Diagnostic performance and costs of contingent screening models for trisomy 21 incorporating non-invasive prenatal testing.

BACKGROUND: Contingent screening for trisomy 21 using non-invasive prenatal testing has the potential to reduce invasive diagnostic testing and increase the detection of trisomy 21. AIM: To describe the diagnostic and economic performance of prenatal screening models for trisomy 21 that use non-invasive prenatal testing as a contingent screen across a range of combined first trimester screening risk cut-offs from a public health system perspective. METHODS: Using a hypothetical cohort of 300 000 pregnancies, we modelled the outcomes of 25 contingent non-invasive prenatal testing screening models and compared these to conventional screening, offering women with a high-risk (1 > 300) combined first trimester screening result an invasive test. The 25 models used a range of risk cut-offs. High-risk women were offered invasive testing. Intermediate-risk women were offered non-invasive prenatal testing. We report the cost of each model, detection rate, costs per diagnosis, invasive tests per diagnosis and the number of fetal losses per diagnosis. RESULTS: The cost per prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 21 using the conventional model was $51 876 compared to the contingent models which varied from $49 309-66 686. The number of diagnoses and cost per diagnosis increased as the intermediate-risk threshold was lowered. Results were sensitive to trisomy 21 incidence, uptake of testing and cost of non-invasive prenatal testing. CONCLUSION: Contingent non-invasive prenatal testing models using more sensitive combined first trimester screening risk cut-offs than conventional screening improved the detection rate of trisomy 21, reduced procedure-related fetal loss and could potentially be provided at a lower cost per diagnosis than conventional screening.

Cell-free fetal DNA screening in the USA: a cost analysis of screening strategies.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether implementation of primary cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) screening would be cost-effective in the USA and to evaluate potential lower-cost alternatives. METHODS: Three strategies to screen for trisomy 21 were evaluated using decision tree analysis: 1) a primary strategy in which cffDNA screening was offered to all patients, 2) a contingent strategy in which cffDNA screening was offered only to patients who were high risk on traditional first-trimester screening and 3) a hybrid strategy in which cffDNA screening was offered to all patients ≥ 35 years of age and only to patients < 35 years who were high risk after first-trimester screening. Four traditional screening protocols were evaluated, each assessing nuchal translucency (NT) and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) along with either free or total beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (ß-hCG), with or without nasal bone (NB) assessment. RESULTS: Utilizing a primary cffDNA screening strategy, the cost per patient was 1017 US$. With a traditional screening protocol using free ß-hCG, PAPP-A and NT assessment as part of a hybrid screening strategy, a contingent strategy with a 1/300 cut-off and a contingent strategy with a 1/1000 cut-off, the cost per patient was 474, 430 and 409 US$, respectively. Findings were similar using the other traditional screening protocols. Marginal cost per viable case detected for the primary screening strategy as compared to the other strategies was 3-16 times greater than the cost of care for a missed case. CONCLUSIONS: Primary cffDNA screening is not currently a cost-effective strategy. The contingent strategy was the lowest-cost alternative, especially with a risk cut-off of 1/1000. The hybrid strategy, although less costly than primary cffDNA screening, was more costly than the contingent strategy.

First trimester contingent testing with either nuchal translucency or cell-free DNA. Cost efficiency and the role of ultrasound dating.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance and cost efficacy of different first-trimester contingent screening strategies based on an initial analysis of biochemical markers. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Swedish National Quality Register for prenatal diagnosis. POPULATION: 35,780 women with singleton pregnancies. METHODS: Serum values from first trimester biochemistry were re-analyzed in a contingent approach. For risks between 1:40 and 1:1000, risk estimates from nuchal translucency measurements were added and outcomes were compared using either a final cut-off risk of 1:200 to proceed with invasive testing or offering non-invasive prenatal testing. In a subgroup of 12,836 women with regular menstrual cycles the same analyses were performed using data on the last menstrual period for determining gestational age. The costs of detecting one case of aneuploidy were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of screening strategies. RESULTS: The detection rate was the same (87%) in the contingent group as in complete combined screening, with only 41% requiring a nuchal translucency scan. As an alternative, offering non-invasive prenatal testing to the intermediate risk group would result in a detection rate of 98%, but the cost to detect one case of trisomy 21 would be 83% higher than the cost associated with traditional combined screening. CONCLUSIONS: First trimester examination using a contingent approach will achieve similar results compared with full combined screening. Non-invasive prenatal testing will not be cost-effective when a high proportion of pregnancies need further testing.

Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening strategies for congenital heart disease.

OBJECTIVE: The economic implications of strategies to improve prenatal screening for congenital heart disease (CHD) in low-risk mothers have not been explored. The aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of different screening methods. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model of CHD prenatal screening strategies (four-chamber screen (4C), 4C + outflow, nuchal translucency (NT) or fetal echocardiography) populated with probabilities from the literature. The model included whether initial screens were interpreted by a maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) specialist and different referral strategies if they were read by a non-MFM specialist. The primary outcome was the incremental cost per defect detected. Costs were obtained from Medicare National Fee estimates. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken on model variables commensurate with their degree of uncertainty. RESULTS: In base-case analysis, 4C + outflow referred to an MFM specialist was the least costly strategy per defect detected. The 4C screen and the NT screen were dominated by other strategies (i.e. were more costly and less effective). Fetal echocardiography was the most effective, but most costly. On simulation of 10 000 low-risk pregnancies, 4C + outflow screen referred to an MFM specialist remained the least costly per defect detected. For an additional $580 per defect detected, referral to cardiology after a 4C + outflow was the most cost-effective for the majority of iterations, increasing CHD detection by 13 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of examination of the outflow tracts to second-trimester ultrasound increases detection of CHD in the most cost-effective manner. Strategies to improve outflow-tract imaging and to refer with the most efficiency may be the best way to improve detection at a population level.

The price of performance: a cost and performance analysis of the implementation of cell-free fetal DNA testing for Down syndrome in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost and performance implications of introducing cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) testing within modeled scenarios in a publicly funded Canadian provincial Down syndrome (DS) prenatal screening program. METHOD: Two clinical algorithms were created: the first to represent the current screening program and the second to represent one that incorporates cffDNA testing. From these algorithms, eight distinct scenarios were modeled to examine: (1) the current program (no cffDNA), (2) the current program with first trimester screening (FTS) as the nuchal translucency-based primary screen (no cffDNA), (3) a program substituting current screening with primary cffDNA, (4) contingent cffDNA with current FTS performance, (5) contingent cffDNA at a fixed price to result in overall cost neutrality,(6) contingent cffDNA with an improved detection rate (DR) of FTS, (7) contingent cffDNA with higher uptake of FTS, and (8) contingent cffDNA with optimized FTS (higher uptake and improved DR). RESULTS: This modeling study demonstrates that introducing contingent cffDNA testing improves performance by increasing the number of cases of DS detected prenatally, and reducing the number of amniocenteses performed and concomitant iatrogenic pregnancy loss of pregnancies not affected by DS. Costs are modestly increased, although the cost per case of DS detected is decreased with contingent cffDNA testing. CONCLUSION: Contingent models of cffDNA testing can improve overall screening performance while maintaining the provision of an 11- to 13-week scan. Costs are modestly increased, but cost per prenatally detected case of DS is decreased.

[Effects, safety and cost-benefit analysis of Down syndrome screening in first trimester].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects, safety and cost-benefit analysis of Down syndrome screening in first trimester. METHODS: From January 2009 to December 2012, 43 729 pregnant women undergoing 3 methods of Down syndrome traditional screening strategies in Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital were studied retrospectively, including in 17 502 cases in pregnancy associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) and free ß-hCG measured biochemistry screening, 14 080 cases in nuchal translucency (NT) screening and 12 147 cases in combined screening, meanwhile, 7 389 cases on non-invasive fetal trisomy test (NIFTY) were performed in Huada Gene Research Institute(BGI). The effects and safety of four screening strategies were assessed throughout a decision tree. The economical characters of each screening strategy were compared by cost-effectiveness analysis as well as cost-benefit analysis. RESULTS: (1) The effects of four strategies are: NIFTY > combined screening > NT screening > biochemistry screening. (2) The safety of four strategies are: NIFTY > combined screening > NT screening > biochemistry screening. (3) Cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis:the biochemistry screening has lowest cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) and highest cost-benefit ratio (CBR), which performed a better economical efficiency. The incremental CER of three traditional screening strategies are all less than the economical burden of Down syndrome.NIFTY has highest CER and negative net present value (NPV), NPV would be positive and CBR would be more than 1 if the price of NIFTY reduce to 1 434 Yuan. CONCLUSIONS: Combined screening possess best screening efficiency, while biochemistry screening was demonstrated more economical in traditional screening.NIFTY is the future of Down syndrome screening.

Impact of first-trimester anomaly scan on health-related quality of life and healthcare costs: a scoping review.

IMPORTANCE: The first-trimester anomaly scan (FTAS) has the potential to detect major congenital anomalies in an early stage of pregnancy. Due to this potential early detection, there is a trend to introduce FTAS in regular care. Data regarding the impact of FTAS on the patient's perspective are limited. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the literature assessing the impact of the FTAS on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and healthcare costs. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Literature search was performed in Embase, PubMed, Medline Ovid, Cochrane Library database, Web-of-Science, and Google Scholar were searched. All studies that reported the performance of a nuchal translucency measurement with a basic fetal assessment HRQoL or healthcare costs of FTAS were included. Studies solely describing screening of chromosomal anomalies were excluded. Three authors independently screened the studies and extracted the data. Results were combined using descriptive analysis. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016045190. RESULTS: The search yielded 3242 articles and 16 were included. Thirteen articles (7045 pregnancies) examined the relationship between FTAS and HRQoL. Anxiety scores were raised temporarily before FTAS and returned to early pregnancy baseline following the absence of anomalies. Depression scores did not change significantly as a result of FTAS. Three articles studied healthcare costs. These studies, published before 2005, found a combination of FTAS and second-trimester anomaly scan (STAS) resulted in an increased amount of detected anomalies when compared to a STAS-only regimen. However, the combination would also be more costly. CONCLUSIONS: Women experience anxiety in anticipation of the FTAS result and following a reassuring FTAS result, anxiety returns to the baseline level. FTAS seems to be a reassuring experience. The included studies on costs showed the addition of FTAS is likely to increase the number of detected anomalies against an increase in healthcare costs per pregnancy.Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42016045190.

Prenatal screening for Down syndrome in Australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the cost-effectiveness and performance of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for high-risk pregnancies following first-trimester screening compared with current practice. METHODS: A decision tree analysis was used to compare the costs and benefits of current practice of first-trimester screening with a testing pathway incorporating NIPT. We applied the model to 32 478 singleton pregnancies screened between January 2005 and December 2006, adding Medicare rebate data as a measure of public health system costs. The analyses reflect the actual uptake of screening and diagnostic testing and pregnancy outcomes in this cohort. RESULTS: The introduction of NIPT would reduce the number of invasive diagnostic procedures and procedure-related fetal losses in high-risk women by 88%. If NIPT was adopted by all women identified as high risk by first-trimester combined screening, up to 7 additional Down syndrome fetuses could be confirmed. The cost per trisomy 21 case confirmed, including NIPT was 9.7% higher ($56,360) than the current prenatal testing strategy ($51,372) at a total cost of $3.91 million compared with $3.57 million over 2 years. CONCLUSION: Based on the uptake of screening and diagnostic testing in a retrospective cohort of first-trimester screening in Western Australia, the implementation of NIPT would reduce the number of invasive diagnostic tests and the number of procedure-related fetal losses and increase the cost by 9.7% over two years. Policy planning and guidelines are urgently required to manage the funding and demand for NIPT services in Australia.

Cost effectiveness, the economic considerations of prenatal screening strategies for trisomy 21 in the Czech Republic.

OBJECTIVES: To perform an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis for screening of trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) in the Czech Republic through a decision tree model designed to evaluate the costs and potential risks involved in using different strategies of screening. METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS: Using decision-analysis modelling, we compared the cost-effectiveness of nine possible screening strategies for trisomy 21: 1. maternal age > or = 35 in first trimester, 2. maternal age > or = 35 in second trimester, 3. second trimester triple test (AFP, hCG, mu E3), 4. nuchal translucency measurement, 5. first trimester serum test (PAPP-A, fbeta-hCG), 6. first trimester combined (nuchal translucency, PAPP-A, fbeta-hCG) not in OSCAR manner, 7. first trimester combined (nuchal translucency, PAPP-A, fbeta-hCG) in OSCAR manner, 8. first trimester combined (nuchal translucency, nasal bone, PAPP-A, fbeta-hCG) not in OSCAR manner, 9. first trimester combined (nuchal translucency, nasal bone, PAPP-A, fbeta-hCG) in OSCAR manner. The analysis is performed from a health care payer perspective using relevant cost and outcomes related to each screening strategy in a cohort of 118,135 pregnant women presenting around 12 weeks of pregnancy in the Czech Republic. Using a computer spreadsheet Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Wash) the following outcomes: overall cost-effectiveness, trisomy 21 cases detected, trisomy 21 live birth prevented and euploid losses from invasive procedures were obtained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were also calculated by a comparison of strategy nine and strategy three (the current practice in the Czech Republic). RESULTS: Under the baseline assumptions, the model favors strategy nine as the most cost-effective trisomy 21 screening strategy. This strategy was the least expensive strategy per trisomy 21 cases averted. Although all the other strategies cost less, they all had lower trisomy 21 detection rates and higher numbers of procedure-related losses (except for strategies six and seven, which had same loss rate) compared with strategy nine. All strategies considered were cheaper compared with screening only by maternal age over 35 years. Adding the nasal bone and the OSCAR manner made strategy nine the most cost-effective one. The incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per additional trisomy 21 case prevented) comparing strategy nine and second trimester triple test (current practice in Czech Republic) yielded an additional baseline cost of 219,326 CZK. This would seem not to save money but due to the low false positive rate the test is less costly than might be expected and it is more cost-effective than the current practice in the Czech Republic (3,580,082 CZK for the current practice and 2,469,833 CZK for our strategy in terms of costs per DS case prevented). CONCLUSION: In our analysis the NT, NB, PAPP-A and fbeta-hCG combined test carried out in the first trimester was the most cost-effective screening strategy for trisomy 21 in the Czech Republic.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening strategies for Down syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate which Down syndrome screening strategy is the most cost-effective. METHODS: Using decision-analysis modeling, we compared the cost-effectiveness of 9 screening strategies for Down syndrome: 1) no screening, 2) first-trimester nuchal translucency (NT) only, 3) first-trimester combined NT and serum screen, 4) first-trimester serum only, 5) quadruple screen, 6) integrated screening, 7) sequential screening, 8) integrated serum only, or 9) maternal age. Costs included cost of tests and resources used for raising a child with Down syndrome. One-way and multiway sensitivity analyses were performed for all model variables. The main outcome measures were cost per Down syndrome case detected, rate of delivering a liveborn neonate with Down syndrome, and rate of diagnostic procedure-related pregnancy loss for each strategy. RESULTS: Sequential screening detected more Down syndrome cases compared with the other strategies, but it had a higher procedure-related loss rate. Integrated serum screening was the most cost-effective strategy. Sensitivity analyses revealed the model to be robust over a wide range of values for the variables. The addition of the cost of genetic sonogram to the second-trimester strategies resulted in first-trimester combined screening becoming the most cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSION: Within our baseline assumptions, integrated serum screening was the most cost-effective screening strategy for Down syndrome. If the cost of nuchal translucency is less than dollars 57 or when genetic sonogram is included in the second-trimester strategies, first-trimester combined screening became the most cost-effective strategy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Questioning the costs and benefits of non-invasive prenatal testing.

Prenatal testing for Down syndrome through the use of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been increasingly implemented in clinical practice and a recent cost analysis suggests that NIPT is cost effective when compared to other screening modalities in high risk populations. However, this anaylsis makes many assumptions regarding uptake of testing and pregnancy termination, which cannot be applied to all populations in the United States. Additionally, this cost analysis, which hinges on fewer Down syndrome births, does not align with the goals of prenatal testing to support autonomous and value consistent decisions. NIPT is an expensive new technology and more careful analysis is needed to determine the impact of NIPT on outcomes and overall healthcare costs.

The cost effectiveness of prenatal ultrasound screening for trisomy 21.

OBJECTIVES: The cost-effectiveness of opportunistic nuchal translucency ultrasound screening in pregnancy was compared with alternative screening strategies for trisomy 21 in Australia. METHODS: A decision analytic model was used of various pregnancy screening strategies based on a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of nuchal translucency ultrasound and serum screening and costs based on current reimbursement fees. The model included the likelihood and cost of terminations after diagnostic testing and the associated risk of fetal loss. All prices are in 2001 Australian dollars. RESULTS: With a twenty percentage point difference in detection rate, the incremental cost for a combination of nuchal translucency and serum screening with age in the first trimester compared with maternal serum screening in the second trimester was 105,484 dollars per extra case detected and 374,779 dollars per live trisomy 21 birth avoided. Serum screening in the second trimester had an incremental cost per extra case detected of between 61,700 dollars and 117,100 dollars per extra live birth avoided when compared with no screening. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of ultrasound screening for trisomy 21 would appear to be more attractive if it were done at the same time as current dating ultrasound. Any funding mechanism for screening should take this strategy into account by incorporating, as far as possible, provision of nuchal translucency screening into existing services provided in early pregnancy.