Non-invasive prenatal diagnostics (NIPD) in the system of medical care. Ethical and legal issues.

The procedures of prenatal and preimplantation diagnostics are discussed critically again and again in our community. In addition to the permanently controversial issues of embryo protection and abortion, considerations that discrimination on the basis of disability could occur with problematic consequences also for already born people with disabilities and their relatives now play a central role.

Isolated echogenic intracardiac foci and the role of cell-free fetal DNA: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) has been increasingly incorporated into prenatal aneuploidy screening paradigms given its relatively high sensitivity for Down syndrome (DS). This is often the case when fetal ultrasonographic soft markers are present, such as the relatively common echogenic intracardiac focus (EIF). We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a screening strategy that included cfDNA screening when an isolated EIF is identified in a low-risk population with prior aneuploidy screening. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed using TreeAge software with probabilities derived from the literature. Our model compared cfDNA screening following isolated EIF detection in women less than 35 years with prior reassuring first trimester screen compared to a strategy of no further aneuploidy screening. Strategies were compared to generate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a threshold of $100 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and applied to a theoretical cohort. RESULTS: The cfDNA strategy resulted in 21 fewer DS births and 52 additional QALYs, however, increased costs by $51.3 million. This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $986 503; therefore, it was not a cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSION: In a low-risk population with prior reassuring aneuploidy screening, it is not cost effective to offer cfDNA after identification of an isolated EIF.

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomies 21, 18, and 13, Sex Chromosome Aneuploidies, and Microdeletions in Average-Risk Pregnancies: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The cost effectiveness of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been established for high-risk pregnancies but remains unclear for pregnancies at other risk levels. The aim was to assess the cost effectiveness of NIPT in average-risk pregnancies from the perspective of a provincial public payer in Canada. METHODS: A model was developed to compare traditional prenatal screening (TPS), NIPT as a second-tier test (performed only after a positive TPS result), and NIPT as a first-tier test (performed instead of TPS) for trisomies 21, 18, and 13; sex chromosome aneuploidies; and microdeletions in a hypothetical annual population cohort of average-risk pregnancies (142 000 to 148,000) in Ontario, Canada. A probabilistic analysis was conducted with 5000 repetitions. RESULTS: Compared with TPS, NIPT as a second-tier test detected more affected fetuses with trisomies 21, 18, and 13 (188 vs. 158), substantially reduced the number of diagnostic tests (i.e., chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis) performed (660 vs. 3107), and reduced the cost of prenatal screening ($26.7 million vs. $27.6 million) annually. Compared with second-tier NIPT, first-tier NIPT detected an additional 80 cases of trisomies 21, 18, and 13 at an additional cost of $33 million. The incremental cost per additional affected fetus detected was $412 411. Extending first-tier NIPT to include testing for sex chromosome aneuploidies and 22q11.2 deletion would increase the total screening cost. CONCLUSIONS: NIPT as a second-tier test is cost-saving compared with TPS alone. Compared with second-tier NIPT, first-tier NIPT detects more cases of chromosomal anomalies but at a substantially higher cost.

A 2-year review of publicly funded cell-free DNA screening in Ontario: utilization and adherence to funding criteria.

OBJECTIVE: Ontario offers a publicly funded modified contingent model of prenatal screening for aneuploidy in which cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening is covered for pregnancies at higher risk of fetal aneuploidy. The objective of this study was to review utilization of provincially funded cfDNA screening and adherence to the criteria laid out in Ontario prenatal screening guidelines. METHODS: This was a descriptive cohort study using data collected by Ontario's prescribed maternal and child registry. The study population included all pregnant individuals who received cfDNA screening from January 2016 to December 2017. RESULTS: The most common criteria for provincially funded cfDNA screening were advanced maternal age ≥40 years (37.7%), positive multiple marker screen (34.1%), modifying risk factors such as ultrasound soft markers (7.1%), and previous aneuploidy (5.5%). The audit demonstrated that 2.9% of funded cfDNA screens tests did not meet funding criteria, and that 11.4% of self-paid cfDNA screens could have been publicly funded. CONCLUSION: Reviewing and auditing the application of criteria for funded cfDNA screening using prescribed registry data allows an opportunity to identify areas where targeted education may improve adherence to standardized screening protocols, and provides a basis for reassessment of the funding model.

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.

The indications for early prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 18: a 7-year experience at mainland China.

Objective: To report the experience with first-trimester prenatal detection of pregnancies complicated by trisomy 18.Study design: Proven cases of trisomy 18 identified between 11 and 14 weeks of gestation were retrospectively reviewed. Information on maternal demographics, prenatal sonographic findings, indications for prenatal diagnosis and chromosomal analysis results was obtained by reviewing medical records.Results: During the 7-year period from January 2011 to December 2017, 89 cases of full trisomy 18 had first-trimester indications for prenatal diagnosis at Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center. Eighty-five (95.5%) had abnormal sonographic findings in the first trimester. The most common finding was increased nuchal translucency (55.1%), followed by cystic hygroma (18.0%), omphalocele (14.6%), and fetalis hydrops (11.2%). Four cases (4.5%) were not associated with any abnormal first-trimester sonographic finding, and were diagnosed because of routine positive screening results for trisomy 18. A single case was diagnosed because of a positive cell-free DNA (cfDNA) result.Conclusion: These results demonstrate that a large number of fetuses with trisomy 18 have abnormal sonographic findings in the first trimester, and support the continued utility of first-trimester sonographic examination in the diagnosis of this trisomy even with the availability of cfDNA.

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

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome in China.

OBJECTIVES: There is little evidence in China regarding the cost-effectiveness of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down syndrome (DS). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NIPT and provide evidence to inform decision-making. METHODS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of NIPT for DS, a decision-analytic model was developed using the TreeAge Pro software from a societal perspective in a simulated cohort of 10 000 pregnant women. Main indicators were based on field surveys from sampled hospitals in four locations in China and a literature review. RESULTS: The conventional maternal serum screening (CMSS) strategy, contingent screening strategy (NIPT delivered to high risk pregnant women after CMSS), and universal screening strategy could prevent 3.02, 7.53, and 9.97 DS births, respectively. NIPT would decrease unnecessary invasive procedures, resulting in fewer procedure-related miscarriages. The cost-effectiveness ratio of the contingent screening strategy was the lowest. When compared with the CMSS strategy, the incremental cost per DS birth averted by the contingent screening strategy and universal screening strategy were USD 20,160 and 352,388, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that, if the cost of NIPT could be decreased to USD 76.92, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the universal screening strategy would be lower than the CMSS strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Although NIPT has the merits of greater effectiveness and safety, CMSS is unlikely to be replaced by NIPT at this time because of NIPT's higher cost. Contingent screening may be an appropriate strategy to balance the effectiveness and cost factors of the new genetic testing technology.

Cell free fetal DNA to triage antenatal rhesus immune globulin: Is it really cost-effective in the United States?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and costs of three different strategies of antenatal rhesus immune globulin (RhIG) administration in a US population. METHODS: A decision tree analysis was undertaken for universal antenatal RhIG administration based on RhD serologic paternity testing, universal administration without paternity, and selective antenatal RhIG administration using cell free fetal DNA (cfDNA) for RHD fetal typing. Rates of alloimmunization were calculated. Charges were determined for laboratory testing and obstetrical and neonatal treatments for the first pregnancy and cases of alloimmunization in the following pregnancy. RESULTS: The largest number of new RhD alloimmunization cases resulted from a strategy of universal RhIG that included paternity. Fewer cases resulted from a selective strategy; the least number of cases were associated with a universal approach that discounted paternity. When the costs of first pregnancies and alloimmunized second pregnancies were combined, a universal strategy that excludes paternity had the least costs followed by a selective strategy followed by a universal strategy that included paternity. CONCLUSION: The use of cfDNA to determine the selective use of antenatal RhIG would not be cost-effective in the United States. Universal antenatal RhIG without paternity is more effective in preventing new cases of alloimmunization than the current ACOG guideline.