BackgroundThe health economic evidence about the value and optimal targeting of genetic testing in the prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) events has remained limited and ambiguous. The objective of this study is to optimize the population-level use and targeting of genetic testing alongside traditional risk factors in the prevention of CHD events and, thereby, to assess the cost-benefit of genetic testing.Methods and findingsWe compare several strategies for using traditional and genetic testing in the prevention of CHD through statin therapy. The targeting of tests to different patient segments within these strategies is optimized by using a decision-analytic model, in which a patient’s estimated risk of CHD is updated based on test results using Bayesian methods. We adopt the perspective of healthcare sector. The data for the model is exceptionally wide and combined from national healthcare registers, the Finnish Institute for Molecular Medicine, and published literature. Our results suggest that targeting genetic testing in an optimal way to those patients about which traditional risk factors do not provide sufficiently accurate information results in the highest expected net benefit. In particular, compared to the use of traditional risk factors only, the optimal use of genetic testing would decrease the expected costs of an average patient aged 45 years or more by 2.54€ in a 10-year follow-up period while maintaining the level of the expected health outcome. Thus, genetic testing is found to be a part of a cost-beneficial testing strategy alongside traditional risk factors. This conclusion is robust to reasonable changes in model inputs.ConclusionsIf targeted optimally, the use of genetic testing alongside traditional risk factors is cost-beneficial in the prevention of CHD.
Resources for health care interventions, such as tests and treatments, are limited. This makes it necessary to prioritize patient segments (defined in terms of their risk) by allocating resources so that the expected contribution to the chosen population-level objective is maximized. In this article, we build a model for the optimal allocation of resources in view of two such objectives: maximizing the aggregate health of the population (utilitarian) and limiting differences in the health outcomes for different patient segments (egalitarian). In particular, we build a two-phase optimization model that (i) first uses dynamic programming to determine what testing and treatment strategies maximize the expected health benefits for each patient segment at different cost levels, and (ii) then solves a binary linear programming problem to determine what resources should be given to each segment to maximize the chosen policy-level objective subject to the overall resource constraint. Our model supports the specification of patient segments, the development of optimal testing and treatment strategies within each segment, and the allocation of available resources to these segments so that the policy-objective will be maximized by implementing these strategies. In addition, the model can be used to guide the interpretation of test results and to assess the impacts of new tests and treatments. It also offers insights into the cost of equity by permitting comparisons between the optimal strategies under utilitarian and egalitarian objectives. We illustrate our approach with real data by optimizing the use of traditional risk scores and genetic tests in preventing coronary heart disease events. [
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.