OBJECTIVES: To determine whether implementation of primary cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) screening would be cost-effective in the USA and to evaluate potential lower-cost alternatives. METHODS: Three strategies to screen for trisomy 21 were evaluated using decision tree analysis: 1) a primary strategy in which cffDNA screening was offered to all patients, 2) a contingent strategy in which cffDNA screening was offered only to patients who were high risk on traditional first-trimester screening and 3) a hybrid strategy in which cffDNA screening was offered to all patients ≥ 35 years of age and only to patients < 35 years who were high risk after first-trimester screening. Four traditional screening protocols were evaluated, each assessing nuchal translucency (NT) and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) along with either free or total beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG), with or without nasal bone (NB) assessment. RESULTS: Utilizing a primary cffDNA screening strategy, the cost per patient was 1017 US$. With a traditional screening protocol using free β-hCG, PAPP-A and NT assessment as part of a hybrid screening strategy, a contingent strategy with a 1/300 cut-off and a contingent strategy with a 1/1000 cut-off, the cost per patient was 474, 430 and 409 US$, respectively. Findings were similar using the other traditional screening protocols. Marginal cost per viable case detected for the primary screening strategy as compared to the other strategies was 3-16 times greater than the cost of care for a missed case. CONCLUSIONS: Primary cffDNA screening is not currently a cost-effective strategy. The contingent strategy was the lowest-cost alternative, especially with a risk cut-off of 1/1000. The hybrid strategy, although less costly than primary cffDNA screening, was more costly than the contingent strategy.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether implementation of primary cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) screening would be cost-effective in the USA and to evaluate potential lower-cost alternatives. METHODS: Three strategies to screen for trisomy 21 were evaluated using decision tree analysis: 1) a primary strategy in which cffDNA screening was offered to all patients, 2) a contingent strategy in which cffDNA screening was offered only to patients who were high risk on traditional first-trimester screening and 3) a hybrid strategy in which cffDNA screening was offered to all patients ≥ 35 years of age and only to patients < 35 years who were high risk after first-trimester screening. Four traditional screening protocols were evaluated, each assessing nuchal translucency (NT) and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) along with either free or total beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG), with or without nasal bone (NB) assessment. RESULTS: Utilizing a primary cffDNA screening strategy, the cost per patient was 1017 US$. With a traditional screening protocol using free β-hCG, PAPP-A and NT assessment as part of a hybrid screening strategy, a contingent strategy with a 1/300 cut-off and a contingent strategy with a 1/1000 cut-off, the cost per patient was 474, 430 and 409 US$, respectively. Findings were similar using the other traditional screening protocols. Marginal cost per viable case detected for the primary screening strategy as compared to the other strategies was 3-16 times greater than the cost of care for a missed case. CONCLUSIONS: Primary cffDNA screening is not currently a cost-effective strategy. The contingent strategy was the lowest-cost alternative, especially with a risk cut-off of 1/1000. The hybrid strategy, although less costly than primary cffDNA screening, was more costly than the contingent strategy.
Authors: Olle Ericsson; Tarja Ahola; Fredrik Dahl; Filip Karlsson; Fredrik Persson; Olof Karlberg; Fredrik Roos; Ida Alftrén; Björn Andersson; Emelie Barkenäs; Ani Boghos; Birgit Brandner; Jenny Dahlberg; Per-Ola Forsgren; Niels Francois; Anna Gousseva; Faizan Hakamali; Åsa Janfalk-Carlsson; Henrik Johansson; Johanna Lundgren; Atefeh Mohsenchian; Linus Olausson; Simon Olofsson; Atif Qureshi; Björn Skarpås; Peter Svahn; Anna Sävneby; Eva Åström; Anna Sahlberg; Aino Fianu-Jonasson; Jérémie Gautier; Jean-Marc Costa; Bo Jacobsson; Kypros Nicolaides Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Maria Facadio Antero; Bhuchitra Singh; Apoorva Pradhan; Megan Gornet; William G Kearns; Valerie Baker; Mindy S Christianson Journal: F S Rep Date: 2020-12-09
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