Cell-free fetal DNA screening in the USA: a cost analysis of screening strategies

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.

Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening strategies for congenital heart disease

OBJECTIVE

The economic implications of strategies to improve prenatal screening for congenital heart disease (CHD) in low-risk mothers have not been explored. The aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of different screening methods.

METHODS

We constructed a decision analytic model of CHD prenatal screening strategies (four-chamber screen (4C), 4C + outflow, nuchal translucency (NT) or fetal echocardiography) populated with probabilities from the literature. The model included whether initial screens were interpreted by a maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) specialist and different referral strategies if they were read by a non-MFM specialist. The primary outcome was the incremental cost per defect detected. Costs were obtained from Medicare National Fee estimates. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken on model variables commensurate with their degree of uncertainty.

RESULTS

In base-case analysis, 4C + outflow referred to an MFM specialist was the least costly strategy per defect detected. The 4C screen and the NT screen were dominated by other strategies (i.e. were more costly and less effective). Fetal echocardiography was the most effective, but most costly. On simulation of 10 000 low-risk pregnancies, 4C + outflow screen referred to an MFM specialist remained the least costly per defect detected. For an additional $580 per defect detected, referral to cardiology after a 4C + outflow was the most cost-effective for the majority of iterations, increasing CHD detection by 13 percentage points.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of examination of the outflow tracts to second-trimester ultrasound increases detection of CHD in the most cost-effective manner. Strategies to improve outflow-tract imaging and to refer with the most efficiency may be the best way to improve detection at a population level.

[Effects, safety and cost-benefit analysis of Down syndrome screening in first trimester]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects, safety and cost-benefit analysis of Down syndrome screening in first trimester.

METHODS

From January 2009 to December 2012, 43 729 pregnant women undergoing 3 methods of Down syndrome traditional screening strategies in Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital were studied retrospectively, including in 17 502 cases in pregnancy associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) and free β-hCG measured biochemistry screening, 14 080 cases in nuchal translucency (NT) screening and 12 147 cases in combined screening, meanwhile, 7 389 cases on non-invasive fetal trisomy test (NIFTY) were performed in Huada Gene Research Institute(BGI). The effects and safety of four screening strategies were assessed throughout a decision tree. The economical characters of each screening strategy were compared by cost-effectiveness analysis as well as cost-benefit analysis.

RESULTS

(1) The effects of four strategies are: NIFTY > combined screening > NT screening > biochemistry screening. (2) The safety of four strategies are: NIFTY > combined screening > NT screening > biochemistry screening. (3) Cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis:the biochemistry screening has lowest cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) and highest cost-benefit ratio (CBR), which performed a better economical efficiency. The incremental CER of three traditional screening strategies are all less than the economical burden of Down syndrome.NIFTY has highest CER and negative net present value (NPV), NPV would be positive and CBR would be more than 1 if the price of NIFTY reduce to 1 434 Yuan.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined screening possess best screening efficiency, while biochemistry screening was demonstrated more economical in traditional screening.NIFTY is the future of Down syndrome screening.

Cost effectiveness, the economic considerations of prenatal screening strategies for trisomy 21 in the Czech Republic

OBJECTIVES

To perform an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis for screening of trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) in the Czech Republic through a decision tree model designed to evaluate the costs and potential risks involved in using different strategies of screening. METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS: Using decision-analysis modelling, we compared the cost-effectiveness of nine possible screening strategies for trisomy 21: 1. maternal age > or = 35 in first trimester, 2. maternal age > or = 35 in second trimester, 3. second trimester triple test (AFP, hCG, mu E3), 4. nuchal translucency measurement, 5. first trimester serum test (PAPP-A, fbeta-hCG), 6. first trimester combined (nuchal translucency, PAPP-A, fbeta-hCG) not in OSCAR manner, 7. first trimester combined (nuchal translucency, PAPP-A, fbeta-hCG) in OSCAR manner, 8. first trimester combined (nuchal translucency, nasal bone, PAPP-A, fbeta-hCG) not in OSCAR manner, 9. first trimester combined (nuchal translucency, nasal bone, PAPP-A, fbeta-hCG) in OSCAR manner. The analysis is performed from a health care payer perspective using relevant cost and outcomes related to each screening strategy in a cohort of 118,135 pregnant women presenting around 12 weeks of pregnancy in the Czech Republic. Using a computer spreadsheet Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Wash) the following outcomes: overall cost-effectiveness, trisomy 21 cases detected, trisomy 21 live birth prevented and euploid losses from invasive procedures were obtained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were also calculated by a comparison of strategy nine and strategy three (the current practice in the Czech Republic).

RESULTS

Under the baseline assumptions, the model favors strategy nine as the most cost-effective trisomy 21 screening strategy. This strategy was the least expensive strategy per trisomy 21 cases averted. Although all the other strategies cost less, they all had lower trisomy 21 detection rates and higher numbers of procedure-related losses (except for strategies six and seven, which had same loss rate) compared with strategy nine. All strategies considered were cheaper compared with screening only by maternal age over 35 years. Adding the nasal bone and the OSCAR manner made strategy nine the most cost-effective one. The incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per additional trisomy 21 case prevented) comparing strategy nine and second trimester triple test (current practice in Czech Republic) yielded an additional baseline cost of 219,326 CZK. This would seem not to save money but due to the low false positive rate the test is less costly than might be expected and it is more cost-effective than the current practice in the Czech Republic (3,580,082 CZK for the current practice and 2,469,833 CZK for our strategy in terms of costs per DS case prevented).

CONCLUSION

In our analysis the NT, NB, PAPP-A and fbeta-hCG combined test carried out in the first trimester was the most cost-effective screening strategy for trisomy 21 in the Czech Republic.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prenatal Screening Strategies for Down Syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate which Down syndrome screening strategy is the most cost-effective.

METHODS

Using decision-analysis modeling, we compared the cost-effectiveness of 9 screening strategies for Down syndrome: 1) no screening, 2) first-trimester nuchal translucency (NT) only, 3) first-trimester combined NT and serum screen, 4) first-trimester serum only, 5) quadruple screen, 6) integrated screening, 7) sequential screening, 8) integrated serum only, or 9) maternal age. Costs included cost of tests and resources used for raising a child with Down syndrome. One-way and multiway sensitivity analyses were performed for all model variables. The main outcome measures were cost per Down syndrome case detected, rate of delivering a liveborn neonate with Down syndrome, and rate of diagnostic procedure-related pregnancy loss for each strategy.

RESULTS

Sequential screening detected more Down syndrome cases compared with the other strategies, but it had a higher procedure-related loss rate. Integrated serum screening was the most cost-effective strategy. Sensitivity analyses revealed the model to be robust over a wide range of values for the variables. The addition of the cost of genetic sonogram to the second-trimester strategies resulted in first-trimester combined screening becoming the most cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSION

Within our baseline assumptions, integrated serum screening was the most cost-effective screening strategy for Down syndrome. If the cost of nuchal translucency is less than dollars 57 or when genetic sonogram is included in the second-trimester strategies, first-trimester combined screening became the most cost-effective strategy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

The cost effectiveness of prenatal ultrasound screening for trisomy 21

Objectives: The cost-effectiveness of opportunistic nuchal translucency ultrasound screening in pregnancy was compared with alternative screening strategies for trisomy 21 in Australia.

Methods: A decision analytic model was used of various pregnancy screening strategies based on a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of nuchal translucency ultrasound and serum screening and costs based on current reimbursement fees. The model included the likelihood and cost of terminations after diagnostic testing and the associated risk of fetal loss. All prices are in 2001 Australian dollars.

Results: With a twenty percentage point difference in detection rate, the incremental cost for a combination of nuchal translucency and serum screening with age in the first trimester compared with maternal serum screening in the second trimester was $105,484 per extra case detected and $374,779 per live trisomy 21 birth avoided. Serum screening in the second trimester had an incremental cost per extra case detected of between $61,700 and $117,100 per extra live birth avoided when compared with no screening.

Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of ultrasound screening for trisomy 21 would appear to be more attractive if it were done at the same time as current dating ultrasound. Any funding mechanism for screening should take this strategy into account by incorporating, as far as possible, provision of nuchal translucency screening into existing services provided in early pregnancy.