Model-Based Analysis of Costs and Outcomes of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Down’s Syndrome Using Cell Free Fetal DNA in the UK National Health Service

Abstract

BackgroundNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down’s syndrome (DS) using cell free fetal DNA in maternal blood has the potential to dramatically alter the way prenatal screening and diagnosis is delivered. Before NIPT can be implemented into routine practice, information is required on its costs and benefits. We investigated the costs and outcomes of NIPT for DS as contingent testing and as first-line testing compared with the current DS screening programme in the UK National Health Service.MethodsWe used a pre-existing model to evaluate the costs and outcomes associated with NIPT compared with the current DS screening programme. The analysis was based on a hypothetical screening population of 10,000 pregnant women. Model inputs were taken from published sources. The main outcome measures were number of DS cases detected, number of procedure-related miscarriages and total cost.ResultsAt a screening risk cut-off of 1∶150 NIPT as contingent testing detects slightly fewer DS cases, has fewer procedure-related miscarriages, and costs the same as current DS screening (around UK£280,000) at a cost of £500 per NIPT. As first-line testing NIPT detects more DS cases, has fewer procedure-related miscarriages, and is more expensive than current screening at a cost of £50 per NIPT. When NIPT uptake increases, NIPT detects more DS cases with a small increase in procedure-related miscarriages and costs.ConclusionsNIPT is currently available in the private sector in the UK at a price of £400-£900. If the NHS cost was at the lower end of this range then at a screening risk cut-off of 1∶150 NIPT as contingent testing would be cost neutral or cost saving compared with current DS screening. As first-line testing NIPT is likely to produce more favourable outcomes but at greater cost. Further research is needed to evaluate NIPT under real world conditions.

The consequences of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing in Dutch national health care: a cost-effectiveness analysis

“…However, these studies focused on NIPT being utilised in a high-risk population only [32], did not include current practice using conventional screening methods as a comparator [33], or did not include secondtrimester ultrasonographic examination in their model [32][33][34][35]. Due to these differences in methods used, results cannot be compared.…”

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

“…Despite the evidence supporting NIPT first-line screening as cost-effective, other published studies have found that the improved clinical benefits of NIPT first-line screening are too costly [31,32]. The assumed cost of NIPT has a significant impact on cost-effectiveness analyses.…”

Implementation of whole genome massively parallel sequencing for noninvasive prenatal testing in laboratories

“…While the sensitivity and specificity for the general population is comparable to the high-risk group, the predictive value of the test is lower due to the lower incidence of anomalies. Coupled with the costs of performing sequencing this means it is currently not economically viable to replace primary screening tests by NIPT [102,103]. However, the costs of sequencing continue to decrease, making it possible to offer NIPT to all pregnant women in the near future.…”