Cannings J, Sinclair AH, Christodoulou J, North KN. Australian Genomics: Outcomes of a 5-year national program to accelerate the integration of genomics in healthcare. Am J Hum Genet 2023; 110:419-426. [PMID: 36868206 PMCID: PMC10027474 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2023.01.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2022] [Accepted: 01/27/2023] [Indexed: 03/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Australian Genomics is a national collaborative partnership of more than 100 organizations piloting a whole-of-system approach to integrating genomics into healthcare, based on federation principles. In the first five years of operation, Australian Genomics has evaluated the outcomes of genomic testing in more than 5,200 individuals across 19 rare disease and cancer flagship studies. Comprehensive analyses of the health economic, policy, ethical, legal, implementation and workforce implications of incorporating genomics in the Australian context have informed evidence-based change in policy and practice, resulting in national government funding and equity of access for a range of genomic tests. Simultaneously, Australian Genomics has built national skills, infrastructure, policy, and data resources to enable effective data sharing to drive discovery research and support improvements in clinical genomic delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Tiffany Boughtwood
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Childhood Dementia Initiative, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Matilda Haas
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; International Society for Quality in Health Care, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Clara L Gaff
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Amanda B Spurdle
- Population Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - David P Hansen
- Australian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Oliver Hofmann
- University of Melbourne Centre for Cancer Research, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Nigel Laing
- Centre for Medical Research, University of Western Australia, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Sylvia Metcalfe
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Hamish S Scott
- Department of Genetics and Molecular Pathology, SA Pathology, Adelaide, SA, Australia; Centre for Cancer Biology, SA Pathology and University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia; Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia; Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Natalie Thorne
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Robyn L Ward
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Marcel E Dinger
- School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Janet C Long
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Sean M Grimmond
- University of Melbourne Centre for Cancer Research, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - John Pearson
- Genome Informatics Group, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Nicola Waddell
- Medical Genomics Group, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Christopher P Barnett
- Paediatric and Reproductive Genetics Unit, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Matthew Cook
- Centre for Personalised Immunology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Puddicombe Way, Cambridge, UK
| | - Michael Field
- Genetics of Learning Disability Service, Hunter Genetics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
| | - David Fielding
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Centre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Stephen B Fox
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Pathology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Jozef Gecz
- Adelaide Medical School and Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Adam Jaffe
- School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Richard J Leventer
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Neurology, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Paul J Lockhart
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Bruce Lefroy Centre, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Sebastian Lunke
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Andrew J Mallett
- KidGen Collaborative, Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Renal Medicine, Townsville University Hospital, Townsville, QLD, Australia; College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia; Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Julie McGaughran
- Genetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Linda Mileshkin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Katia Nones
- Medical Genomics Group, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Tony Roscioli
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Randwick Genomics Laboratory, NSW Health Pathology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA) and Prince of Wales Clinical School, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Ingrid E Scheffer
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Neurology, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Christopher Semsarian
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Agnes Ginges Centre for Molecular Cardiology at Centenary Institute, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Department of Cardiology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Cas Simons
- Centre for Population Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Centre for Population Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, and University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - David M Thomas
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - David R Thorburn
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Richard Tothill
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Clinical Pathology and Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Deborah White
- Blood Cancer Program, Precision Cancer Medicine Theme, The South Australian Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, SA, Australia; Faculty of Health and Medical Science, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Sally Dunwoodie
- School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Peter T Simpson
- Centre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Peta Phillips
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Marie-Jo Brion
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Keri Finlay
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Michael Cj Quinn
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia
| | - Tessa Mattiske
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Emma Tudini
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Kirsten Boggs
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Westmead, NSW, Australia
| | - Sean Murray
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Mito Foundation, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Kathy Wells
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Breast Cancer Network Australia, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - John Cannings
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; ProCan, Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Andrew H Sinclair
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - John Christodoulou
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Kathryn N North
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Chad L, Anderson J, Cagliero D, Hayeems RZ, Ly LG, Szuto A. Rapid Genetic Testing in Pediatric and Neonatal Critical Care: A Scoping Review of Emerging Ethical Issues. Hosp Pediatr 2022; 12:e347-e359. [PMID: 36161483 DOI: 10.1542/hpeds.2022-006654] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rapid genome-wide sequencing (rGWS) is being increasingly used to aid in prognostication and decision-making for critically ill newborns and children. Although its feasibility in this fast-paced setting has been described, this new paradigm of inpatient genetic care raises new ethical challenges. OBJECTIVE A scoping review was performed to (1) identify salient ethical issues in this area of practice; and (2) bring attention to gaps and ethical tensions that warrant more deliberate exploration. METHODS Data sources, Ovid Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched up to November 2021. Articles included were those in English relating to rGWS deployed rapidly in a critical care setting. Publications were examined for ethical themes and were further characterized as including a superficial or in-depth discussion of that theme. New themes were inductively identified as they emerged. RESULTS Ninety-nine studies, published in 2012 or thereafter, met inclusion criteria. Themes identified elaborated upon established ethical principles related to beneficence and nonmaleficence (ie, clinical utility, medical uncertainty, impact on family, and data security) autonomy (ie, informed consent), and justice (ie, resource allocation and disability rights). Many themes were only narrowly discussed. CONCLUSIONS The application of rGWS in neonatal and pediatric acute care is inherently tied to ethically charged issues, some of which are reported here. Attention to the ethical costs and benefits of rGWS is not always discussed, with important gaps and unanswered questions that call for ongoing focus on these ethical considerations in this next application of acute care genomics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren Chad
- Divisions of Clinical and Metabolic Genetics
- Departments of Bioethics
- Departments of Paediatrics
| | | | | | - Robin Z Hayeems
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute,Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto,Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Linh G Ly
- Neonatology
- Departments of Paediatrics
| | - Anna Szuto
- Genetic Counselling, Hospital for Sick Children,Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Molecular Genetics
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Buchanan J, Goranitis I, Slade I, Kerasidou A, Sheehan M, Sideri K, Wordsworth S. Resource allocation in genetic and genomic medicine. J Community Genet 2022; 13:463-466. [PMID: 36152236 PMCID: PMC9530093 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-022-00608-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- J Buchanan
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
| | - I Goranitis
- Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | - I Slade
- Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Wokingham Borough Council, Wokingham, UK
| | - A Kerasidou
- Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - M Sheehan
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
- Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - K Sideri
- Department of Political Science and History, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Athens, Greece
| | - S Wordsworth
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Goranitis I, Wu Y, Lunke S, White SM, Tan TY, Yeung A, Hunter MF, Martyn M, Gaff C, Stark Z. Is faster better? An economic evaluation of rapid and ultra-rapid genomic testing in critically ill infants and children. Genet Med 2022; 24:1037-1044. [PMID: 35181209 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.01.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2021] [Revised: 01/17/2022] [Accepted: 01/19/2022] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate whether the additional cost of providing increasingly faster genomic results in pediatric critical care is outweighed by reductions in health care costs and increases in personal utility. METHODS Hospital costs and medical files from a cohort of 40 children were analyzed. The health economic impact of rapid and ultra-rapid genomic testing, with and without early initiation, relative to standard genomic testing was evaluated. RESULTS Shortening the time to results led to substantial economic and personal benefits. Early initiation of ultra-rapid genomic testing was the most cost-beneficial strategy, leading to a cost saving of AU$26,600 per child tested relative to standard genomic testing and a welfare gain of AU$12,000 per child tested. Implementation of early ultra-rapid testing of critically ill children is expected to lead to an annual cost saving of AU$7.3 million for the Australian health system and an aggregate welfare gain of AU$3.3 million, corresponding to a total net benefit of AU$10.6 million. CONCLUSION Early initiation of ultra-rapid genomic testing can offer substantial economic and personal benefits. Future implementation of rapid genomic testing programs should focus not only on optimizing the laboratory workflow to achieve a fast turnaround time but also on changing clinical practice to expedite test initiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ilias Goranitis
- Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| | - You Wu
- Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sebastian Lunke
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Pediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Susan M White
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Pediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Tiong Y Tan
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Pediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Alison Yeung
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Pediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Matthew F Hunter
- Monash Genetics, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Pediatrics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Melissa Martyn
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Clara Gaff
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Pediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Pediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Meng Y, Clarke PM, Goranitis I. The Value of Genomic Testing: A Contingent Valuation Across Six Child- and Adult-Onset Genetic Conditions. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2022; 40:215-223. [PMID: 34671943 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01103-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/07/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to elicit the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for genomic testing, using contingent valuation, among people with lived experience of genetic conditions in Australia. METHODS Parents of children with suspected mitochondrial disorders, epileptic encephalopathy, leukodystrophy, or malformations of cortical development completed a dynamic triple-bounded dichotomous choice (DC) contingent valuation. Adult patients or parents of children with suspected genetic kidney disease or complex neurological and neurodegenerative conditions completed a payment card (PC) contingent valuation. DC data were analyzed using a multilevel interval regression and a multilevel probit model. PC data were analyzed using a Heckman selection model. RESULTS In total, 360 individuals participated in the contingent valuation (CV), with 141 (39%) and 219 (61%) completing the DC and PC questions, respectively. The mean WTP for genomic testing was estimated at AU$2830 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2236-3424) based on the DC data and AU$1914 (95% CI 1532-2296) based on the PC data. The mean WTP across the six cohorts ranged from AU$1879 (genetic kidney disease) to AU$4554 (leukodystrophy). CONCLUSIONS Genomic testing is highly valued by people experiencing rare genetic conditions. Our findings can inform cost-benefit analyses and the prioritization of genomics into mainstream clinical care. While our WTP estimates for adult-onset genetic conditions aligned with estimates derived from discrete choice experiments (DCEs), for childhood-onset conditions our estimates were significantly lower. Research is urgently required to directly compare, and critically evaluate, the performance of CV and DCE methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yan Meng
- Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207-221 Bouverie St., Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Philip M Clarke
- Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207-221 Bouverie St., Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Headington, UK
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207-221 Bouverie St., Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Stark Z, Ellard S. Rapid genomic testing for critically ill children: time to become standard of care? Eur J Hum Genet 2022; 30:142-149. [PMID: 34744166 PMCID: PMC8821543 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-00990-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2021] [Accepted: 10/17/2021] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Rapid genomic testing in critically ill neonatal and paediatric patients has transformed the paradigm of rare disease diagnosis, delivering results in real time to inform patient management. More than 20 studies totalling over 1500 patients from diverse healthcare settings worldwide have now been published, forming a compelling evidence base for healthcare system implementation. We review the reported diagnostic and clinical outcomes, as well as broader evaluations of family and professional experiences, cost effectiveness, implementation challenges and bioethical issues arising from rapid testing. As rapid genomic testing transitions from the research to the healthcare setting to become a 'standard of care' test, there is a need to develop effective service delivery models to support scalability at both the laboratory and clinical level and promote equity of access, prompt test initiation, integrated multidisciplinary input and holistic family support. Harnessing the high level of professional engagement with rapid genomic testing programmes will continue to drive innovation and adoption, while close integration with emerging precision medicine approaches will be necessary to deliver on the promise of reduced infant and child mortality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC Australia ,grid.1058.c0000 0000 9442 535XVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC Australia ,grid.1008.90000 0001 2179 088XDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC Australia
| | - Sian Ellard
- grid.419309.60000 0004 0495 6261Exeter Genomics Laboratory, South West Genomic Laboratory Hub, Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK ,grid.8391.30000 0004 1936 8024Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| |
Collapse
|