Rapid Genome Sequencing Compared to a Gene Panel in Infants with a Suspected Genetic Disorder: An Economic Evaluation

Tara A. Lavelle,Jill L. Maron,Stephen Kingsmore,Ching-Hsuan Lin,Yingying Zhu,Benjamin Sweigart,Dallas Reed,Bruce D Gelb,Jerry Vockley,Jonathan M. Davis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.18.24315740
2024-10-18
Abstract:Introduction: Rapid genome sequencing (rGS) provides high diagnostic yield for critically ill infants with suspected genetic disorders, but it has high upfront costs and insufficient insurance coverage. Assessing the long-term costs of rGS is important for guiding coverage decisions. This study compares 1-year healthcare costs for: 1) early rGS (within 7 days of admission) for all infants, and 2) early targeted neonatal gene sequencing (NewbornDx) for all infants, followed by rGS after 7 days for undiagnosed infants. Methods: The Genomic Medicine for Ill Neonates and Infants (GEMINI) study was a multicenter, prospective study that enrolled 400 hospitalized infants under one year with suspected genetic disorders. All participants underwent both rGS and NewbornDx. Using study data, we developed and populated a decision tree to compare 1-year costs for early rGS versus early NewbornDx followed by later rGS if necessary. Results: The diagnostic yield and upfront testing costs were higher for rGS (49%; $12,297) than NewbornDx (27%; $2,449; p<0.05). Over 1 year, early rGS was estimated to save $158,592 per patient (95% CI: $63,701-$253,292) compared to early NewbornDx with later rGS if necessary. Discussion: Early rGS results in substantial cost savings, highlighting the need to expand reimbursement to improve access.
Genetic and Genomic Medicine
What problem does this paper attempt to address?