Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17963419›Full record

ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2007

Modeling the impact of genetic screening technologies on healthcare: theoretical model for asthma in children.

Emma Gutiérrez de Mesa, Ignacio Hidalgo, Panayotis Christidis, Juan Carlos Ciscar, Eva Vegas, Dolores Ibarreta

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cost-effectiveness of primary prevention of paediatric asthma: a decision-analytic model.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Emma Gutiérrez de MesaInstitute for Prospective Technological Studies (Joint Research Centre - European Commission), Seville, Spain. Emma.GUTIERREZ-DE-MESA@ec.europa.eu
Ignacio Hidalgo
Panayotis Christidis
Juan Carlos Ciscar
Eva Vegas
Dolores Ibarreta
European Commission · BEMadrid Health Service · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThis study focuses on the potential impact of genetic screening technologies on healthcare. Genetic screening for asthma in children was chosen as a case study to explore the cost effectiveness of applying early genetic screening to infants, and preventive treatment to the population at risk. Early intervention could prevent progression and facilitate clinical management of the disease. From the elite group of genetic markers that have been associated with asthma-related phenotypes, ADAM33 was the first published candidate gene detected by a positional cloning approach, marking the entry of asthma research into the genomic era. The model was, therefore, initially set for an ex ante analysis of the cost effectiveness of applying the preventive program to an infant population at risk, i.e. infants presenting wheezing episodes during the first year of life, and the ADAM33 ST+7 genetic marker, with the idea of expanding to further markers and their combinations lat a later date.

methodsIn accordance with the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, four categories of asthma were considered. A Markov model was constructed, consisting of six mutually exclusive disease states (including healthy and dead states) with a simulation horizon of 100 years and a cycle length of 1 year. We define a scenario where early genetic screening was applied to infants presenting wheezing episodes during the first year of life and a preventive treatment to those children within this group who tested positive for selected ADAM33 polymorphism (ST+7). The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the third-party payer and patient perspective after year 6. We applied our model to a hypothetical cohort of 100 European infants.

resultsThe number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained during the 6 years was 1.483, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained was euro 10,100/QALY. A sensitivity analysis was carried out that varied the discount rate and cost of genetic testing, and considered two different transition matrices for the preventive program. Three main conclusions were drawn from the sensitivity analysis. Firstly, if the discount rate for both cost and health outcomes is increased by 2%, the cost effectiveness of the preventive program does not vary significantly. Discounting costs and benefits at 5%, the preventive program appears cost effective (euro 11,100/QALY). Secondly, if the cost of genetic testing is increased to euro 100, the cost effectiveness of the preventive program remains within the limits of cost effectiveness. Thirdly, the cost of genetic screening, together with transition probabilities between health states, will determine the cost effectiveness of applying a preventive program based on genetic information.

conclusionsPreventive treatment based on an early genetic screening of those children who present wheezing episodes during the first year of life, with treatment applied to those who test positive for the asthma-associated genetic marker ADAM33 ST+7, is theoretically cost effective. The model is a valuable tool for the ex ante assessment of the cost effectiveness of preventive schemes based on genetic screening. The value of modeling prior to clinical trials lies in informing study design and setting priorities for future research.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalADAM ProteinsAsthmaChildGenetic TestingHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsADAM33 protein, humanADAM Proteins

Identifiers

PMID17963419
OpenAlexW85752360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.