Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening and diagnostic strategies for Down syndrome: A microsimulation modeling analysis

PLoS One. 2019 Dec 4;14(12):e0225281. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225281. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Objectives: Down syndrome (DS) is the most frequently occurring fetal chromosomal abnormality and different prenatal screening strategies are used for determining risk of DS worldwide. New non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), which uses cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood can provide benefits due to its higher sensitivity and specificity in comparison to conventional screening tests. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of using population-level NIPT in fetal aneuploidy screening for DS.

Methods: We developed a microsimulation decision-analytic model to perform a probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of prenatal screening and diagnostic strategies for DS. The model followed individual simulated pregnant women through the pregnancy pathway. The comparators were serum-only screening, contingent NIPT (i.e., NIPT as a second-tier screening test) and universal NIPT (i.e., NIPT as a first-tier screening test). To address uncertainty around the model parameters, the expected values of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in the base case and all scenario analyses were obtained through probabilistic analysis from a Monte Carlo simulation.

Results: Base case and scenario analyses were conducted by repeating the micro-simulation 1,000 times for a sample of 45,605 pregnant women per the population of British Columbia, Canada (N = 4.8 million). Preliminary results of the sequential CEAs showed that contingent NIPT was a dominant strategy compared to serum-only screening. Compared with contingent NIPT, universal NIPT at the current test price was not cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over $100,000/QALY. Contingent NIPT also had the lowest cost per DS case detected among these three strategies.

Conclusion: Including NIPT in existing prenatal screening for DS is shown to be beneficial over conventional testing. However, at current prices, implementation of NIPT as a second-tier screening test is more cost-effective than deploying it as a universal test.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Computer Simulation
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis*
  • Down Syndrome / diagnosis*
  • Down Syndrome / economics
  • Female
  • Genetic Testing / economics*
  • Genetic Testing / methods
  • Humans
  • Monte Carlo Method
  • Pregnancy
  • Prenatal Diagnosis / economics*
  • Prenatal Diagnosis / methods
  • Quality-Adjusted Life Years

Grants and funding

Funding is provided by: (1) St. Paul’s Foundation, (2) Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences (CHÉOS), and (3) BGI donation made to the St. Paul’s Foundation and CHÉOS to AHA.