Peter O'Leary1, Susannah Maxwell, Ashleigh Murch, Delia Hendrie. 1. Centre for Population Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia; School of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia; School of Women's and Infants' Health, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the cost-effectiveness and performance of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for high-risk pregnancies following first-trimester screening compared with current practice. METHODS: A decision tree analysis was used to compare the costs and benefits of current practice of first-trimester screening with a testing pathway incorporating NIPT. We applied the model to 32 478 singleton pregnancies screened between January 2005 and December 2006, adding Medicare rebate data as a measure of public health system costs. The analyses reflect the actual uptake of screening and diagnostic testing and pregnancy outcomes in this cohort. RESULTS: The introduction of NIPT would reduce the number of invasive diagnostic procedures and procedure-related fetal losses in high-risk women by 88%. If NIPT was adopted by all women identified as high risk by first-trimester combined screening, up to 7 additional Down syndrome fetuses could be confirmed. The cost per trisomy 21 case confirmed, including NIPT was 9.7% higher ($56,360) than the current prenatal testing strategy ($51,372) at a total cost of $3.91 million compared with $3.57 million over 2 years. CONCLUSION: Based on the uptake of screening and diagnostic testing in a retrospective cohort of first-trimester screening in Western Australia, the implementation of NIPT would reduce the number of invasive diagnostic tests and the number of procedure-related fetal losses and increase the cost by 9.7% over two years. Policy planning and guidelines are urgently required to manage the funding and demand for NIPT services in Australia.
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the cost-effectiveness and performance of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for high-risk pregnancies following first-trimester screening compared with current practice. METHODS: A decision tree analysis was used to compare the costs and benefits of current practice of first-trimester screening with a testing pathway incorporating NIPT. We applied the model to 32 478 singleton pregnancies screened between January 2005 and December 2006, adding Medicare rebate data as a measure of public health system costs. The analyses reflect the actual uptake of screening and diagnostic testing and pregnancy outcomes in this cohort. RESULTS: The introduction of NIPT would reduce the number of invasive diagnostic procedures and procedure-related fetal losses in high-risk women by 88%. If NIPT was adopted by all women identified as high risk by first-trimester combined screening, up to 7 additional Down syndrome fetuses could be confirmed. The cost per trisomy 21 case confirmed, including NIPT was 9.7% higher ($56,360) than the current prenatal testing strategy ($51,372) at a total cost of $3.91 million compared with $3.57 million over 2 years. CONCLUSION: Based on the uptake of screening and diagnostic testing in a retrospective cohort of first-trimester screening in Western Australia, the implementation of NIPT would reduce the number of invasive diagnostic tests and the number of procedure-related fetal losses and increase the cost by 9.7% over two years. Policy planning and guidelines are urgently required to manage the funding and demand for NIPT services in Australia.
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: Megan Allyse; Mollie A Minear; Elisa Berson; Shilpa Sridhar; Margaret Rote; Anthony Hung; Subhashini Chandrasekharan Journal: Int J Womens Health Date: 2015-01-16
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
Authors: Lyn S Chitty; David Wright; Melissa Hill; Talitha I Verhoef; Rebecca Daley; Celine Lewis; Sarah Mason; Fiona McKay; Lucy Jenkins; Abigail Howarth; Louise Cameron; Alec McEwan; Jane Fisher; Mark Kroese; Stephen Morris Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-07-04