A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First Trimester Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening for Fetal Trisomies in the United States

Background Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a relatively new technology for diagnosis of fetal aneuploidies. NIPT is more accurate than conventional maternal serum screening (MSS) but is also more costly. Contingent NIPT may provide a cost-effective alternative to universal NIPT screening. Contingent screening used a two-stage process in which risk is assessed by MSS in the first stage and, based on a risk cutoff, high-risk pregnancies are referred for NIPT. The objective of this study was to (1) determine the optimum MSS risk cutoff for contingent NIPT and (2) compare the cost effectiveness of optimized contingent NIPT to universal NIPT and conventional MSS. Study Design Decision-analytic model using micro-simulation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. We evaluated cost effectiveness from three perspectives: societal, governmental, and payer. Results From a societal perspective, universal NIPT dominated both contingent NIPT and MSS. From a government and payer perspective, contingent NIPT dominated MSS. Compared to contingent NIPT, adopting a universal NIPT would cost $203,088 for each additional case detected from a government perspective and $263,922 for each additional case detected from a payer perspective. Conclusions From a societal perspective, universal NIPT is a cost-effective alternative to MSS and contingent NIPT. When viewed from narrower perspectives, contingent NIPT is less costly than universal NIPT and provides a cost-effective alternative to MSS.

[1]  N. Wald,et al.  Detection of trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 using first and second trimester Down's syndrome screening markers , 2013, Journal of medical screening.

[2]  A. Carothers,et al.  Survival in trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 cases ascertained from population based registers , 2002, Journal of medical genetics.

[3]  N. Wald,et al.  Incorporating DNA Sequencing into Current Prenatal Screening Practice for Down's Syndrome , 2013, PloS one.

[4]  R. Schmidt,et al.  A cost‐effectiveness analysis of cell free DNA as a replacement for serum screening for Down syndrome , 2015, Prenatal diagnosis.

[5]  S. Daiger,et al.  Survival of Texas infants born with trisomies 21, 18, and 13 , 2010, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[6]  H. Landy,et al.  Patient decisions regarding prenatal aneuploid fluorescence in situ hybridization results , 2007, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[7]  M. Gold.  Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine , 2016 .

[8]  A. Correa,et al.  Trends in Survival Among Children With Down Syndrome in 10 Regions of the United States , 2013, Pediatrics.

[9]  Argyro Syngelaki,et al.  Chromosome-selective sequencing of maternal plasma cell-free DNA for first-trimester detection of trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  J. Haddow,et al.  Integrated serum screening for Down syndrome in primary obstetric practice , 2005, Prenatal diagnosis.

[11]  S. Armstrong.  Clinical and Cost Consequences of Incorporating a Novel Non-Invasive Prenatal Test into the Diagnostic Pathway for Fetal Trisomies , 2012 .

[12]  F. Lorey,et al.  Integrated and first trimester prenatal screening in California: program implementation and patient choice for follow‐up services , 2012, Prenatal diagnosis.

[13]  F. D’Antonio,et al.  Procedure‐related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2015, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[14]  A. Caughey,et al.  Variation in the decision to terminate pregnancy in the setting of fetal aneuploidy. , 2003, Prenatal diagnosis.

[15]  G. Savva,et al.  The maternal age‐specific live birth prevalence of trisomies 13 and 18 compared to trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) , 2010, Prenatal diagnosis.

[16]  L. Chitty,et al.  Non‐invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 21: a cross‐sectional survey of service users' views and likely uptake , 2014, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[17]  P. Romano,et al.  The Cost of Birth Defects: Estimates of the Value of Protection , 1996 .

[18]  N J Wald,et al.  First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down's syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[19]  D. Hendrie,et al.  Prenatal screening for Down syndrome in Australia: Costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies , 2013, The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology.

[20]  S. Teklehaimanot,et al.  A look at a Hispanic and African American population in an urban prenatal diagnostic center: Referral reasons, amniocentesis acceptance, and abnormalities detected , 2004, Genetics in Medicine.

[21]  G. Cunningham,et al.  Cost and effectiveness of the California triple marker prenatal screening program , 1999, Genetics in Medicine.

[22]  E. O. Horger,et al.  A single physician's experience with four thousand six hundred genetic amniocenteses. , 2001, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[23]  N. Wald,et al.  Fetal loss in Down syndrome pregnancies , 1999, Prenatal diagnosis.

[24]  N. Wald,et al.  Antenatal and neonatal screening , 2000 .

[25]  Jianhua Wu,et al.  Survival of trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome) and trisomy 13 (Patau Syndrome) in England and Wales: 2004–2011 , 2013, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[26]  S. Rasmussen,et al.  Population-based analyses of mortality in trisomy 13 and trisomy 18. , 2003, Pediatrics.

[27]  R. D. Merz,et al.  Pregnancy outcome distribution and prenatal diagnosis of autosomal abnormalities, Hawaii, 1986-1999. , 2002, Teratology.

[28]  M. Cho,et al.  Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States , 2013, Prenatal diagnosis.

[29]  C. Huether,et al.  Epidemiologic study of Down syndrome in a racially diverse California population, 1989-1991. , 1997, American journal of epidemiology.

[30]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  Implementation of maternal blood cell‐free DNA testing in early screening for aneuploidies , 2013, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[31]  L. Holmes,et al.  Impact of prenatal screening on the birth status of fetuses with Down syndrome at an urban hospital, 1972-1994 , 1998, Genetics in Medicine.

[32]  E. Sondik.  Atlas of United States Mortality , 1990 .

[33]  J. Dungan.  The Risk of Fetal Loss Following a Prenatal Diagnosis of Trisomy 13 or Trisomy 18 , 2009 .

[34]  A. Rudnicka,et al.  Nuchal translucency and gestational age , 2004, Prenatal diagnosis.

[35]  S. Wilson.  Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

[36]  R. D. Merz,et al.  Trisomies 13 and 18: prenatal diagnosis and epidemiologic studies in Hawaii, 1986-1997. , 1999, Genetic testing.

[37]  Rachel K. Jones,et al.  Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008. , 2011, Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health.

[38]  Sequential Pathways of Testing After First-Trimester Screening for Trisomy 21 , 2004, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[39]  Yama W. L. Zheng,et al.  Non-invasive prenatal assessment of trisomy 21 by multiplexed maternal plasma DNA sequencing: large scale validity study , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[40]  J. Haddow,et al.  Screening for down syndrome in the United States: results of surveys in 2011 and 2012. , 2013, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[41]  B. Faas,et al.  The consequences of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing in Dutch national health care: a cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2014, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[42]  E. Pressman,et al.  Association of Ultrasound Findings with Decision to Continue Down Syndrome Pregnancies , 2007, Public Health Genomics.

[43]  S. Morris,et al.  Model-Based Analysis of Costs and Outcomes of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Down’s Syndrome Using Cell Free Fetal DNA in the UK National Health Service , 2014, PloS one.

[44]  J. Priest,et al.  Acceptance of amniocentesis by women in the state of Montana (USA) who are screen positive for Down's syndrome , 1998, Journal of medical screening.

[45]  E. Gadow,et al.  Nuchal translucency and gestational age , 2004, Prenatal diagnosis.

[46]  D E Mutton,et al.  Revised estimates of the maternal age specific live birth prevalence of Down's syndrome , 2002, Journal of medical screening.

[47]  A. Oliphant,et al.  Gestational age and maternal weight effects on fetal cell‐free DNA in maternal plasma , 2013, Prenatal diagnosis.

[48]  A. Schinzel,et al.  Survival with trisomy 18—data from Switzerland , 2006, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[49]  P. Benn.  Preliminary evidence for associations between second‐trimester human chorionic gonadotropin and unconjugated oestriol levels with pregnancy outcome in Down syndrome pregnancies , 1998, Prenatal diagnosis.

[50]  S. Day,et al.  Mortality and causes of death in persons with Down syndrome in California. , 2005, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[51]  M. Evans,et al.  Determinants of parental decisions after the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. , 1998, American journal of medical genetics.

[52]  D. Towner,et al.  The timing of demise in fetuses with trisomy 21 and trisomy 18 , 2005, Prenatal diagnosis.

[53]  C. Comas,et al.  Initial experience with non-invasive prenatal testing of cell-free DNA for major chromosomal anomalies in a clinical setting , 2015, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[54]  A. Caughey,et al.  Clinical utility and cost of non-invasive prenatal testing with cfDNA analysis in high-risk women based on a US population , 2013, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[55]  H. Cuckle,et al.  Maternal cfDNA screening for Down syndrome – a cost sensitivity analysis , 2013, Prenatal diagnosis.

[56]  L. Jelliffe‐Pawlowski,et al.  Triple-Marker Prenatal Screening Program for Chromosomal Defects , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[57]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  Analysis of Cell-Free DNA in Maternal Blood in Screening for Aneuploidies: Meta-Analysis , 2014, Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy.

[58]  L. Hui,et al.  Clinical implementation of cell‐free DNA‐based aneuploidy screening: perspectives from a national audit , 2015, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[59]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal trisomies in a routinely screened first-trimester population. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[60]  A. Caughey,et al.  The role of noninvasive prenatal testing as a diagnostic versus a screening tool – a cost‐effectiveness analysis , 2013, Prenatal diagnosis.

[61]  R. D. Merz,et al.  Prenatal diagnosis and elective termination of Down syndrome in a racially mixed population in Hawaii, 1987–1996 , 1999, Prenatal diagnosis.

[62]  F. Chervenak,et al.  Clinical use of first-trimester aneuploidy screening in a United States population can replicate data from clinical trials. , 2006, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[63]  P. Romano,et al.  The Half-Life of Cost-of-Illness Estimates: The Case of Spina Bifida , 2004 .