The Cost‐Effectiveness of Interleukin‐1 Genetic Testing for Periodontal Disease

Abstract

The model produced a wide range of outcomes reflecting our incomplete understanding of the biology, optimal treatment, and genetic susceptibility of periodontal diseases. However, the model demonstrates that three clinical parameters are highly influential in determining if IL-1 testing can be implemented in a primary care setting in a cost-effective manner.

Current impact of gene technology on healthcare

“…Current economic evaluations of screening for genetic risk factors like in the case of BRCA 1/2 testing [23] as well as diagnostic testing in symptomatic individuals [61] do not consistently indicate stable and favourable cost-effectiveness ratios. Main reasons are restrictions in epidemiological evidence, a lack of effective prevention as well as uncertainty about changes in health behavior following a genetic test result [44].…”

“…Whether and how knowledge about a genetic risk status will modify an individual's behavior remains unclear [47,61,62].…”

“…Primarily for screening purposes yet infrequently also for predictive testing in symptomatic individuals [61], testing for genetic risk factors will be an increasing issue of interest in healthcare decision making. As information on genotype-phenotype associations is increasing at high pace [83], the question arises, which target populations and conditions are worthwhile screening targets.…”

Pharmacogenomics and nutrigenomics: synergies and differences

“…It is possible that people identified as at higher risk could become fatalistic and less likely to change their diets as a result of a genetic test and/or that people identified as at lower risk become complacent and are falsely reassured that they do not need to eat a healthy diet. In either of these situations, genetic testing could actually increase the number of cases of disease in the population 332 tested, or it could make testing ineffective or not cost-effective compared to other approaches. …”

“…251 gum disease (which, like all susceptibility tests, is controversial) gave a range of results from a saving of US$830,140 per 1,000 patients (with some cases prevented), to a cost of US$300,430 332 (with the number of cases increased).…”