The role of noninvasive prenatal testing as a diagnostic versus a screening tool – a cost‐effectiveness analysis
- 15 May 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Prenatal Diagnosis
- Vol. 33 (7), 630-635
- https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4156
Abstract
Objective As the sensitivity and specificity of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) that uses cell-free fetal DNA in maternal serum to identify Down syndrome (DS) in utero improves, NIPT could be considered a diagnostic test, thus avoiding the complications of chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of NIPT as a diagnostic versus a screening tool. Method A decision-analytic model compared NIPT as a diagnostic tool (NIPT Dx) that did not require a confirmatory amniocentesis versus NIPT used for screening (NIPT Scr) that allowed a confirmatory amniocentesis for screen positive results. Baseline case, univariate, and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed. Results For a high-risk population, NIPT Dx would result in three more DS babies born and 2432 more elective terminations compared with NIPT Scr. Furthermore, there would be many more terminations of fetuses without DS with NIPT Dx (2424) than procedure-related losses associated with NIPT Scr (29). NIPT Scr is more expensive but cost-effective at $7687 per quality-associated life year (QALY), less than the standard cost-effectiveness limit of $100 000/QALY. Conclusions Noninvasive prenatal testing as a screening tool that requires a confirmatory amniocentesis is cost-effective compared with its use as a diagnostic tool and leads to far fewer losses of normal pregnancies. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: a systematic review of termination rates (1995–2011)Prenatal Diagnosis, 2012
- Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: pregnant women's interest and expected uptakePrenatal Diagnosis, 2011
- Prenatal Screening for AneuploidyThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- First-Trimester or Second-Trimester Screening, or Both, for Down's SyndromeThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prenatal Screening Strategies for Down SyndromeObstetrics & Gynecology, 2005
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prenatal Diagnosis: Methodological Issues and ConcernsGynecologic and Obstetric Investigation, 2005
- Ultrasound screening of fetuses at increased risk for Down syndrome: how many missed diagnoses?Prenatal Diagnosis, 2005
- How do women of diverse backgrounds value prenatal testing outcomes?Prenatal Diagnosis, 2004
- Procedure-related miscarriages and down syndrome–affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferencesPublished by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) ,2000
- Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnostic choice: long-term outcomes matter mostPrenatal Diagnosis, 1999