A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Different Screening Strategies Involving Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomy 21

Shuxian Wang,Kejun Liu,Huixia Yang,Jingmei Ma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3449372

2019-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Background: To investigate the benefits and cost effectiveness of NIPT as primary or contingent strategies within high risk population, in accordance with increasing advanced maternal age (AMA) and NIPT rapid application.Methods: A theoretical model involving 1,000,000 single pregnancies was established. NIPT together with or without traditional triple serum screening constitutes five screening scenarios. All related parameters were referred to publication or on-site verification. Strategy 1, NIPT is primarily offered to all pregnant women. Strategy 2, NIPT is offered to all pregnancies with risks higher than 1:300 (Strategy 2-1) or 1:1000 (Strategy 2-2) after triple serum screening. Strategy 3 is stratified based on maternal age in which 1) for age 40 and more, prenatal diagnosis is directly offered, 2) for population of maternal age for 35~39, primary NIPT is introduced, 3) if younger than 35y, contingent strategy with risk higher than 1:300 (Strategy 3-1) or 1:1000 (Strategy 3-2) as the indication for NIPT. The primary outcome is incremental cost analysis on baseline and alterative assumptions. The second outcomes are total cost, cost-effect and cost-benefit analysis. The strategy is defined as "cost-effective" if the incremental cost is less than 0.16million US$, needed for raising one T21 livebirth or the benefit-to-cost ratio is above 1.Findings: With the advantage of lower false positive rate of NIPT, anticipated prenatal diagnosis are greatly reduced. In cost-effectiveness analysis, strategy 2-1 costs least with 112.9million US$ in total, 33.4 thousand US$ in cost-effect analysis and ratioed as 3.53 in cost-benefit analysis. Setting 2-1 as baseline, incremental costs of strategy 1, 3-2, 2-2 and 3-1 are 0.67million US$, 0.25million US$, 0.22million US$ and 0.17million US$, which are all more than costs for raising one visible T21. In sensitivity analysis of age proportion, when AMA account for more than 15.5% in population, incremental costs of strategy 3-1 are lower than 0.16million US$. All strategies are considered as "appropriate" if NIPT costs less than 106 US$. When it's less than 309 US$, the incremental cost of strategy 3-1 is least and lower than 0.16million US$. Strategy 1 needs least money when it's lower than 47 US$.Interpretation: Strategy 2-1 is optimal in cost-effectiveness analysis. AMA proportion and NIPT costs are two important factors. Strategy 3-1 is more prominent as AMA increases. Strategy 1 is the most effective and cost-effectiveness method under an affordable price.Funding: National Key Technologies R&D program of China (2016YFC1000303).Declaration of Interest: The authors have no conflict of interests.Ethical Approval: This study was exempted from ethics committee approval for the pure theoretical model involving 1,000,000 single pregnant women in China.