Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: A cost-consequences analysis

BMJ Open

Volumn 4, Issue 11, 2014, Pages

  Neyt, Mattias ^a   Hulstaert, Frank ^a   Gyselaers, Wilfried ^b,c  

^a BELGIAN HEALTH CARE KNOWLEDGE CENTRE KCE   (Belgium)

^b DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY   (Belgium)

^c HASSELT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BELGIUM; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DOWN SYNDROME; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; INVASIVE PROCEDURE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NON INVASIVE PRENATAL TEST; NON INVASIVE PROCEDURE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRENATAL SCREENING; PREVALENCE; REIMBURSEMENT; RISK REDUCTION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION; TRISOMY 21; BLOOD EXAMINATION; COST; ECONOMICS; EVALUATION STUDY; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PROCEDURES;

BELGIUM; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HEMATOLOGIC TESTS; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 84911944650     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005922     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Benn P, Borell A, Chiu R, et al. Position statement from the Aneuploidy Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:622-9.
2. Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, et al. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med 2014;370:799-808.
3. Cleemput I, Neyt M, Van de Sande S, et al. Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses: second edition. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre(KCE), 2012.
4. Mutton D, Alberman E, Hook EB. Cytogenetic and epidemiological findings in Down syndrome, England and Wales 1989 to 1993. National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register and the Association of Clinical Cytogeneticists. J Med Genet 1996;33:387-94.
5. Boyle B, Morris J, McConkey R, et al. Prevalence and risk of Down syndrome in monozygotic and dizygotic multiple pregnancies in Europe: implications for prenatal screening. BJOG 2014;121:809-19.
6. Snijders RJ, Sundberg K, Holzgreve W, et al. Maternal age- and gestation-specific risk for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13:167-70.
7. Avalos A, Galindo C, Li DK. A systematic review to calculate background miscarriage rates using life table analysis. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2012;94:417-23.
8. Morris JK, Alberman E, Mutton D, et al. Cytogenetic and epidemiological findings in Down syndrome: England and Wales 1989-2009. Am J Med Genet A 2012;158A:1151-7.
9. Hulstaert F, Neyt M, Gyselaers W. The non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) for trisomy 21-health economic aspects. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre(KCE), 2014.
10. Benn P, Cuckle H, Pergament E. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: current status and future prospects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42:15-33.
11. Saucedo MC, DeVigan C, Vodovar V, et al. Measurement of nuchal translucency and the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:829-38.
12. Harris RA, Washington AE, Nease RF Jr, et al. Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold. Lancet 2004;363:276-82.
13. Richter J, Henry A, Ryan G, et al. Amniopatch procedure after previable iatrogenic rupture of the membranes: a two-center review. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:391-6.
14. Tabor A, Philip J, Madsen M, et al. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1986;1:1287-93.
15. Alfirevic Z, Sundberg K, Brigham S. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003(3):CD003252.
16. Choi H, Van Riper M, Thoyre S. Decision making following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: an integrative review. J Midwifery Womens Health 2012;57:156-64.
17. Snijders RJ, Noble P, Sebire N, et al. UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal-translucency thickness at 10-14 weeks of gestation. Fetal Medicine Foundation First Trimester Screening Group. Lancet 1998;352:343-6.
18. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
19. Wellesley D, Dolk H, Boyd PA, et al. Rare chromosome abnormalities, prevalence and prenatal diagnosis rates from population-based congenital anomaly registers in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet 2012;20:521-6.
20. Houlihan OA, O'Donoghue K. The natural history of pregnancies with a diagnosis of Trisomy 18 or Trisomy 13; a retrospective case series. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013;13:209.
21. Rava RP, Srinivasan A, Sehnert AJ, et al. Circulating fetal cell-free DNA fractions differ in autosomal aneuploidies and monosomy X. Clin Chem 2013;60:243-50.
22. Petersen O, Vogel I, Ekelund C, et al. Potential diagnostic consequences of applying non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT); a population-based study from a country with existing first trimester screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;43:265-71.
23. Ohno M, Caughey A. The role of noninvasive prenatal testing as a diagnostic versus a screening tool-a cost-effectiveness analysis. Prenatal Diagnosis 2013;33:630-5.
24. Song K, Musci TJ, Caughey AB. Clinical utility and cost of non-invasive prenatal testing with cfDNA analysis in high-risk women based on a US population. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013;26:1180-5.
25. Cuckle H, Benn P, Pergament E. Maternal cfDNA screening for Down syndrome: a cost sensitivity analysis. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:636-42.
26. Waitzman N, Roman P, Scheffler R, et al. Economic costs of birth defects and cerebral palsy-United States, 1992. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1995;44:694-9.
27. Kuppermann M, Nease RF, Learman LA, et al. Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:511-16.
28. Kuppermann M, Nease RF Jr, Gates E, et al. How do women of diverse backgrounds value prenatal testing outcomes? Prenat Diagn 2004;24:424-9.
29. Kuppermann M, Feeny D, Gates E, et al. Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnostic choice: long-term outcomes matter most. Prenat Diagn 1999;19:711-16.
30. Petrou S. Methodological limitations of economic evaluations of antenatal screening. Health Econ 2001;10:775-8.
31. Brown J, Buxton M. The economic perspective. Br Med Bull 1998;54:993-1009.
32. Garfield SS, Armstrong SO. Clinical and cost consequences of incorporating a novel non-invasive prenatal test into the diagnostic pathway for fetal trisomies. J Manag Care Med 2012;15:32-9.
33. O'Leary P, Maxwell S, Murch A, et al. Prenatal screening for Down syndrome in Australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2013;53:425-33.
34. Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, Lambert-Messerlian GM, et al. DNA sequencing of maternal plasma to detect Down syndrome: an international clinical validation study. Genet Med 2011; 13:913-20.
35. Wald NJ, Bestwick JP. Incorporating DNA sequencing into current prenatal screening practice for Down's syndrome. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e58732.
36. Okun N, Teitelbaum M, Huang T, et al. The price of performance: a cost and performance analysis of the implementation of cell-free fetal DNA testing for Down syndrome in Ontario, Canada. Prenat Diagn 2014;34:350-6.
37. Natoli JL, Ackerman DL, McDermott S, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: a systematic review of termination rates (1995- 2011). Prenat Diagn 2012;32:142-53.
38. GenomeWeb staff reporter. Sequenom Officials Discuss Plans for Low-Cost NIPT, 17 January 2014.
39. Nicolaides KH. Nuchal translucency and other first-trimester sonographic markers of chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:45-67.
40. Chitayat D, Langlois S, Wilson RD. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy in singleton pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011;33:736-50.
41. Axell RG, Gillett A, Pasupathy D, et al. The accuracy of nuchal translucency measurement depends on the equipment used and its calibration. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;44:31-7.
42. Tabor A, Alfirevic Z. Update on procedure-related risks for prenatal diagnosis techniques. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010;27:1-7.