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.

Issues associated with possible implementation of Non‐Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in First‐Tier Screening: A Rapid Scoping Review

Clinical application of noninvasive prenatal testing for the detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13: a hospital experience.

Patient perspectives on noninvasive prenatal testing among black women in the United States: a scoping review

Clinical and Economic Impact of Adopting Noninvasive Prenatal Testing as a Primary Screening Method for Fetal Aneuploidies in the General Pregnancy Population

It’s More Than a Blood Test: Patients’ Perspectives on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

Women’s Experiences and Preferences for Service Delivery of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Aneuploidy in a Public Health Setting: A Mixed Methods Study

The effect of funding non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) on invasive procedures performed to identify trisomy 21 pregnancies: A population-based cohort study

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) - We Need a National Programme.

Perspectives of pregnant women on broadening the scope of noninvasive prenatal testing from screening for foetal aneuploidies to prediction of adverse pregnancy outcomes: A qualitative study

Patient experience with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a primary screen for aneuploidy in the Netherlands

Advancements of non-invasive prenatal testing: the role of obstetricians

The Application of NIPT Using Combinatorial Probe-Anchor Synthesis to Identify Sex Chromosomal Aneuploidies (scas) in a Cohort of 570 Pregnancies

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

Understanding Knowledge, Perception, and Willingness of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Fetal Aneuploidy: a Survey among Chinese High-Risk Pregnant Women

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Reliability, Challenges, and Future Directions

Clinical performance of non-invasive prenatal served as a first-tier screening test for trisomy 21, 18, 13 and sex chromosome aneuploidy in a pilot city in China

Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing in a national screening program: Lessons learned from the TRIDENT studies

[Clinical application and evaluation of health economics for non-invasive prenatal testing of fetuses in Tianjin].

Secondary non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal trisomy: an effectiveness study in a public health setting

Should the scope of NIPT be limited by a 'threshold of seriousness'?

Non-invasive prenatal testing in Germany: a unique ethical and policy landscape