OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost and performance implications of introducing cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) testing within modeled scenarios in a publicly funded Canadian provincial Down syndrome (DS) prenatal screening program. METHOD: Two clinical algorithms were created: the first to represent the current screening program and the second to represent one that incorporates cffDNA testing. From these algorithms, eight distinct scenarios were modeled to examine: (1) the current program (no cffDNA), (2) the current program with first trimester screening (FTS) as the nuchal translucency-based primary screen (no cffDNA), (3) a program substituting current screening with primary cffDNA, (4) contingent cffDNA with current FTS performance, (5) contingent cffDNA at a fixed price to result in overall cost neutrality,(6) contingent cffDNA with an improved detection rate (DR) of FTS, (7) contingent cffDNA with higher uptake of FTS, and (8) contingent cffDNA with optimized FTS (higher uptake and improved DR). RESULTS: This modeling study demonstrates that introducing contingent cffDNA testing improves performance by increasing the number of cases of DS detected prenatally, and reducing the number of amniocenteses performed and concomitant iatrogenic pregnancy loss of pregnancies not affected by DS. Costs are modestly increased, although the cost per case of DS detected is decreased with contingent cffDNA testing. CONCLUSION: Contingent models of cffDNA testing can improve overall screening performance while maintaining the provision of an 11- to 13-week scan. Costs are modestly increased, but cost per prenatally detected case of DS is decreased.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost and performance implications of introducing cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) testing within modeled scenarios in a publicly funded Canadian provincial Down syndrome (DS) prenatal screening program. METHOD: Two clinical algorithms were created: the first to represent the current screening program and the second to represent one that incorporates cffDNA testing. From these algorithms, eight distinct scenarios were modeled to examine: (1) the current program (no cffDNA), (2) the current program with first trimester screening (FTS) as the nuchal translucency-based primary screen (no cffDNA), (3) a program substituting current screening with primary cffDNA, (4) contingent cffDNA with current FTS performance, (5) contingent cffDNA at a fixed price to result in overall cost neutrality,(6) contingent cffDNA with an improved detection rate (DR) of FTS, (7) contingent cffDNA with higher uptake of FTS, and (8) contingent cffDNA with optimized FTS (higher uptake and improved DR). RESULTS: This modeling study demonstrates that introducing contingent cffDNA testing improves performance by increasing the number of cases of DS detected prenatally, and reducing the number of amniocenteses performed and concomitant iatrogenic pregnancy loss of pregnancies not affected by DS. Costs are modestly increased, although the cost per case of DS detected is decreased with contingent cffDNA testing. CONCLUSION: Contingent models of cffDNA testing can improve overall screening performance while maintaining the provision of an 11- to 13-week scan. Costs are modestly increased, but cost per prenatally detected case of DS is decreased.
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: Jean Gekas; Sylvie Langlois; Vardit Ravitsky; François Audibert; David Gradus van den Berg; Hazar Haidar; François Rousseau Journal: Appl Clin Genet Date: 2016-02-04
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