Expansion of non-invasive prenatal screening to the screening of 10 types of chromosomal anomalies: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Fetal medicine
HEALTH ECONOMICS
Maternal medicine
Prenatal diagnosis
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 08 2023
30 08 2023
Historique:
medline:
1
9
2023
pubmed:
31
8
2023
entrez:
30
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of chromosomal anomalies detectable by non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS), in a prenatal screening programme targeting common aneuploidies. A simulation study was conducted to study the addition of chromosomal anomalies detectable by NIPS (sex chromosome aneuploidies, 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, large deletion/duplication >7 Mb and rare autosomal trisomies) to five basic strategies currently aiming the common trisomies: three strategies currently offered by the public healthcare systems in Canada, whose first-tier test is performed with biochemical markers, and two programmes whose first-tier test consists of NIPS-based methods. The total number of cases of chromosomal anomalies detected and the costs related to the consumption of medical services. The most effective and the most cost-effective option in almost all prenatal screening strategies is the option that includes all targeted additional conditions. In the strategies where NIPS is used as first-tier testing, the cost per additional case detected by adding all possible additional anomalies to a programme that currently targets only common trisomies is $C25 710 (95% CI $C25 489 to $C25 934) for massively parallel shotgun sequencing and $C57 711 (95% CI $C57 141 to $C58 292) for targeted massively parallel sequencing, respectively. The acceptability curves show that at a willingness-to-pay of $C50 000 per one additional case detected, the expansion of NIPS-based methods for the detection of all possible additional conditions has a 90% probability of being cost-effective. From an economic perspective, in strategies that use NIPS as a first-tier screening test, expanding the programmes to detect any considered chromosomal anomalies other than the three common trisomies would be cost-effective. However, the potential expansion of prenatal screening programmes also requires consideration of societal issues, including ethical ones.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37648381
pii: bmjopen-2022-069485
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069485
pmc: PMC10471875
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e069485Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Handb Clin Neurol. 2018;147:355-376
pubmed: 29325624
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017 Sep;39(9):805-817
pubmed: 28859766
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 10;11:CD011767
pubmed: 29125628
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Jun;99(6):731-743
pubmed: 32166736
Health Policy Open. 2022 Jan 05;3:100063
pubmed: 37383570
Lancet. 2008 Nov 22;372(9652):1789-91
pubmed: 19027473
Aust Fam Physician. 2017 Oct;46(10):735-739
pubmed: 29036772
Health Hum Rights. 2017 Jun;19(1):13-27
pubmed: 28630538
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Sep;22(3):264-7
pubmed: 12942498
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2006 Sep 05;1:33
pubmed: 16953888
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011 Jul;33(7):736-750
pubmed: 21749752
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018 Jan;40(1):48-60
pubmed: 28784564
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jul;44(1):122-3
pubmed: 24895295
Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2013 May;56(3):160-6
pubmed: 24327996
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Apr;20(2):164-8
pubmed: 18388817
J Med Genet. 1992 Jun;29(6):400-6
pubmed: 1619635
Handb Clin Neurol. 2019;167:321-336
pubmed: 31753140
J Med Genet. 2018 Apr;55(4):215-221
pubmed: 29496978
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2009 Mar 07;4:9
pubmed: 19267933
CMAJ. 2021 Aug 3;193(30):E1156-E1163
pubmed: 34344770
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019 Feb 19;19(4):1-166
pubmed: 30847010
Eur J Hum Genet. 2012 May;20(5):521-6
pubmed: 22234154
Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2013 Jul;1(2):87-97
pubmed: 24498606
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 4;14(12):e0225281
pubmed: 31800591