Purpose: The limited evidence available on the cost-effectiveness (CE) of expanded carrier screening (ECS) prevents its widespread use in most countries, including Italy. Herein, we aimed to estimate the CE of 3 ECS panels (ie, American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics [ACMG] Tier 1 screening, “Focused Screening,” testing 15 severe, highly penetrant conditions, and ACMG Tier 3 screening) compared with no screening, the health care model currently adopted in Italy. Methods: The reference population consisted of Italian couples seeking pregnancy with no increased personal/familial genetic risk. The CE model was developed from the perspective of the Italian universal health care system and was based on the following assumptions: 100% sensitivity of investigated screening strategies, 77% intervention rate of at-risk couples (ARCs), and no risk to conceive an affected child by risk-averse couples opting for medical interventions. Results: The incremental CE ratios generated by comparing each genetic screening panel with no screening were: −14,875 ± 1,208 €/life years gained (LYG) for ACMG1S, −106,863 ± 2,379 €/LYG for Focused Screening, and −47,277 ± 1,430 €/LYG for ACMG3S. ACMG1S and Focused Screening were dominated by ACMG3S. The parameter uncertainty did not significantly affect the outcome of the analyses. Conclusion: From a universal health care system perspective, all the 3 ECS panels considered in the study would be more cost-effective than no screening.
Implementing preconception expanded carrier screening in a universal health care system: A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis
Capalbo A.
Ultimo
2023-01-01
Abstract
Purpose: The limited evidence available on the cost-effectiveness (CE) of expanded carrier screening (ECS) prevents its widespread use in most countries, including Italy. Herein, we aimed to estimate the CE of 3 ECS panels (ie, American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics [ACMG] Tier 1 screening, “Focused Screening,” testing 15 severe, highly penetrant conditions, and ACMG Tier 3 screening) compared with no screening, the health care model currently adopted in Italy. Methods: The reference population consisted of Italian couples seeking pregnancy with no increased personal/familial genetic risk. The CE model was developed from the perspective of the Italian universal health care system and was based on the following assumptions: 100% sensitivity of investigated screening strategies, 77% intervention rate of at-risk couples (ARCs), and no risk to conceive an affected child by risk-averse couples opting for medical interventions. Results: The incremental CE ratios generated by comparing each genetic screening panel with no screening were: −14,875 ± 1,208 €/life years gained (LYG) for ACMG1S, −106,863 ± 2,379 €/LYG for Focused Screening, and −47,277 ± 1,430 €/LYG for ACMG3S. ACMG1S and Focused Screening were dominated by ACMG3S. The parameter uncertainty did not significantly affect the outcome of the analyses. Conclusion: From a universal health care system perspective, all the 3 ECS panels considered in the study would be more cost-effective than no screening.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
