Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40513564›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of human genetics2025

Weighing the evidence on costs and benefits of polygenic risk-based approaches in clinical practice: A systematic review of economic evaluations.

Leonardo Maria Siena, Valentina Baccolini, Marianna Riccio, Annalisa Rosso, Giuseppe Migliara, Antonio Sciurti, Claudia Isonne, Jessica Iera, Francesco Pierri, Carolina Marzuillo and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

13 authors.

Leonardo Maria SienaDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Valentina BaccoliniDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy; Department of Translational and Precision Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Marianna RiccioDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Annalisa RossoDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: annalisa.rosso@uniroma1.it.
Giuseppe MigliaraDepartment of Life Sciences, Health, and Health Professions, Link Campus University, Rome, Italy.
Antonio SciurtiDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Claudia IsonneDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Jessica IeraDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Francesco PierriDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Carolina MarzuilloDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Corrado De VitoDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe La TorreDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Paolo VillariDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) represent a promising innovation in the context of precision health, but their benefits for patients and healthcare systems remain unclear. This systematic review examined the methods used to quantify the costs and benefits of PRS-based approaches across different healthcare contexts, summarizing current evidence and identifying challenges. A systematic search of three databases was conducted, and full economic evaluations related to any intervention based on polygenic risk stratification strategies were included (PROSPERO CRD42023442780). Quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. Studies were grouped into three categories (cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other diseases), and key methodological features and characteristics were extracted. A total of 24 cost-utility analyses of generally high quality were included: 16 studies focused on cancer, five on cardiovascular disease, and three on other diseases. Studies on cancer mainly aimed to optimize screening programs, while in the other fields, PRSs were mostly used to refine eligibility for preventive therapies. Analyses were robust, but they mostly relied on hypothetical cohorts, had limited generalizability, paid insufficient attention to implementation aspects-including the delivery model-and considered only clinical benefits. Despite a positive trend toward cost effectiveness following PRS implementation, several challenges remain. These include the limited use of real-world data, issues of representativeness, and gaps in accounting for implementation costs, as well as long-term health and non-health benefits. Further research and pilot studies are needed to evaluate both the costs and benefits of PRS applications across diverse populations for multiple health outcomes simultaneously.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesCost-Benefit AnalysisGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseMultifactorial InheritanceNeoplasmsHumansRisk AssessmentRisk Factorseconomic evaluationpolygenic riskpolygenic risk scorePRSsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40513564
PMCPMC12414691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.