Top

The European Journal of Health Economics

Published in:

Open Access 01-11-2019 | Trisomy 21 | Original Paper

The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review

Authors: Nikita M. John, Stuart J. Wright, Sean P. Gavan, Caroline M. Vass

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 8/2019

Abstract

Background

Technological progress has led to changes in the antenatal screening programmes, most significantly the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). The availability of a new type of testing changes the type of information that the parent(s) require before, during and after screening to mitigate anxiety about the testing process and results.

Objectives

To identify the extent to which economic evaluations of NIPT have accounted for the need to provide information alongside testing and the associated costs and health outcomes of information provision.

Methods

A systematic review of economic evaluations of NIPTs (up to February 2018) was conducted. Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO were searched using an electronic search strategy combining a published economic search filter (from NHS economic evaluations database) with terms related to NIPT and screening-related technologies. Data were extracted using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards framework and the results were summarised as part of a narrative synthesis.

Results

A total of 12 economic evaluations were identified. The majority of evaluations (n = 10; 83.3%) involved cost effectiveness analysis. Only four studies (33.3%) included the cost of providing information about NIPT in their economic evaluation. Two studies considered the impact of test results on parents’ quality of life by allowing utility decrements for different outcomes. Some studies suggested that the challenges of valuing information prohibited their inclusion in an economic evaluation.

Conclusion

Economic evaluations of NIPTs need to account for the costs and outcomes associated with information provision, otherwise estimates of cost effectiveness may prove inaccurate.

Available only for authorised users

Genetic Alliance: The New York-mid-atlantic Consortium for genetic and newborn screening services: Understanding Genetics. (2009)

Wieacker, P., Steinhard, J.: The prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 107, 857–862 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2010.0857CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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). https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2015.1038703CrossRefPubMed

Wald, N.J., Cuckle, H.S., Densem, J.W., Nanchahal, K., Royston, P., Chard, T., Haddow, J.E., Knight, G.J., Palomaki, G.E., Canick, J.A.: Maternal serum screening for Down’s syndrome in early pregnancy. BMJ 297, 883–887 (1988)CrossRef

Kagan, K.O., Wright, D., Baker, A., Sahota, D., Nicolaides, K.H.: Screening for trisomy 21 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 31, 618–624 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5331CrossRefPubMed

Ayres, A., Whitty, J., Ellwood, D.: A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing different strategies to implement noninvasive prenatal testing into a down syndrome screening program. Aust. New Zeal. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 54, 412–417 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12223CrossRef

Beulen, L., Grutters, J.P.C., Faas, B.H., Feenstra, I., van Vugt, J.M.G., 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.08.028CrossRefPubMed

Morris, S., Karlsen, S., Chung, N., Hill, M., Chitty, L.: 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). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093559CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Allyse, M., Minear, M., Berson, E., Sridhar, S., Rote, M., Hung, A.: Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. Int. J. Womens. Health. 7, 113–126 (2015). https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S67124CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Minear, M.A., Lewis, C., Pradhan, S., Chandrasekharan, S.: Global perspectives on clinical adoption of NIPT. Prenat. Diagn. 35, 959–967 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4637CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Akolekar, R., Beta, J., Picciarelli, G., Ogilvie, C., D’Antonio, F.: Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14636CrossRefPubMed

12.

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. New Zeal. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 53, 425–433 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12136CrossRef

13.

Piechan, J.L., Hines, K.A., Koller, D.L., Stone, K., Quaid, K., Torres-Martinez, W., Wilson Mathews, D., Foroud, T., Cook, L.: NIPT and informed consent: an assessment of patient understanding of a negative NIPT result. J. Genet. Couns. 25, 1127–1137 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-9945-xCrossRefPubMed

14.

Jin, J., Yang, J., Chen, Y., Huang, J.: Systematic review and meta-analysis of non-invasive prenatal DNA testing for trisomy 21: implications for implementation in China. Prenat. Diagn. 37, 864–873 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5111CrossRefPubMed

15.

Chitty, L.S., Wright, D., Hill, M., Verhoef, T.I., Daley, R., Lewis, C., Mason, S., McKay, F., Jenkins, L., Howarth, A., Cameron, L., McEwan, A., Fisher, J., Kroese, M., Morris, S.: 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). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3426CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

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). https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4156CrossRefPubMed

17.

Bianchi, D.W., Wilkins-Haug, L.: Integration of noninvasive DNA testing for aneuploidy into prenatal care: What has happened since the rubber met the road? Clin. Chem. 60, 78–87 (2014)CrossRef

18.

Drummond, M., Sculpher, M.J., Torrance, G.W., O’Brien, B.J., Stoddart, G.L.: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford (2005)

19.

Nshimyumukiza, L., Menon, S., Hina, H., Rousseau, F., Reinharz, D.: Cell-free DNA noninvasive prenatal screening for aneuploidy versus conventional screening: a systematic review of economic evaluations. Clin. Genet. 14, 14 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.13155CrossRef

20.

Nshimyumukiza, L., Beaumont, J., Duplantie, J., Langlois, S., Little, J., Audibert, F., McCabe, C., Gekas, J., Giguere, Y., Gagne, C., Reinharz, D.: Cell-free DNA-based non-invasive prenatal screening for common aneuploidies in a Canadian province: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Canada. 40, 48–60 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2017.05.015CrossRef

21.

Wright, S.J., Jones, C., Payne, K., Dharni, N., Ulph, F.: The role of information provision in economic evaluations of newborn bloodspot screening: a systematic review. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-015-0177-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Hill, M., Barrett, A., Choolani, M., Lewis, C., Fisher, J., Chitty, L.S.: Has noninvasive prenatal testing impacted termination of pregnancy and live birth rates of infants with Down syndrome? Prenat. Diagn. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5182CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Santalahti, P., Aro, A.R., Hemminki, E., Helenius, H., Ryynänen, M.: On what grounds do women participate in prenatal screening? Prenat. Diagn. 18, 153–165 (1998)CrossRef

24.

Ulph, F., Wright, S., Dharni, N., Payne, K., Bennett, R., Roberts, T., Walshe, K., Lavender, T.: Provision of information about newborn screening antenatally: a sequential exploratory mixed-methods project. Health Technol. Assess. (Rockv) (2017). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta21550CrossRef

25.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Altman, D.: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6, e1000097 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

García-Pérez, L., Linertová, R., Álvarez-de-la-Rosa, M., Bayón, J.C., Imaz-Iglesia, I., Ferrer-Rodríguez, J., Serrano-Aguilar, P.: Cost-effectiveness of cell-free DNA in maternal blood testing for prenatal detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13: a systematic review. Eur. J. Heal. Econ. 19, 979–991 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0946-yCrossRef

27.

Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Petrou, S., Carswell, C., Moher, D., Greenberg, D., Augustovski, F., Briggs, A.H., Mauskopf, J., Loder, E.: CHEERS task force: consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ 346, f1049 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.F1049CrossRefPubMed

28.

Weller, D.P., Patnick, J., Mcintosh, H.M., Dietrich, A.J.: Uptake in cancer screening programmes. Lancet Oncol. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70145-7CrossRefPubMed

29.

Cuckle, H., Benn, P., Pergament, E.: Clinical utility and cost of non-invasive prenatal testing. J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal Med. 27, 320–321 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2013.807239CrossRefPubMed

30.

Benn, P., Cuckle, H., Pergament, E.: Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: current status and future prospects. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 42, 15–33 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12513CrossRefPubMed

31.

Odibo, A.O., Garfield, S.: Clinical and economic utility of a new noninvasive prenatal test using massively parallel sequencing. J. Manag. Care Med. 16, 50–54 (2013)

32.

Conner, P., Gustafsson, S., Kublickas, M.: First trimester contingent testing with either nuchal translucency or cell-free DNA. Cost efficiency and the role of ultrasound dating. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 94, 368–375 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12579CrossRefPubMed

33.

Neyt, M., Hulstaert, F.: Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis. BMJ Open 4, 5922 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005922CrossRef

34.

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). https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4311CrossRefPubMed

35.

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). https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2013.770464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Kaimal, A.J., Norton, M.E., Kuppermann, M.: Prenatal testing in the genomic age: clinical outcomes, quality of life, and costs. Obstet. Gynecol. 126, 737–746 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001029CrossRefPubMed

37.

Cuckle, H., Benn, P., Pergament, E.: Maternal cfDNA screening for Down syndrome–a cost sensitivity analysis. Prenat. Diagn. 33, 636–642 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4157CrossRefPubMed

38.

Walker, B., Nelson, R., Jackson, B., Grenache, D., Ashwood, E.: A cost-effectiveness analysis of first trimester non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal trisomies in the United States. PLoS One 10, e0131402 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131402CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

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). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093559CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Lou, S., Mikkelsen, L., Hvidman, L., Petersen, O.B., Nielsen, C.P.: Does screening for Down’s syndrome cause anxiety in pregnant women? A systematic review. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 94, 15–27 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12482CrossRefPubMed

41.

de Graaf, G., Buckley, F., Skotko, B.G.: Live births, natural losses and elective terminations with Down syndrome in Massachusetts. Genet. Med. 18, 459–466 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.15CrossRefPubMed

42.

Autti-Rämö, I., Mäkelä, M., Sintonen, H., Koskinen, H., Laajalahti, L., Halila, R., Kääriäinen, H., Lapatto, R., Näntö-Salonen, K., Pulkki, K., Renlund, M., Salo, M., Tyni, T.: Expanding screening for rare metabolic disease in the newborn: an analysis of costs, effect and ethical consequences for decision-making in Finland. Acta Paediatr. 94, 1126–1136 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/08035250510029497CrossRefPubMed

43.

Beulen, L., Grutters, J.P.C., Faas, B.H.W., Feenstra, I., Groenewoud, H., van Vugt, J.M.G., Bekker, M.N.: Women’s and healthcare professionals’ preferences for prenatal testing: a discrete choice experiment. Prenat. Diagn. 35, 549–557 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4571CrossRefPubMed

44.

Wright, S.J., Ulph, F., Dharni, N., Payne, K.: Eliciting preferences for information provision in newborn bloodspot screening programs. Value Heal. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.007CrossRef

45.

Riley, R., Lesteven, D., Plun-Favreau, J., Ferrara, J., Kapitein, P., Collins, P.: The value of knowing and knowing the value: improving the health technology assessment of complementary diagnostics. Tech. Rep. (2016)

46.

Johns, B., Baltussen, R., Hutubessy, R.: Programme costs in the economic evaluation of health interventions. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 1, 1 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-1-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review
Authors: Nikita M. John
Stuart J. Wright
Sean P. Gavan
Caroline M. Vass
Publication date: 01-11-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Trisomy 21
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 8/2019
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01082-x

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2019

Effects of primary care cost-sharing among young adults: varying impact across income groups and gender

Economic impact of disease prevention in a morbidity-based financing system: does prevention pay off for a statutory health insurance fund in Germany?

An 8-step framework for implementing time-driven activity-based costing in healthcare studies

The effects of copayment in primary health care: evidence from a natural experiment

Who gains the most from improving working conditions? Health-related absenteeism and presenteeism due to stress at work

Sustainability of public finances: inclusion of unrelated medical cost only part of the story