Elucigene FH20 and LIPOchip for the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Authors: Sharma P, Boyers D, Boachie C, Stewart F, Miedzybrodzka Z, Simpson W, Kilonzo M, McNamee P, Mowatt G

Journal: Health Technology Assessment Volume: 16 Issue: 17

Publication date: April 2012

DOI: 10.3310/hta16170

Citation:

Sharma P, Boyers D, Boachie C, Stewart F, Miedzybrodzka Z, Simpson W, et al.Elucigene FH20 and LIPOchip for the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2012;16(17)


Download: Citation (for this publication as a .ris file) (5.7 KB)


Journal issues* can be purchased by completing the form.


The cost of reports varies according to number of pages and postage address. The minimum cost for a copy sent to a UK address is £30.00. We will contact you on receipt of your completed form to advise you of actual cost. If you have any queries, please contact nihredit@southampton.ac.uk.


*We regret that unfortunately we are unable to supply bound print copies of Health Technology Assessment published before issue 12:31. However, PDFs are available to print from the "Downloads" tab of the issue page.

Responses

No responses have been published. If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Post your response

Surname

Forename

Middle Initial

Occupation / Job title

Affiliation / Employer

Email

Address

Other authors

For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas

Statement of competing interests

We believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.

If yes, provide details below:

Enter response title

Enter response message

Enter CAPTCHA

Security key

Regenerate security key

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Downloads section on this page.

Abstract

Background

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an autosomal dominant genetic condition causing a high risk of coronary heart disease. The prevalence of this disease is about 1 in 500 in the UK, affecting about 120,000 people across the whole of the UK. Current guidelines recommend DNA testing, however, these guidelines are poorly implemented, therefore 102,000 or 85% of this group remain undiagnosed.

Objectives

To assess the diagnostic accuracy, effect on patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness of Elucigene FH20 and LIPOchip for the diagnosis of FH.

Data sources

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched until January 2011.

Review methods

A systematic review of the literature on diagnostic accuracy was carried out according to standard methods. An economic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative diagnostic strategies for the confirmation of clinically diagnosed FH in index cases and for the identification and subsequent testing of first-, second- and possibly third-degree biological relatives of the index case. Twelve strategies were evaluated linking diagnostic accuracy to treatment outcomes and hence quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to investigate model and parameter uncertainty.

Results

Fifteen studies were included for diagnostic accuracy; three reported Elucigene FH20, five reported LIPOchip, four reported low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) tests and three reported an age- and gender-specific LDL-C test against a reference standard of comprehensive genetic analysis (CGA). Sensitivity ranged from 44% to 52% for Elucigene FH20 and from 33.3% to 94.5% for various versions of LIPOchip in detecting FH-causing mutations in patients with a clinical diagnosis of FH. For LIPOchip version 10 (designed to detect 189 UK specific mutations), sensitivity would be 78.5% (based on single-centre data - Progenika, personal communication). For all other Elucigene FH20 or LIPOchip studies (apart from one LIPOchip study), specificity could not be calculated as no false-positive results could be derived from the given data. The LDL-C test was generally reported to be highly sensitive but with low specificity. For age- and gender-specific LDL-C cut-offs for cascade testing, sensitivity ranged from 68% to 96%. One UK-based study reported sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 93%. For the cost-effectiveness review, only one study reporting cost-effectiveness of any one of the comparators for this assessment was identified. Pre-screen strategies such as Elucigene FH20 followed by CGA were not cost-effective and were dominated by the single more comprehensive tests (e.g. CGA). Of the non-dominated strategies, Elucigene FH20, LIPOchip platform (Spain) and CGA were all cost-effective with associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) relative to LDL-C of dominance (test is less costly and more effective), £871 and £1030 per QALY gained respectively. CGA generates the greatest QALY gain and, although other tests have lower ICERs relative to LDL-C, this is at the expense of QALY loss compared with the CGA test. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that CGA is associated with an almost 100% probability of cost-effectiveness at the conventional value of willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY gain.

Limitations

There was much uncertainty regarding the diagnostic accuracy of the included tests, with wide variation in sensitivity across reported studies. A lack of published information for the most recent version of LIPOchip created additional uncertainty, especially in relation to the chip's ability to detect copy number changes. For the economic modelling, we aimed to choose the best studies for the base-case sensitivity of the tests; however, a number of informed choices based on clinical expert opinion had to be made in the absence of published studies for a number of other parameters in the modelling. This adds some uncertainty to our results, although it is unlikely that these would be sufficient in magnitude to alter our main results and conclusions.

Conclusions

As targeted tests designed to detect a limited number of genetic mutations, Elucigene FH20 and LIPOchip cannot detect all cases of FH, in contrast with CGA. CGA is therefore the most effective test in terms of sensitivity and QALY gain, and is also highly cost-effective with an associated ICER of £1030 per QALY gain relative to current practice (LDL-C). Other tests such as Elucigene FH20 and LIPOchip are also cost-effective; however, because of inferior sensitivity compared with CGA, these tests offer cost savings but at the expense of large QALY losses compared with CGA. Further prospective multicentred studies are required to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of new and emerging tests for FH with the LDL-C test in patients with a clinical diagnosis based on the Simon Broome criteria. Such studies should verify both test-positive and -negative results against a reference standard of CGA and should include a full economic evaluation.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Share this page
Publication updates

If you would like to receive information on publications and the latest news, click below to sign up.