TY - JOUR T1 - Cost-effectiveness of polygenic risk profiling for primary open-angle glaucoma in the United Kingdom and Australia JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.02.18.21251906 SP - 2021.02.18.21251906 AU - Qinqin Liu AU - John Davis AU - Xikun Han AU - David A Mackey AU - Stuart MacGregor AU - Jamie E Craig AU - Lei Si AU - Alex W Hewitt Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/19/2021.02.18.21251906.abstract N2 - Objective Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is the most common subtype of glaucoma worldwide. Early diagnosis and intervention is proven to slow disease progression and reduce disease burden. Currently, population-based screening for POAG is not generally recommended due to cost. In this study, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of polygenic risk profiling as a screening tool for POAG.Methods and Analysis We used a Markov cohort model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing polygenic risk profiling as a new POAG-screening approach in the UK and Australia. Six health states were included in this model: death, early, mild, moderate, severe, and healthy individuals. The evaluation was conducted from the healthcare payer’s perspective. We used the best available published data to calculate prevalence, transition probabilities, utility and other parameters for each health state and age group. The study followed the CHEERS checklist. Our main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and secondary outcomes were years of blindness avoided per person and a ‘Blindness ICER’. We did one-way and two-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to reflect the uncertainty around predicting ICERs.Results Our proposed genetic screening programme for POAG in Australia is predicted to result in ICER of AU$34,252 (95% CI AU$21,324-95,497) and would avoid 1 year of blindness at ICER of AU$13,359 (95% CI: AU$8,143-37,448). In the UK, this screening is predicted to result in ICER of £24,783 (13,373-66,960) and would avoid 1 year of blindness at ICER of £10,095 (95%CI: £5,513-27,656). Findings were robust in all sensitivity analyses. Using the willingness to pay thresholds of $54,808 and £30,000, the proposed screening model is 79.2% likely to be cost-effective in Australia and is 60.2% likely to be cost-effective in the UK, respectively.Conclusions We describe and model the cost-efficacy of incorporating a polygenic risk score for POAG screening in Australia and the UK. Although the level of willingness to pay for Australian Government is uncertain, and the ICER range for the UK is broad, we showed a clear target strategy for early detection and prevention of advanced POAG in these developed countries.Copyright the Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, an exclusive licence (or non exclusive for government employees) on a worldwide basis to the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in BMJ editions and any other BMJPGL products and sublicences such use and exploit all subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence.Competing Interest StatementConflict of Interest Disclosures S.M., J.E.C., and A.W.H. are listed as co-inventors on a patent application (WO2019241844A1) for the use of genetic risk scores to determine risk and guide treatment for glaucoma.Funding StatementAcknowledgements D.A.M., S.M., J.E.C., L.S. and A.W.H. are supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Fellowships. X.H. is supported by the University of Queensland Research Training Scholarship and QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute PhD Top Up Scholarship. We are grateful for funding from a NHMRC Program grant (1150144), Partnership grant (1132454) and a Centre for Research Excellence grant (1116360).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesPlease contact the corresponding author for all data Email: qinqinliu@outlook.com ER -