Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 7/2018

01-09-2018 | Original Paper

Cost-effectiveness of cell-free DNA in maternal blood testing for prenatal detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13: a systematic review

Authors: Lidia García-Pérez, Renata Linertová, Margarita Álvarez-de-la-Rosa, Juan Carlos Bayón, Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia, Jorge Ferrer-Rodríguez, Pedro Serrano-Aguilar

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 7/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of the analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood, often called the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT), in the prenatal screening of trisomy in chromosomes 21, 18 and 13. MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched in April 2017. We selected: (1) economic evaluations that estimated the costs and detected cases of trisomy 21, 18 or 13; (2) comparisons of prenatal screening with NIPT (universal or contingent strategies) and the usual screening without NIPT, (3) in pregnant women with any risk of foetal anomalies. Studies were reviewed by two researchers. Data were extracted, the methodological quality was assessed and a narrative synthesis was prepared. In total, 12 studies were included, four of them performed in Europe. Three studies evaluated NIPT as a contingent test, three studies evaluated a universal NIPT, and six studies evaluated both. The results are heterogeneous, especially for the contingent NIPT where the results range from NIPT being dominant to a dominated strategy. Universal NIPT was found to be more effective but also costlier than the usual screening, with very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One advantage of screening with NIPT is lower invasive procedure-related foetal losses than with usual screening. In conclusion, the cost-effectiveness of contingent NIPT is uncertain according to several studies, while the universal NIPT is not cost-effective currently.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Mademont-Soler, I., Morales, C., Clusellas, N., Soler, A., Sánchez, A.: Group of cytogenetics from Hospital Clínic de Barcelona: prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis in Spain: analysis and evaluation of the results obtained from amniotic fluid samples during the last decade. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 157, 156–160 (2011)CrossRefPubMed
2.
Mai, C.T., Kucik, J.E., Isenburg, J., Feldkamp, M.L., Marengo, L.K., Bugenske, E.M., et al.: Selected birth defects data from population-based birth defects surveillance programs in the United States, 2006–2010: featuring trisomy conditions. Birth Defects Res. Part A Clin. Mol. Teratol. 97, 709–725 (2013)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Benn, P., Borrell, A., Crossley, J., Cuckle, H., Dugoff, L., Gross, S., et al.: Aneuploidy screening: a position statement from a committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. Prenat. Diagn. 31, 519–522 (2011)CrossRefPubMed
4.
Allyse, M., Minear, M.A., Berson, E., Sridhar, S., Rote, M., Hung, A., et al.: Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. Int. J. Womens Health 7, 113–126 (2015)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Gil, M.M., Quezada, M.S., Revello, R., Akolekar, R., Nicolaides, K.H.: Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 45, 249–266 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
6.
Taylor-Phillips, S., Freeman, K., Geppert, J., Agbebiyi, A., Uthman, O.A., Madan, J., et al.: Accuracy of non-invasive prenatal testing using cell-free DNA for detection of Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 6, e010002 (2016)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Mackie, F.L., Hemming, K., Allen, S., Morris, R.K., Kilby, M.D.: The accuracy of cell-free fetal DNA-based non-invasive prenatal testing in singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. BJOG 124, 32–46 (2017)CrossRefPubMed
8.
Iwarsson, E., Jacobsson, B., Dagerhamn, J., Davidson, T., Bernabé, E., Heibert Arnlind, M.: Analysis of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood for detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13 in a general pregnant population and in a high risk population—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 96, 7–18 (2017)CrossRefPubMed
9.
Dondorp, W., de Wert, G., Bombard, Y., Bianchi, D.W., Bergmann, C., Borry, P., et al.: European Society of Human Genetics; American Society of Human Genetics: non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 23, 1438–1450 (2015)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Khalifeh, A., Weiner, S., Berghella, V., Donnenfeld, A.: Trends in invasive prenatal diagnosis: effect of sequential screening and noninvasive prenatal testing. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 39, 292–296 (2016)CrossRefPubMed
11.
Drummond, M.F., Jefferson, T.O.: Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ economic evaluation working party. BMJ 313, 275–283 (1996)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Welte, R., Feenstra, T., Jager, H., Leidl, R.: A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. Pharmacoeconomics 22, 857–876 (2004)CrossRefPubMed
13.
Shemilt, I., Thomas, J., Morciano, M.: A web-based tool for adjusting costs to a specific target currency and price year. Evid Policy 6, 51–59 (2010)CrossRef
14.
CCEMG—EPPI-Centre Cost, Converter v. 1.5 [database in Internet] [London]: The Campbell and Cochrane Economics Methods Group (CCEMG) and the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre). http://​eppi.​ioe.​ac.​uk/​costconversion (2016). Accessed 10 May 2017
15.
Ayres, A.C., Whitty, J.A., Ellwood, D.A.: A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing different strategies to implement noninvasive prenatal testing into a Down syndrome screening program. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 54, 412–417 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
16.
Beulen, L., Grutters, J.P., Faas, B.H., Feenstra, I., van Vugt, J.M., Bekker, M.N.: The consequences of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing in Dutch national health care: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 182, 53–61 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
17.
Chitty, L.S., Wright, D., Hill, M., Verhoef, T.I., Daley, R., Lewis, C., et al.: Uptake, outcomes, and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for Down’s syndrome into NHS maternity care: prospective cohort study in eight diverse maternity units. BMJ 354, i3426 (2016)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Fairbrother, G., Burigo, J., Sharon, T., Song, K.: Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies with cell-free DNA in the general pregnancy population: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 29, 1160–1164 (2016)CrossRefPubMed
19.
Garfield, S.S., Armstrong, S.O.: Clinical and cost consequences of incorporating a novel non-invasive prenatal test into the diagnostic pathway for fetal trisomies. J. Manag. Care Med. 15, 34–41 (2012)
20.
Gyselaers, W., Hulstaert, F., Neyt, M.: Contingent non-invasive prenatal testing: an opportunity to improve non-genetic aspects of fetal aneuploidy screening. Prenat. Diagn. 35, 1347–1352 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
21.
Hulstaert, F., Neyt, M., Gyselaers, W.: The non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) for trisomy 21—health economic aspects. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). 2014. KCE Reports 222. D/2014/10.273/36
22.
Morris, S., Karlsen, S., Chung, N., Hill, M., Chitty, L.S.: Model-based analysis of costs and outcomes of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down’s syndrome using cell free fetal DNA in the UK National Health Service. PLoS One 9, e93559 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Neyt, M., Hulstaert, F., Gyselaers, W.: Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis. BMJ Open 4, e005922 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Okun, N., Teitelbaum, M., Huang, T., Dewa, C.S., Hoch, J.S.: The price of performance: a cost and performance analysis of the implementation of cell-free fetal DNA testing for Down syndrome in Ontario, Canada. Prenat. Diagn. 34, 350–356 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
25.
O’Leary, P., Maxwell, S., Murch, A., Hendrie, D.: Prenatal screening for Down syndrome in Australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 53, 425–433 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
26.
Song, K., Musci, T.J., Caughey, A.B.: Clinical utility and cost of non-invasive prenatal testing with cfDNA analysis in high-risk women based on a US population. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal. Med. 26, 1180–1185 (2013)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Walker, B.S., Jackson, B.R., LaGrave, D., Ashwood, E.R., Schmidt, R.L.: A cost-effectiveness analysis of cell free DNA as a replacement for serum screening for Down syndrome. Prenat. Diagn. 35, 440–446 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
28.
Walker, B.S., Nelson, R.E., Jackson, B.R., Grenache, D.G., Ashwood, E.R., Schmidt, R.L.: A cost-effectiveness analysis of first trimester non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal trisomies in the United States. PLoS One 10, e0131402 (2015)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Nelson, A.L., Cohen, J.T., Greenberg, D., Kent, D.M.: Much cheaper, almost as good: decrementally cost-effective medical innovation. Ann. Intern. Med. 151, 662–667 (2009)CrossRefPubMed
30.
Cuckle, H., Benn, P., Pergament, E.: Maternal cfDNA screening for Down syndrome–a cost sensitivity analysis. Prenat. Diagn. 33, 636–642 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
31.
Ohno, M., Caughey, A.: The role of noninvasive prenatal testing as a diagnostic versus a screening tool—a cost-effectiveness analysis. Prenat. Diagn. 33, 630–635 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
32.
Gil, M.M., Quezada, M.S., Bregant, B., Syngelaki, A., Nicolaides, K.H.: Cell-free DNA analysis for trisomy risk assessment in first-trimester twin pregnancies. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 35, 204–211 (2014)CrossRef
33.
Bevilacqua, E., Gil, M.M., Nicolaides, K.H., Ordoñez, E., Cirigliano, V., Dierickx, H., et al.: Performance of screening for aneuploidies by cell-free DNA analysis of maternal blood in twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 45, 61–66 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
34.
Sarno, L., Revello, R., Hanson, E., Akolekar, R., Nicolaides, K.H.: Prospective first-trimester screening for trisomies by cell-free DNA testing of maternal blood in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 47, 705–711 (2016)CrossRefPubMed
35.
de Jong, A., Maya, I., van Lith, J.M.: Prenatal screening: current practice, new developments, ethical challenges. Bioethics 29, 1–8 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
36.
Benn, P., Borrell, A., Chiu, R.W., Cuckle, H., Dugoff, L., Faas, B., et al.: Position statement from the Chromosome Abnormality Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. Prenat. Diagn. 35, 725–734 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
37.
Kotsopoulou, I., Tsoplou, P., Mavrommatis, K., Kroupis, C.: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): limitations on the way to become diagnosis. Diagnosis 2, 141–158 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Cost-effectiveness of cell-free DNA in maternal blood testing for prenatal detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13: a systematic review
Authors
Lidia García-Pérez
Renata Linertová
Margarita Álvarez-de-la-Rosa
Juan Carlos Bayón
Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia
Jorge Ferrer-Rodríguez
Pedro Serrano-Aguilar
Publication date
01-09-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 7/2018
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0946-y

Other articles of this Issue 7/2018

The European Journal of Health Economics 7/2018 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Health economic evaluation of rivaroxaban in elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

Original Paper

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of plant sterol or stanol-enriched functional foods as a primary prevention strategy for people with cardiovascular disease risk in England: a modeling study

Original Paper

Consensus-based cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of costs in health economic evaluations: a European Delphi study

Original Paper

The impact of waiting for intervention on costs and effectiveness: the case of transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Original Paper

Health care service utilization of documented and undocumented hired farmworkers in the U.S.

Original Paper

Impact of specialist rehabilitation services on hospital length of stay and associated costs