» Articles » PMID: 34277554

Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluation of Returning Incidental Findings in Genomic Research

Overview
Specialty Public Health
Date 2021 Jul 19
PMID 34277554
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Discussions regarding who and how incidental findings (IFs) should be returned and the ethics behind returning IFs have increased dramatically over the years. However, information on the cost and benefits of returning IFs to patients remains scanty. This study systematically reviews the economic evaluation of returning IFs in genomic sequencing. We searched for published articles on the cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and cost-utility of IFs in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. We found six published articles that met the eligibility criteria of this study. Two articles used cost analysis only, one used cost-benefit analysis only, two used both cost analysis and cost-effectiveness, and one used both cost-benefit analysis and cost-utility to describe the cost of returning IFs in genomic sequencing. While individuals value the IF results and are willing to pay for them, the cost of returning IFs depends on the primary health condition of the patient. Although patients were willing to pay, there was no clear evidence that returning IFs might be cost-effective. More rigorous economic evaluation studies of IFs are needed to determine whether or not the cost of returning IFs is beneficial to the patient.

Citing Articles

A practical checklist for return of results from genomic research in the European context.

Vears D, Hallowell N, Bentzen H, Ellul B, Nost T, Kerasidou A Eur J Hum Genet. 2023; 31(6):687-695.

PMID: 36949262 PMC: 10250331. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01328-6.


Prevalence and Disease Expression of Pathogenic and Likely Pathogenic Variants Associated With Inherited Cardiomyopathies in the General Population.

Bourfiss M, van Vugt M, Alasiri A, Ruijsink B, van Setten J, Schmidt A Circ Genom Precis Med. 2022; 15(6):e003704.

PMID: 36264615 PMC: 9770140. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCGEN.122.003704.


A View on Genomic Medicine Activities in Africa: Implications for Policy.

Jongeneel C, Kotze M, Bhaw-Luximon A, Fadlelmola F, Fakim Y, Hamdi Y Front Genet. 2022; 13:769919.

PMID: 35571023 PMC: 9091728. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.769919.

References
1.
Marshall D, Gonzalez J, Reed Johnson F, MacDonald K, Pugh A, Douglas M . What are people willing to pay for whole-genome sequencing information, and who decides what they receive?. Genet Med. 2016; 18(12):1295-1302. PMC: 5133139. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.61. View

2.
Wonkam A, de Vries J . Returning incidental findings in African genomics research. Nat Genet. 2019; 52(1):17-20. PMC: 7255819. DOI: 10.1038/s41588-019-0542-4. View

3.
Hoy D, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, March L, Bain C . Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65(9):934-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014. View

4.
Sohani Z, Meyre D, de Souza R, Joseph P, Gandhi M, Dennis B . Assessing the quality of published genetic association studies in meta-analyses: the quality of genetic studies (Q-Genie) tool. BMC Genet. 2015; 16:50. PMC: 4431044. DOI: 10.1186/s12863-015-0211-2. View

5.
Bennette C, Gallego C, Burke W, Jarvik G, Veenstra D . The cost-effectiveness of returning incidental findings from next-generation genomic sequencing. Genet Med. 2014; 17(7):587-95. PMC: 4430464. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2014.156. View