We have located links that may give you full text access.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Routine Screening Using Massively Parallel Sequencing for Maturity-Onset Diabetes of the Young in a Pediatric Diabetes Cohort: Reduced Health System Costs and Improved Patient Quality of Life.
Diabetes Care 2018 December 7
OBJECTIVE: Maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) is an autosomal dominant form of diabetes, with multiple causative genes. Some MODY subtypes can be treated with sulfonylureas instead of insulin, improving glycemic control, complication rates, quality of life (QoL), and costs. Using massively parallel sequencing (MPS), we recently determined the prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic MODY variants in an Australian pediatric diabetes cohort. Here, these data are used to estimate cost-effectiveness of using MPS for MODY in all pediatric diabetes cases compared with standard practice (sequencing limited to individuals with specific clinical features).
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov decision model was developed to estimate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of MPS screening, modeled over 30 years. We used our observed prevalence of 2.14% compared with 0.7% for standard practice, based on published data. The probabilities and utility weightings of long-term diabetes complications were based on HbA1c and estimated from published data. A series of one-way sensitivity analyses were performed using the net monetary benefit framework.
RESULTS: Routine MPS screening for MODY was more effective and less costly than standard care screening, with 26 QALYs gained and 1,016,000 AUD (782,000 USD) saved per 1,000 patients. Cost of screening was fully offset within 10 years. Routine MPS screening remained dominant until MODY prevalence fell to <1.1%.
CONCLUSIONS: Routine MPS screening for MODY in the pediatric population with diabetes could reduce health system costs and improve patient QoL. Our results make a compelling argument for routine genetic screening in all children with presumed type 1 diabetes mellitus.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov decision model was developed to estimate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of MPS screening, modeled over 30 years. We used our observed prevalence of 2.14% compared with 0.7% for standard practice, based on published data. The probabilities and utility weightings of long-term diabetes complications were based on HbA1c and estimated from published data. A series of one-way sensitivity analyses were performed using the net monetary benefit framework.
RESULTS: Routine MPS screening for MODY was more effective and less costly than standard care screening, with 26 QALYs gained and 1,016,000 AUD (782,000 USD) saved per 1,000 patients. Cost of screening was fully offset within 10 years. Routine MPS screening remained dominant until MODY prevalence fell to <1.1%.
CONCLUSIONS: Routine MPS screening for MODY in the pediatric population with diabetes could reduce health system costs and improve patient QoL. Our results make a compelling argument for routine genetic screening in all children with presumed type 1 diabetes mellitus.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app