↓ Skip to main content

Incremental cost-effectiveness of algorithm-driven genetic testing versus no testing for Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY) in Singapore

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Genetics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Incremental cost-effectiveness of algorithm-driven genetic testing versus no testing for Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY) in Singapore
Published in
Journal of Medical Genetics, August 2017
DOI 10.1136/jmedgenet-2017-104670
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hai Van Nguyen, Eric Andrew Finkelstein, Shweta Mital, Daphne Su-Lyn Gardner

Abstract

Offering genetic testing for Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY) to all young patients with type 2 diabetes has been shown to be not cost-effective. This study tests whether a novel algorithm-driven genetic testing strategy for MODY is incrementally cost-effective relative to the setting of no testing. A decision tree was constructed to estimate the costs and effectiveness of the algorithm-driven MODY testing strategy and a strategy of no genetic testing over a 30-year time horizon from a payer's perspective. The algorithm uses glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) antibody testing (negative antibodies), age of onset of diabetes (<45 years) and body mass index (<25 kg/m(2) if diagnosed >30 years) to stratify the population of patients with diabetes into three subgroups, and testing for MODY only among the subgroup most likely to have the mutation. Singapore-specific costs and prevalence of MODY obtained from local studies and utility values sourced from the literature are used to populate the model. The algorithm-driven MODY testing strategy has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$93 663 per quality-adjusted life year relative to the no testing strategy. If the price of genetic testing falls from US$1050 to US$530 (a 50% decrease), it will become cost-effective. Our proposed algorithm-driven testing strategy for MODY is not yet cost-effective based on established benchmarks. However, as genetic testing prices continue to fall, this strategy is likely to become cost-effective in the near future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,915,942
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Genetics
#2,728
of 2,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,644
of 317,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Genetics
#29
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,940 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,349 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.