Literature DB >> 21207386

Incremental cost of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis versus invasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal sex in England.

Melissa Hill1, Sally Taffinder, Lyn S Chitty, Stephen Morris.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Fetal sex determination is performed for women who carry X-linked conditions, for example Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), or those associated with ambiguous genitalia, for example congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) using cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in maternal plasma is an alternative to invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD), which carries a 1% risk of miscarriage. This study aimed to evaluate the incremental cost of NIPD compared with IPD of fetal sex.
METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy, invasive testing rate, and pregnancy outcome following NIPD were ascertained from an audit of all cases referred to two laboratories in 2006 to 2009. Care pathways for DMD and CAH were established and key cost drivers for IPD and NIPD identified using costs derived from published estimates and local laboratory values.
RESULTS: The differences in mean costs per pregnancy for NIPD versus IPD were small for DMD [mean difference - £87, 95% confidence interval (CI) - £303 to £131] and CAH (-£193, 95% CI - £301 to - £84). Testing costs associated with NIPD were offset by fewer women requiring invasive testing.
CONCLUSIONS: The costs of NIPD and IPD of fetal sex are similar. NIPD can provide benefits for many women by avoiding the risks of invasive testing, without incurring additional costs.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21207386     DOI: 10.1002/pd.2680

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  8 in total

Review 1.  From prenatal genomic diagnosis to fetal personalized medicine: progress and challenges.

Authors:  Diana W Bianchi
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 53.440

2.  Discrepancy in fetal sex assignment between cell free fetal DNA and ultrasound.

Authors:  J I Iruretagoyena; M Grady; D Shah
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.521

3.  Non-invasive prenatal testing: UK genetic counselors' experiences and perspectives.

Authors:  Elizabeth Alexander; Susan Kelly; Lauren Kerzin-Storrar
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for fetal sex determination: benefits and disadvantages from the service users' perspective.

Authors:  Celine Lewis; Melissa Hill; Heather Skirton; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders: cost analysis of NIPD and invasive testing pathways.

Authors:  Talitha I Verhoef; Melissa Hill; Suzanne Drury; Sarah Mason; Lucy Jenkins; Stephen Morris; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2016-05-22       Impact factor: 3.050

6.  Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders: exploring the ethics.

Authors:  Zuzana Deans; Melissa Hill; Lyn S Chitty; Celine Lewis
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  "I think we've got too many tests!": Prenatal providers' reflections on ethical and clinical challenges in the practice integration of cell-free DNA screening.

Authors:  B L Gammon; S A Kraft; M Michie; M Allyse
Journal:  Ethics Med Public Health       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep

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

Authors:  Melissa Hill; Philip Twiss; Talitha I Verhoef; Suzanne Drury; Fiona McKay; Sarah Mason; Lucy Jenkins; Stephen Morris; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2015-04-05       Impact factor: 3.050

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.