Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T02:20:08.958Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

VP36 Cost-Effectiveness Of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing For Down Syndrome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2018

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
INTRODUCTION:

The analysis of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood, also called Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), represents an emerging technology and a possible alternative/complement to current prenatal screening based on biochemical and sonographic markers for Down Syndrome (DS) detection.

The aim of the study was to compare the application of NIPT with the prenatal diagnosis/screening procedures currently applied in the Basque Country.

METHODS:

An analytical decision model was developed to assess the costs and consequences, comparing current prenatal screening, NIPT as a contingency test in high-risk cases and NIPT as a first-line screening test. An economic analysis was conducted to determine which strategy was more cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses were performed (1).

RESULTS:

For a population of 97,074 pregnant women in gestational week 14 and a cut-off point of 1:270, NIPT as a contingent test was not cost-effective, detecting two cases less of DS and causing a lower number of miscarriages related to invasive-testing (4 versus 23) at a slightly lower cost (EUR8,111,351 versus EUR8,901,872).

For risk cut-off points of 1:500 or 1:1000 for contingent NIPT, the number of DS cases detected increased, as did the cost. It could be cost-effective compared with current prenatal screening, (EUR61,763 or EUR256,123 per extra DS case detected, respectively).

Using the NIPT as a primary test detected more DS cases (296 versus 271) and caused less miscarriages (5 versus 23), at a substantially higher cost (EUR41,395,645 versus EUR8,901,872). Cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that it was more expensive and more effective.

Univariant sensitivity-analysis showed that when the price of the NIPT as primary test was EUR76, it was dominant compared with current prenatal screening. It was also cost-effective compared with the NIPT as a contingent test (EUR9,869 per extra DS case detected).

CONCLUSIONS:

The study shows that NIPT had higher detection rates for DS in different scenarios, but the cost constitutes a limiting factor for implementation in the Basque Health System.

Type
Vignette Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

References

REFERENCES:

1. Bayón Yusta, JC, Orruño Aguado, E, Portillo Villares, MI, Asua Batarrita, J. Prenatal screening for Down syndrome through fetal DNA sequencing from maternal blood. Health Technology Assessment Report. OSTEBA. 2016. http://www.ogasun.ejgv.euskadi.eus/r51-catpub/es/k75aWebPublicacionesWar/k75aObtenerPublicacionDigitalServlet?R01HNoPortal=true&N_LIBR=051918&N_EDIC=0001&C_IDIOM=es&FORMATO=.pdfGoogle Scholar