Howard Cuckle1, Peter Benn, Eugene Pergament. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. hsc2121@columbia.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the principal factors contributing to the cost of avoiding a birth with Down syndrome by using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) to replace conventional screening. METHODS: A range of unit costs were assigned to each item in the screening process. Detection rates were estimated by meta-analysis and modeling. The marginal cost associated with the detection of additional cases using cfDNA was estimated from the difference in average costs divided by the difference in detection. RESULTS: The main factor was the unit cost of cfDNA testing. For example, replacing a combined test costing $150 with 3% false-positive rate and invasive testing at $1000, by cfDNA tests at $2000, $1500, $1000, and $500, the marginal cost is $8.0, $5.8, $3.6, and $1.4m, respectively. Costs were lower when replacing a quadruple test and higher for a 5% false-positive rate, but the relative importance of cfDNA unit cost was unchanged. A contingent policy whereby 10% to 20% women were selected for cfDNA testing by conventional screening was considerably more cost-efficient. Costs were sensitive to cfDNA uptake. CONCLUSION: Universal cfDNA screening for Down syndrome will only become affordable by public health purchasers if costs fall substantially. Until this happens, the contingent use of cfDNA is recommended.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the principal factors contributing to the cost of avoiding a birth with Down syndrome by using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) to replace conventional screening. METHODS: A range of unit costs were assigned to each item in the screening process. Detection rates were estimated by meta-analysis and modeling. The marginal cost associated with the detection of additional cases using cfDNA was estimated from the difference in average costs divided by the difference in detection. RESULTS: The main factor was the unit cost of cfDNA testing. For example, replacing a combined test costing $150 with 3% false-positive rate and invasive testing at $1000, by cfDNA tests at $2000, $1500, $1000, and $500, the marginal cost is $8.0, $5.8, $3.6, and $1.4m, respectively. Costs were lower when replacing a quadruple test and higher for a 5% false-positive rate, but the relative importance of cfDNA unit cost was unchanged. A contingent policy whereby 10% to 20% women were selected for cfDNA testing by conventional screening was considerably more cost-efficient. Costs were sensitive to cfDNA uptake. CONCLUSION: Universal cfDNA screening for Down syndrome will only become affordable by public health purchasers if costs fall substantially. Until this happens, the contingent use of cfDNA is recommended.
Authors: Lidia García-Pérez; Renata Linertová; Margarita Álvarez-de-la-Rosa; Juan Carlos Bayón; Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia; Jorge Ferrer-Rodríguez; Pedro Serrano-Aguilar Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2017-12-16
Authors: Matthew R Grace; Emily Hardisty; Sarah K Dotters-Katz; Neeta L Vora; Jeffrey A Kuller Journal: Obstet Gynecol Surv Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.347
Authors: Brandon S Walker; Richard E Nelson; Brian R Jackson; David G Grenache; Edward R Ashwood; Robert L Schmidt Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Peter Benn; Kirsten J Curnow; Steven Chapman; Steven N Michalopoulos; John Hornberger; Matthew Rabinowitz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 3.240