A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening Strategies Involving Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomy 21

被引:3
|
作者
Wang, Shuxian [1 ,2 ]
Liu, Kejun [3 ]
Yang, Huixia [1 ,2 ]
Ma, Jingmei [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Peking Univ First Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] Key Lab Maternal Fetal Med Gestat Diabet Mellitus, Beijing, Peoples R China
[3] China Natl Hlth Dev Res Ctr, Beijing, Peoples R China
关键词
trisomy 21 (T21); cost-effectiveness analysis; non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT); cell-free DNA (cf-DNA); traditional triple serum screening; CELL-FREE DNA; DOWN-SYNDROME; 1ST TRIMESTER; POSITION STATEMENT; MATERNAL SERUM; HIGH-RISK; PREGNANCIES; 1ST-TRIMESTER; ANEUPLOIDY; TRISOMIES;
D O I
10.3389/fpubh.2022.870543
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
IntroductionIn accordance with social development, the proportion of advanced maternal age (AMA) increased and the cost of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) decreased. ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of NIPT as primary or contingent strategies limited to the high-risk population of trisomy 21 (T21). MethodsReferring to parameters from publications or on-site verification, a theoretical model involving 1,000,000 single pregnancies was established. We presented five screening scenarios, primary NIPT (Strategy 1), contingent NIPT after traditional triple serum screening higher than 1/300 or 1/1,000 (Strategy 2-1 or 2-2), and age-based Strategy 3. Strategy 3 was stratified, with the following options: (1) for advanced maternal age (AMA) of 40 years and more, diagnostic testing was offered, (2) for AMA of 35-39 years, NIPT was introduced, (3) if younger than 35 years of age, contingent NIPT with risk higher than 1:300 (Strategy 3-1) or 1:1,000 (Strategy 3-2) will be offered. The primary outcome was an incremental cost analysis on the baseline and alternative assumptions, taking aging society, NIPT price, and compliance into consideration. The strategy was "appropriate" when the incremental cost was less than the cost of raising one T21 child (0.215 million US$). The second outcome included total cost, cost-effect, cost-benefit analysis, and screening efficiency. ResultsStrategy1 was costly, while detecting most T21. Strategy 2-1 reduced unnecessary prenatal diagnosis (PD) and was optimal in total cost, cost-effect, and cost-benefit analysis, nevertheless, T21 detection was the least. Strategy 3 induced most of the PD procedures. Then, setting Strategy2-1 as a baseline for incremental cost analysis, Strategy 3-1 was appropriate. In sensitivity analysis, when the NIPT price was lower than 47 US$, Strategy 1 was the most appropriate. In a society with more than 20% of people older than 35 years of age, the incremental cost of Strategy 3-2 was proper. ConclusionCombined strategies involving NIPT reduced unnecessary diagnostic tests. The AMA proportion and NIPT price played critical roles in the strategic decision. The age-based strategy was optimal in incremental cost analysis and was presented to be prominent as AMA proportion and NIPT acceptance increased. The primary NIPT was the most effective, but only at a certain price, it became the most cost-effective strategy.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 21 in high-risk women: a cost-effectiveness analysis
    Sutton, Amelia
    Durst, Jennifer
    Biggio, Joseph
    Harper, Lorie
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2014, 210 (01) : S67 - S67
  • [2] A cost-effectiveness analysis of using non-invasive prenatal testing as a screening tool for Down syndrome
    Ohno, Mika
    Allen, Allison
    Cheng, Yvonne
    Shaffer, Brian
    Blumenfeld, Yair
    Norton, Mary
    Caughey, Aaron
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2013, 208 (01) : S235 - S235
  • [3] COSTS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF NON-INVASIVE PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS (NIPT) FOR DETECTION OF TRISOMY 21 IN SWEDEN
    Davidson, T.
    Iwarsson, E.
    Jacobsson, B.
    Dagerhamn, J.
    Arnlind, Heibert M.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2015, 18 (07) : A352 - A352
  • [4] Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 21: replacing invasive testing or replacing screening?
    Verweij, E. J.
    de Boer, Marjon
    van Scheltema, Phebe N. Adama
    van den Oever, Jessica M. E.
    Boon, Elles M. J.
    Oepkes, Dick
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2012, 206 (01) : S313 - S313
  • [5] Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome in China
    Xu, Yan
    Wei, Yan
    Ming, Jian
    Li, Na
    Xu, Ningze
    Pong, Raymond W.
    Chen, Yingyao
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2019, 35 (03) : 237 - 242
  • [6] COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF NON-INVASIVE PRENATAL TESTING FOR DOWN'S SYNDROME IN CHINA
    Xu, Y.
    Chen, Y.
    Li, N.
    Ming, J.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2016, 19 (07) : A875 - A876
  • [7] Non-invasive prenatal screening for trisomy 21: Consumers' perspectives
    Higuchi, Emily C.
    Sheldon, Jane P.
    Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J.
    Yashar, Beverly M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A, 2016, 170 (02) : 375 - 385
  • [8] SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS (CEA) OF THE CELL FREE DNA (CFDNA) / NON-INVASIVE PRENATAL TEST (NIPT) FOR TRISOMY 21 (T21) SCREENING
    Bourdoncle, M.
    Li, J.
    Berthelot, A.
    Cognet, M.
    Sambuc, C.
    Scemama, O.
    Rumeau-Pichon, C.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2016, 19 (07) : A695 - A696
  • [9] Introducing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) into screening paradigms for trisomy 21 (T21): is it cost-effective?
    Odibo, Anthony
    Cahill, Alison
    Macones, George
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2013, 208 (01) : S242 - S243
  • [10] Expansion of non-invasive prenatal screening to the screening of 10 types of chromosomal anomalies: a cost-effectiveness analysis
    Soukkhaphone, Bounhome
    Baradaran, Mohammad
    Nguyen, Ba Diep
    Nshimyumukiza, Leon
    Little, Julian
    Rousseau, Francois
    Audibert, Francois
    Langlois, Sylvie
    Reinharz, Daniel
    BMJ OPEN, 2023, 13 (08):