A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing different strategies to implement noninvasive prenatal testing into a Down syndrome screening program

Ayres, Alice C., Whitty, Jennifer A. and Ellwood, David A. (2014) A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing different strategies to implement noninvasive prenatal testing into a Down syndrome screening program. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 54 (5). pp. 412-417. ISSN 0004-8666

Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)

Abstract

Background Currently, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is only recommended in high-risk women following conventional Down syndrome (DS) screening, and it has not yet been included in the Australian DS screening program. Aims To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies of NIPT for DS screening in comparison with current practice. Methods A decision-analytic approach modelled a theoretical cohort of 300,000 singleton pregnancies. The strategies compared were the following: current practice, NIPT as a second-tier investigation, NIPT only in women >35 years, NIPT only in women >40 years and NIPT for all women. The direct costs (low and high estimates) were derived using both health system costs and patient out-of-pocket expenses. The number of DS cases detected and procedure-related losses (PRL) were compared between strategies. The incremental cost per case detected was the primary measure of cost-effectiveness. Results Universal NIPT costs an additional $134,636,832 compared with current practice, but detects 123 more DS cases (at an incremental cost of $1,094,608 per case) and avoids 90 PRL. NIPT for women >40 years was the most cost-effective strategy, costing an incremental $81,199 per additional DS case detected and avoiding 95 PRL. Conclusions The cost of NIPT needs to decrease significantly if it is to replace current practice on a purely cost-effectiveness basis. However, it may be beneficial to use NIPT as first-line screening in selected high-risk patients. Further evaluation is needed to consider the longer-term costs and benefits of screening.

Item Type: Article
Faculty \ School: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School
Related URLs:
Depositing User: Pure Connector
Date Deposited: 27 Apr 2016 10:00
Last Modified: 22 Apr 2020 01:19
URI: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/58405
DOI: 10.1111/ajo.2014.54.issue-5

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item