Making the most of the first prenatal visit: The challenge of expanding prenatal genetic testing options and limited clinical encounter time.

OBJECTIVE: Advances in prenatal genetics place additional challenges as patients must receive information about a growing array of screening and testing options. This raises concerns about how to achieve a shared decision-making process that prepares patients to make an informed decision about their choices about prenatal genetic screening and testing options, calling for a reconsideration of how healthcare providers approach the first prenatal visit. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 40 pregnant women to identify components of decision-making regarding prenatal genetic screens and tests at this visit. Analysis was approached using grounded theory. RESULTS: Participants brought distinct notions of risk to the visit, including skewed perceptions of baseline risk for a fetal genetic condition and the implications of screening and testing. Participants were very concerned about financial considerations associated with these options, ranking out-of-pocket costs on par with medical considerations. Participants noted diverging priorities at the first visit from those of their healthcare provider, leading to barriers to shared decision-making regarding screening and testing during this visit. CONCLUSION: Research is needed to determine how to restructure the initiation of prenatal care in a way that best positions patients to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic screens and tests.

Cell-free DNA for Down syndrome screening in obese women: Is it a cost-effective strategy?

OBJECTIVE: Determine cost differences between cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and serum integrated screening (INT) in obese women given the limitations of aneuploidy screening in this population. METHODS: Using a decision-analytic model, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of trisomy 21 screening in class III obese women using cfDNA compared with INT. Primary outcomes of the model were cost, number of unnecessary invasive tests, procedure-related fetal losses, and missed cases of trisomy 21. RESULTS: In base case, the mean cost of cfDNA was $498 greater than INT ($1399 vs $901). cfDNA resulted in lower probabilities of unnecessary invasive testing (2.9% vs 3.5%), procedure-related loss (0.015% vs 0.019%), and missed cases of T21 (0.00013% vs 0.02%). cfDNA cost $87 485 per unnecessary invasive test avoided, $11 million per procedure-related fetal loss avoided, and $2.2 million per missed case of T21 avoided. In sensitivity analysis, when the probability of insufficient fetal fraction is assumed to be >25%, cfDNA is both costlier than INT and results in more unnecessary invasive testing (a dominated strategy). CONCLUSION: When the probability of insufficient fetal fraction more than 25% (a maternal weight of ≥300 lbs), cfDNA is costlier and results in more unnecessary invasive testing than INT.

Economic analysis of prenatal screening strategies for Down syndrome in singleton pregnancies in Turkey.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the costs and outcomes of different screening strategies for Down Syndrome (DS) in singleton pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the costs and the outcomes of different prenatal screening strategies. Five strategies were compared for women under 35-year of age: 1A) triple test (TT), 2A); combined test (CT), 3A) Non-invasive Prenatal Screening Test by using cell free fetal DNA (NIPT), 4A) and 5A) NIPT as a second-step screening for high-risk patients detected by either TT, or CT respectively. For women ≥35-year of age, 1B) implementing invasive test (amniocentesis -AC) and 2B) NIPT for all women were compared. Data was analyzed to obtain the outcomes, total costs, the cost per women and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for screening strategies. RESULTS: Among the current strategies for women under 35 years old, CT is clearly dominated to TT, as it is more effective and less costly. Although, the current routine practice (2A) is the least-costly strategy, implementing NIPT as a second step screening to high-risk women identified by CT (5A) would be more effective than 2A; leading to a 10.2% increase in the number of detected DS cases and a 96.3% reduction in procedural related losses (PRL). However, its cost to the Social Security Institution that is a public entity would be 17 times higher and increase screening costs by 1.5 times. Strategy 5A would result in an incremental cost effectiveness of 6,873,082 (PPP) US$ when compared to the current one (2A). Strategy 1B-for offering AC to all women ≥35-year of age is dominated over NIPT (2B), as it would detect more DS cases and would be less costly. On the other hand, there would be 206 PRL associated with AC, but NIPT provides clear clinical benefits as there would be no PRL with NIPT. CONCLUSIONS: NIPT leads to very high costs despite its high effectiveness in terms of detecting DS cases and avoiding PRL. The cost of NIPT should be decreased, otherwise, only individuals who can afford to pay from out-of-pocket could benefit. We believe that reliable cost-effective prenatal screening policies are essential in countries with low and smiddle income and high birth rates as well.

First trimester screening cut-offs for noninvasive prenatal testing as a contingent screen: Balancing detection and screen-positive rates for trisomy 21.

OBJECTIVE: To provide data on how screen-positive and detection rates of first trimester prenatal screening for fetal Down syndrome vary with changes in the risk cut-off and maternal age to inform contingency criteria for publicly funded noninvasive prenatal testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: First trimester screening and diagnostic data were collected for all women attending for first trimester fetal aneuploidy screening in Western Australia between 2005 and 2009. Prenatal screening and diagnostic data were linked to pregnancy outcomes, including data from the Midwives' Notification System and the Western Australian Registry of Developmental Anomalies. The prevalence of Down syndrome and performance of screening by risk cut-off and/or for women >35 years were analysed. RESULTS: The current screening risk cut-off of 1:300 has screen-positive and detection rates of 3.5% and 82%. The screen-positive rate increases by 0.7-0.8% for each 100 point change in risk, up to 19.2% at 1:2500 (96% detection rate). Including all women >35 years as screen positive would increase the screen-positive rate and detection rates to 30.2% and 97.2%. CONCLUSION: Variation in screening risk cut-off and the use of maternal age to assess eligibility for noninvasive testing could significantly impact the demand for, and cost of, the test. A contingent first trimester screening approach for risk assessment is superior to the use of a combination of screening and maternal age alone. These data will inform decisions regarding the criteria used to determine eligibility for publicly funded noninvasive prenatal testing.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal screening for thyroid disease in pregnant women in Spain]. / Análisis coste-efectividad del cribado universal de la enfermedad tiroidea en mujeres embarazadas en España

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of universal screening for thyroid disease in pregnant women in Spain as compared to high risk screening and no screening. METHODOLOGY: A decision-analytic model comparing the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of universal screening versus high risk screening and versus no screening. was used for the pregnancy and postpartum period. Probabilities from randomized controlled trials were considered for adverse obstetrical outcomes. A Markov model was used to assess the lifetime period after the first postpartum year and account for development of overt hypothyroidism. The main assumptions in the model and use of resources were assessed by local clinical experts. The analysis considered direct healthcare costs only. RESULTS: Universal screening gained .011 QALYs over high risk screening and .014 QALYS over no screening. Total direct costs per patient were €5,786 for universal screening, €5,791 for high risk screening, and €5,781 for no screening. Universal screening was dominant compared to risk-based screening and a very cost-effective alternative as compared to no screening. Use of universal screening instead of high risk screening would result in €2,653,854 annual savings for the Spanish National Health System. CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening for thyroid disease in pregnant women in the first trimester is dominant in Spain as compared to risk-based screening, and is cost-effective as compared to no screening (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €374 per QALY). Moreover, it allows diagnosing and treating cases of clinical and subclinical hypothyroidism that may not be detected when only high-risk women are screened.

Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for cystic fibrosis: detection of paternal mutations, exploration of patient preferences and cost analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to develop non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for cystic fibrosis (CF) and determine costs and implications for implementation. METHODS: A next-generation sequencing assay was developed to detect ten common CF mutations for exclusion of the paternal mutation in maternal plasma. Using uptake data from a study exploring views on NIPD for CF, total test-related costs were estimated for the current care pathway and compared with those incorporating NIPD. RESULTS: The assay reliably predicted mutation status in all control and maternal plasma samples. Of carrier or affected adults with CF (n = 142) surveyed, only 43.5% reported willingness to have invasive testing for CF with 94.4% saying they would have NIPD. Using these potential uptake data, the incremental costs of NIPD over invasive testing per 100 pregnancies at risk of CF are £9025 for paternal mutation exclusion, and £26,510 for direct diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed NIPD for risk stratification in around a third of CF families. There are economic implications due to potential increased test demand to inform postnatal management rather than to inform decisions around termination of an affected pregnancy.

Clinical utility and cost of non-invasive prenatal testing with cfDNA analysis in high-risk women based on a US population.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the clinical and economic consequences of fetal trisomy 21 (T21) screening with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in high-risk pregnant women. METHODS: Using a decision-analytic model, we estimated the number of T21 cases detected, the number of invasive procedures performed, corresponding euploid fetal losses and total costs for three screening strategies: first trimester combined screening (FTS), integrated screening (INT) or NIPT, whereby NIPT was performed in high-risk patients (women 35 years or older or women with a positive conventional screening test). Modeling was based on a 4 million pregnant women cohort in the US. RESULTS: NIPT, at a base case price of $795, was more clinically effective and less costly (dominant) over both FTS and INT. NIPT detected 4823 T21 cases based on 5330 invasive procedures. FTS detected 3364 T21 cases based on 108 364 procedures and INT detected 3760 cases based on 108 760 procedures. NIPT detected 28% and 43% more T21 cases compared to INT and FTS, respectively, while reducing invasive procedures by >95% and reducing euploid fetal losses by >99%. Total costs were $3786M with FTS, $3919M with INT and $3403M with NIPT. CONCLUSIONS: NIPT leads to improved T21 detection and reduction in euploid fetal loss at lower total healthcare expenditures.