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

被引:5
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 56 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2016, Obstet Gynecol, V127, pe123, DOI 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001406
[2]  
[Anonymous], STANDARD PRENATAL SC
[3]   A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing different strategies to implement noninvasive prenatal testing into a Down syndrome screening program [J].
Ayres, Alice C. ;
Whitty, Jennifer A. ;
Ellwood, David A. .
AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2014, 54 (05) :412-417
[4]   The consequences of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing with cell-free foetal DNA for the detection of Down syndrome in the Spanish National Health Service: a cost-effectiveness analysis [J].
Bayon, J. C. ;
Orruno, E. ;
Portillo, M. I. ;
Asua, J. .
COST EFFECTIVENESS AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION, 2019, 17 (1)
[5]   A 2-year review of publicly funded cell-free DNA screening in Ontario: utilization and adherence to funding criteria [J].
Bellai-Dussault, Kara ;
Meng, Lynn ;
Huang, Tianhua ;
Reszel, Jessica ;
Walker, Mark ;
Lanes, Andrea ;
Okun, Nan ;
Armour, Christine ;
Dougan, Shelley .
PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2020, 40 (02) :164-172
[6]   Understanding attitudes and behaviors towards cell-free DNA-based noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT): A survey of European health-care providers [J].
Benachi, Alexandra ;
Caffrey, Jessica ;
Calda, Pavel ;
Carreras, Elena ;
Jani, Jacques C. ;
Kilby, Mark D. ;
Klein, Hanns-Georg ;
Rizzo, Giuseppe ;
Yaron, Yuval .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS, 2020, 63 (01)
[7]   Position statement from the Chromosome Abnormality Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis [J].
Benn, Peter ;
Borrell, Antoni ;
Chiu, Rossa W. K. ;
Cuckle, Howard ;
Dugoff, Lorraine ;
Faas, Brigitte ;
Gross, Susan ;
Huang, Tianhua ;
Johnson, Joann ;
Maymon, Ron ;
Norton, Mary ;
Odibo, Anthony ;
Schielen, Peter ;
Spencer, Kevin ;
Wright, Dave ;
Yaron, Yuval .
PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2015, 35 (08) :725-734
[8]   Risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review of the literature [J].
Beta, Jaroslaw ;
Lesmes-Heredia, Cristina ;
Bedetti, Chiara ;
Akolekar, Ranjit .
MINERVA GINECOLOGICA, 2018, 70 (02) :215-219
[9]   The consequences of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing in Dutch national health care: a cost-effectiveness analysis [J].
Beulen, Lean ;
Grutters, Janneke P. C. ;
Faas, Brigitte H. ;
Feenstra, Ilse ;
van Vugt, John M. G. ;
Bekker, Mireille N. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2014, 182 :53-61
[10]   DNA Sequencing versus Standard Prenatal Aneuploidy Screening [J].
Bianchi, Diana W. ;
Parker, R. Lamar ;
Wentworth, Jeffrey ;
Madankumar, Rajeevi ;
Saffer, Craig ;
Das, Anita F. ;
Craig, Joseph A. ;
Chudova, Darya I. ;
Devers, Patricia L. ;
Jones, Keith W. ;
Oliver, Kelly ;
Rava, Richard P. ;
Sehnert, Amy J. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2014, 370 (09) :799-808