The contingent use of cell-free fetal DNA for prenatal screening of trisomies 21, 18, 13 in pregnant women within a national health service: A budget impact analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) based on cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) is highly accurate in the detection of common fetal autosomal trisomies. Aim of this project was to investigate short-term costs and clinical outcomes of the contingent use of cffDNA for prenatal screening of trisomies 21, 18, 13 within a national health service (NHS). METHODS: An economic analysis was developed from the perspective of the Italian NHS to compare two possible scenarios for managing pregnant women: women managed according to the Standard of Care screening (SoC) vs a cffDNA scenario, where Harmony Prenatal Test was introduced as a second line screening choice for women with an "at risk" result from SoC screening. RESULTS: The introduction of cffDNA as a second line screening test, conditional to a risk ≥ 1:1,000 from SoC screening, showed a 3% increase in the detection of trisomies, with a 71% decrease in the number of invasive tests performed. Total short-term costs (pregnancy management until childbirth) decreased by € 19 million (from € 84.5 to 65.5 million). CONCLUSION: The adoption of the Harmony Prenatal Test in women resulting at risk from SoC screening, implied a greater number of trisomies detection, together with a reduction of the healthcare costs.

Cost-effectiveness of five prenatal screening strategies for trisomies and other unbalanced chromosomal abnormalities: model-based analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of five prenatal screening strategies for trisomies (13/18/21) and other unbalanced chromosomal abnormalities (UBCA), following the introduction of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis. METHODS: A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to estimate prevalence, safety, screening-program costs and healthcare costs of five different prenatal screening strategies, using a virtual cohort of 652 653 pregnant women in France. Data were derived from the French Biomedicine Agency and published articles. Uncertainty was addressed using one-way sensitivity analysis. The five strategies compared were: (i) cfDNA testing for women with a risk following first-trimester screening of ≥ 1/250; (ii) cfDNA testing for women with a risk of ≥ 1/1000 (currently recommended); (iii) cfDNA testing in the general population (regardless of risk); (iv) invasive testing for women with a risk of ≥ 1/250 (historical strategy); and (v) invasive testing for women with a risk of ≥ 1/1000. RESULTS: In our virtual population, at similar risk thresholds, cfDNA testing compared with invasive testing was cheaper but less effective. Compared with the historical strategy, cfDNA testing at the ≥ 1/1000 risk threshold was a more expensive strategy that detected 158 additional trisomies, but also 175 fewer other UBCA. Implementation of cfDNA testing in the general population would give an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9 166 689 per additional anomaly detected compared with the historical strategy. CONCLUSION: Extending cfDNA to lower risk thresholds or even to all pregnancies would detect more trisomies, but at greater expense and with lower detection rate of other UBCA, compared with the historical strategy. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Relación costo-eficacia de cinco estrategias de cribado prenatal para trisomías y otras anomalías cromosómicas no equilibradas: un análisis basado en modelos OBJETIVO: Evaluar la eficacia en función de los costos de cinco estrategias de cribado prenatal para trisomías (13/18/21) y otras anomalías cromosómicas no equilibradas (UBCA, por sus siglas en inglés), tras la introducción del análisis de ADN fetal (cfDNA, por sus siglas en inglés). MÉTODOS: Se realizó un análisis de la relación costo-eficacia basado en modelos para estimar la prevalencia, la seguridad, los costos de los programas de cribado y los costos sanitarios de cinco estrategias diferentes de cribado prenatal, para lo cual se usó una cohorte virtual de 652 653 mujeres embarazadas en Francia. Los datos se obtuvieron de la Agencia Francesa de Biomedicina y de artículos publicados. La incertidumbre se abordó mediante un análisis de sensibilidad unidireccional. Las cinco estrategias comparadas fueron: (i) pruebas de cfDNA para mujeres con un riesgo ≥1/250 después del examen del primer trimestre; (ii) pruebas de cfDNA para mujeres con un riesgo ≥1/1000 (las recomendadas actualmente); (iii) pruebas de cfDNA en la población general (independientemente del riesgo); (iv) pruebas invasivas para mujeres con un riesgo ≥1/250 (estrategia histórica); y (v) pruebas invasivas para mujeres con un riesgo ≥1/1000. RESULTADOS: En esta población virtual, con umbrales de riesgo similares, la prueba de cfDNA fue más barata pero menos efectiva en comparación con la prueba invasiva. En comparación con la estrategia histórica, la prueba de cfDNA para el umbral de riesgo de ≥1/1000 fue una estrategia más costosa que detectó 158 trisomías adicionales, pero también 175 menos de otras UBCA. La aplicación de las pruebas de cfDNA en la población general daría una relación costo-eficacia incremental de 9 166 689 EUR por cada anomalía adicional detectada en comparación con la estrategia histórica. CONCLUSIÓN: Extender las pruebas de cfDNA a umbrales de riesgo más bajos o incluso a todos los embarazos detectaría más trisomías, pero a un costo mayor y con una tasa de detección más baja de otras UBCA, en comparación con la estrategia histórica.

Cell-Free DNA-Based Non-invasive Prenatal Screening for Common Aneuploidies in a Canadian Province: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Yearly, 450 000 pregnant Canadians are eligible for voluntary prenatal screening for trisomy 21. Different screening strategies select approximately 4% of women for invasive fetal chromosome testing. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using maternal blood cell-free DNA could reduce those invasive procedures but is expensive. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of NIPT strategies compared with conventional strategies. METHODS: This study used a decision analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 13 prenatal screening strategies for fetal aneuploidies: six frequently used strategies, universal NIPT, and six strategies incorporating NIPT as a second-tier test. The study considered a virtual cohort of pregnant women of similar size and age as women in Quebec. Model data were obtained from published sources and government databases. The study predicted the number of chromosomal anomalies detected (trisomies 21, 13, and 18), invasive procedures and euploid fetal losses, direct costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Of the 13 strategies compared, eight identified fewer cases at a higher cost than at least one of the remaining five strategies. Integrated serum screening with conditional NIPT had the lowest cost, and the cost per case detected was $63 139, with a 90% reduction of invasive procedures. The number of cases identified was improved with four other screening strategies, but with increasing of incremental costs per case (from $61 623 to $1 553 615). Results remained robust, except when NIPT costs and risk cut-offs varied. CONCLUSION: NIPT as a second-tier test for high-risk women is likely to be cost-effective as compared with screening algorithms not involving NIPT.

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

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.