A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.     

Toward a sustainable biomedical research enterprise: Finding consensus and implementing recommendations

The US research enterprise is under significant strain due to stagnant funding, an expanding workforce, and complex regulations that increase costs and slow the pace of research. In response, a number of groups have analyzed the problems and offered recommendations for resolving these issues. However, many of these recommendations lacked follow-up implementation, allowing the damage of stagnant funding and outdated policies to persist. Here, we analyze nine reports published since the beginning of 2012 and consolidate over 250 suggestions into eight consensus recommendations made by the majority of the reports. We then propose how to implement these consensus recommendations, and we identify critical issues, such as improving workforce diversity and stakeholder interactions, on which the community has yet to achieve consensus.     

Immunisation of healthcare workers in the Nordic countries: Variation in recommendations and practices and a lack of assessment

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of both exposure and transmission of infectious disease. Two European Union (EU) directives state that health services are responsible for assessing their employees’ potential exposure to infectious diseases and offering immunisation free of charge. We assessed current policy for immunisation of HCWs and the availability of vaccine coverage data in the Nordic countries by surveying national vaccination experts in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, as well as Swedish county medical officers (CMOs). All national experts and 17 of 21 Swedish CMOs responded. All EU countries had transposed the European directives into national law, while Norway and Iceland had similar national legislation. Recommendations or guidelines were issued in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and 15 of 17 responding Swedish counties. The range of diseases covered differed by countries and Swedish counties. HCW vaccine coverage data were not systematically collected; incomplete estimates were only available for Finland and two Swedish counties. In conclusion, recommendations or guidelines exist in the Nordic countries, but their impact cannot be assessed, as vaccine uptake among HCWs is not currently measured. Systematic collection of data is a necessary step towards improving HCW immunisation policy and practice in the Nordic countries.