IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v15y2017i4d10.1007_s40258-016-0297-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of Different Population Screening Strategies for Hereditary Haemochromatosis in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Graaff

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Amanda Neil

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Lei Si

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Kwang Chien Yee

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Kristy Sanderson

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Lyle Gurrin

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Andrew J. Palmer

    (University of Tasmania)

Abstract

Introduction Amongst populations of northern European ancestry, HFE-associated haemochromatosis is a common genetic disorder characterised by iron overload. In the absence of treatment, excess iron is stored in parenchymal tissues, causing morbidity and mortality. Population screening programmes may increase early diagnosis and reduce associated disease. No contemporary health economic evaluation has been published for Australia. The objective of this study was to identify cost-effective screening strategies for haemochromatosis in the Australian setting. Methods A Markov model using probabilistic decision analysis was developed comparing four adult screening strategies: the status quo (cascade and incidental screening), genotyping with blood and buccal samples and transferrin saturation followed by genotyping (TfS). Target populations were males (30 years) and females (45 years) of northern European ancestry. Cost-effectiveness was estimated from the government perspective over a lifetime horizon. Results All strategies for males were cost-effective compared to the status quo. The incremental costs (standard deviation) associated with genotyping (blood) were AUD7 (56), TfS AUD15 (45) and genotyping (buccal) AUD63 (56), producing ICERs of AUD1673, 4103 and 15,233/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively. For females, only the TfS strategy was cost-effective, producing an ICER of AUD10,195/QALY gained. Approximately 3% of C282Y homozygotes were estimated to be identified with the status quo approach, compared with 40% with the proposed screening strategies. Conclusion This model estimated that genotyping and TfS strategies are likely to be more cost-effective screening strategies than the status quo.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara Graaff & Amanda Neil & Lei Si & Kwang Chien Yee & Kristy Sanderson & Lyle Gurrin & Andrew J. Palmer, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness of Different Population Screening Strategies for Hereditary Haemochromatosis in Australia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 521-534, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0297-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0297-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0297-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-016-0297-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barbara Graaff & Amanda Neil & Kristy Sanderson & Lei Si & Kwang Yee & Andrew Palmer, 2015. "A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Health Economic Studies Conducted for Hereditary Haemochromatosis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 469-483, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0297-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.