Literature DB >> 29249015

Cost-effectiveness of cell-free DNA in maternal blood testing for prenatal detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13: a systematic review.

Lidia García-Pérez1,2,3,4,5, Renata Linertová6,7,8,9, Margarita Álvarez-de-la-Rosa10, Juan Carlos Bayón11, Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia8,12, Jorge Ferrer-Rodríguez7, Pedro Serrano-Aguilar6,8,9.   

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of the analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood, often called the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT), in the prenatal screening of trisomy in chromosomes 21, 18 and 13. MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched in April 2017. We selected: (1) economic evaluations that estimated the costs and detected cases of trisomy 21, 18 or 13; (2) comparisons of prenatal screening with NIPT (universal or contingent strategies) and the usual screening without NIPT, (3) in pregnant women with any risk of foetal anomalies. Studies were reviewed by two researchers. Data were extracted, the methodological quality was assessed and a narrative synthesis was prepared. In total, 12 studies were included, four of them performed in Europe. Three studies evaluated NIPT as a contingent test, three studies evaluated a universal NIPT, and six studies evaluated both. The results are heterogeneous, especially for the contingent NIPT where the results range from NIPT being dominant to a dominated strategy. Universal NIPT was found to be more effective but also costlier than the usual screening, with very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One advantage of screening with NIPT is lower invasive procedure-related foetal losses than with usual screening. In conclusion, the cost-effectiveness of contingent NIPT is uncertain according to several studies, while the universal NIPT is not cost-effective currently.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cell-free DNA; Cost-effectiveness; Non-invasive prenatal test; Prenatal screening; Systematic review

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29249015     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0946-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  33 in total

1.  Cell-free DNA analysis for trisomy risk assessment in first-trimester twin pregnancies.

Authors:  Maria del Mar Gil; Maria Soledad Quezada; Barbara Bregant; Argyro Syngelaki; Kypros H Nicolaides
Journal:  Fetal Diagn Ther       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 2.587

Review 2.  Much cheaper, almost as good: decrementally cost-effective medical innovation.

Authors:  Aaron L Nelson; Joshua T Cohen; Dan Greenberg; David M Kent
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-03       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Aneuploidy screening: a position statement from a committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, January 2011.

Authors:  Peter Benn; Antoni Borrell; Jenny Crossley; Howard Cuckle; Lorraine Dugoff; Susan Gross; Jo-Ann Johnson; Ron Maymon; Anthony Odibo; Peter Schielen; Kevin Spencer; Dave Wright; Yuval Yaron
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 4.  Analysis of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood for detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13 in a general pregnant population and in a high risk population - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Erik Iwarsson; Bo Jacobsson; Jessica Dagerhamn; Thomas Davidson; Eduardo Bernabé; Marianne Heibert Arnlind
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 3.636

5.  Prospective first-trimester screening for trisomies by cell-free DNA testing of maternal blood in twin pregnancy.

Authors:  L Sarno; R Revello; E Hanson; R Akolekar; K H Nicolaides
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 7.299

Review 6.  Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): limitations on the way to become diagnosis.

Authors:  Ioanna Kotsopoulou; Panagiota Tsoplou; Konstantinos Mavrommatis; Christos Kroupis
Journal:  Diagnosis (Berl)       Date:  2015-09-01

7.  The role of noninvasive prenatal testing as a diagnostic versus a screening tool--a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Mika Ohno; Aaron Caughey
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2013-06-17       Impact factor: 3.050

8.  A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing different strategies to implement noninvasive prenatal testing into a Down syndrome screening program.

Authors:  Alice C Ayres; Jennifer A Whitty; David A Ellwood
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2014-09-08       Impact factor: 2.100

9.  A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First Trimester Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening for Fetal Trisomies in the United States.

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

10.  Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening.

Authors:  Wybo Dondorp; Guido de Wert; Yvonne Bombard; Diana W Bianchi; Carsten Bergmann; Pascal Borry; Lyn S Chitty; Florence Fellmann; Francesca Forzano; Alison Hall; Lidewij Henneman; Heidi C Howard; Anneke Lucassen; Kelly Ormond; Borut Peterlin; Dragica Radojkovic; Wolf Rogowski; Maria Soller; Aad Tibben; Lisbeth Tranebjærg; Carla G van El; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 4.246

View more
  6 in total

1.  A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening Strategies Involving Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomy 21.

Authors:  Shuxian Wang; Kejun Liu; Huixia Yang; Jingmei Ma
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-05-31

2.  Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening and diagnostic strategies for Down syndrome: A microsimulation modeling analysis.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Tima Mohammadi; Julie Sou; Aslam H Anis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Clinical validation of a novel automated cell-free DNA screening assay for trisomies 21, 13, and 18 in maternal plasma.

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

4.  Utility of fetal facial markers on a second trimester genetic sonogram in screening for Down syndrome in a high-risk Thai population.

Authors:  Savitree Pranpanus; Kanokkarn Keatkongkaew; Manaphat Suksai
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access.

Authors:  Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Inez D de Beaufort; Eline M Bunnik; Adriana Kater-Kuipers
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Introducing the non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of Down syndrome in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Wenru Shang; Yang Wan; Jianan Chen; Yanqiu Du; Jiayan Huang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.