Sánchez Fernández Iván, Loddenkemper Tobias, Gaínza-Lein Marina, Sheidley Beth Rosen, Poduri Annapurna
From the Epilepsy Genetics Program (B.R.S., A.P.), Division of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology (I.S.F., T.L., M.G.-L., B.R.S., A.P.), Department of Neurology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Child Neurology (I.S.F.), Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Universidad de Barcelona, Spain; and Facultad de Medicina (M.G.-L.), Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia.
Neurology. 2019 Jan 28;92(5):e418-e428. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006850.
To compare the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing strategies in patients with epilepsy of unknown etiology.
This meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness study compared strategies involving 3 genetic tests: chromosomal microarray (CMA), epilepsy panel (EP) with deletion/duplication testing, and whole-exome sequencing (WES) in a cost-effectiveness model, using "no genetic testing" as a point of comparison.
Twenty studies provided information on the diagnostic yield of CMA (8 studies), EP (9 studies), and WES (6 studies). The diagnostic yield was highest for WES: 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33-0.57) (0.32 [95% CI: 0.22-0.44] adjusting for potential publication bias), followed by EP: 0.23 (95% CI: 0.18-0.29), and CMA: 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06-0.12). The most cost-effective test was WES with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $15,000/diagnosis. However, after adjusting for potential publication bias, the most cost-effective test was EP (ICER: $15,848/diagnosis) followed by WES (ICER: $34,500/diagnosis). Among combination strategies, the most cost-effective strategy was WES, then if nondiagnostic, EP, then if nondiagnostic, CMA (ICER: $15,336/diagnosis), although adjusting for potential publication bias, the most cost-effective strategy was EP ± CMA ± WES (ICER: $18,385/diagnosis). While the cost-effectiveness of individual tests and testing strategies overlapped, CMA was consistently less cost-effective than WES and EP.
WES and EP are the most cost-effective genetic tests for epilepsy. Our analyses support, for a broad population of patients with unexplained epilepsy, starting with these tests. Although less expensive, CMA has lower yield, and its use as the first-tier test is thus not supported from a cost-effectiveness perspective.
比较不明病因癫痫患者基因检测策略的成本效益。
这项荟萃分析和成本效益研究在成本效益模型中比较了3种基因检测策略:染色体微阵列分析(CMA)、带缺失/重复检测的癫痫基因检测板(EP)和全外显子组测序(WES),并将“不进行基因检测”作为对照。
20项研究提供了关于CMA(8项研究)、EP(9项研究)和WES(6项研究)诊断率的信息。WES的诊断率最高:0.45(95%置信区间[CI]:0.33 - 0.57)(校正潜在发表偏倚后为0.32[95%CI:0.22 - 0.44]),其次是EP:0.23(95%CI:0.18 - 0.29),CMA:0.08(95%CI:0.06 - 0.12)。最具成本效益的检测是WES,增量成本效益比(ICER)为每诊断一例15,000美元。然而,校正潜在发表偏倚后,最具成本效益的检测是EP(ICER:每诊断一例15,848美元),其次是WES(ICER:每诊断一例34,500美元)。在联合策略中,最具成本效益的策略是先进行WES,若未诊断出则进行EP,若仍未诊断出则进行CMA(ICER:每诊断一例15,336美元),尽管校正潜在发表偏倚后,最具成本效益的策略是EP±CMA±WES(ICER:每诊断一例18,385美元)。虽然个体检测和检测策略的成本效益存在重叠,但CMA的成本效益始终低于WES和EP。
WES和EP是癫痫最具成本效益的基因检测方法。我们的分析支持,对于广大不明原因癫痫患者,应从这些检测开始。虽然CMA成本较低,但其诊断率较低,因此从成本效益角度不支持将其作为一线检测方法。