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

Benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes in health economic assessments: the VALENTIA systematic review and qualitative investigation

Background

Health economic assessments are used to determine whether the resources needed to generate net benefit from an antenatal or newborn screening programme, driven by multiple benefits and harms, are justifiable. It is not known what benefits and harms have been adopted by economic evaluations assessing these programmes and whether they omit benefits and harms considered important to relevant stakeholders.

Objectives

(1) To identify the benefits and harms adopted by health economic assessments in this area, and to assess how they have been measured and valued; (2) to identify attributes or relevance to stakeholders that ought to be considered in future economic assessments; and (3) to make recommendations about the benefits and harms that should be considered by these studies.

Design

Mixed methods combining systematic review and qualitative work.

Systematic review methods

We searched the published and grey literature from January 2000 to January 2021 using all major electronic databases. Economic evaluations of an antenatal or newborn screening programme in one or more Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries were considered eligible. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. We identified benefits and harms using an integrative descriptive analysis and constructed a thematic framework.

Qualitative methods

We conducted a meta-ethnography of the existing literature on newborn screening experiences, a secondary analysis of existing individual interviews related to antenatal or newborn screening or living with screened-for conditions, and a thematic analysis of primary data collected with stakeholders about their experiences with screening.

Results

The literature searches identified 52,244 articles and reports, and 336 unique studies were included. Thematic framework resulted in seven themes: (1) diagnosis of screened for condition, (2) life-years and health status adjustments, (3) treatment, (4) long-term costs, (5) overdiagnosis, (6) pregnancy loss and (7) spillover effects on family members. Diagnosis of screened-for condition (115, 47.5%), life-years and health status adjustments (90, 37.2%) and treatment (88, 36.4%) accounted for most of the benefits and harms evaluating antenatal screening. The same themes accounted for most of the benefits and harms included in studies assessing newborn screening. Long-term costs, overdiagnosis and spillover effects tended to be ignored. The wide-reaching family implications of screening were considered important to stakeholders. We observed good overlap between the thematic framework and the qualitative evidence.

Limitations

Dual data extraction within the systematic literature review was not feasible due to the large number of studies included. It was difficult to recruit healthcare professionals in the stakeholder's interviews.

Conclusions

There is no consistency in the selection of benefits and harms used in health economic assessments in this area, suggesting that additional methods guidance is needed. Our proposed thematic framework can be used to guide the development of future health economic assessments evaluating antenatal and newborn screening programmes.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165236.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127489) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Expansion of non-invasive prenatal screening to the screening of 10 types of chromosomal anomalies: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES

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.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

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.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The total number of cases of chromosomal anomalies detected and the costs related to the consumption of medical services.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

Position statement from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis on the use of non-invasive prenatal testing for the detection of fetal chromosomal conditions in singleton pregnancies

What is already known about this topic?

What does this study add?

Grisel's syndrome and Down syndrome: a case report

Grisel's syndrome is a non-traumatic subluxation of the atlantoaxial joint following an inflammatory process in the upper respiratory tract. Patients with Down syndrome have higher risks of developing atlantoaxial instability. This issue is mainly due to low muscle tone, loose ligaments, and alterations to the bone in patients with Down syndrome. Accompaniment of Grisel's syndrome and Down syndrome was not perused in recent investigations. To our knowledge, only one case of Grisel's syndrome in an adult patient with Down syndrome has been reported. In this study, we present a case of Grisel syndrome in a 7-year-old boy with Down syndrome following lymphadenitis. A 7-year-old boy with Down syndrome was admitted to the orthopedic ward of Shariati hospital with a possible diagnosis of Grisel's syndrome and treated with mento-occipital traction for ten days. In this case report, we represent a child with Down syndrome with Grisel's syndrome for the first time. We also imitated a simple and applicable non-surgical treatment for Grisel's syndrome.

Issues associated with possible implementation of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in first-tier screening: A rapid scoping review

In recent years, as the implementation and use of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) have increased, the cost of the test has been decreasing. The cost of NIPT is expected to fall further in the upcoming years. As a result of the decreasing cost of NIPT, many jurisdictions may change their prenatal screening policies toward abandoning serum-based screening and instead, implement and support NIPT as the first-tier screening for all women. There are several concerns in replacing first-trimester screening with NIPT. In this scoping review, we aimed to map the existing knowledge about possible issues in the systematic implementation of NIPT as the primary method of first-tier screening and to assess if any jurisdiction has altered its policy and discontinued serum-based prenatal screening in exchange for NIPT. The Medline database (Ovid) and Google Scholar was searched and all the studies discussing, investigating, or reporting on the systematic implementation of NIPT as the primary method of first-tier screening were included. All the studies went through a two-stage screening process and included full-text articles were reviewed. We did not find any articles indicating a country or region that replaced traditional prenatal screening by NIPT. The included articles were charted, and the data about the possible issues in the systematic implementation of NIPT as the primary method of first-tier screening are summarized narratively and presented in tables in four categories. The findings of this scoping review may be informative for stakeholders and policymakers regarding recent changes in NIPT implementation policies around the world and may aid with developing policy for NIPT implementation with a broader perspective.

A dPCR-NIPT assay for detections of trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in a single-tube reaction-could it replace serum biochemical tests as a primary maternal plasma screening tool?

Background

The next generation sequencing (NGS) based non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) has outplayed the traditional serum biochemical tests (SBT) in screen of fetal aneuploidies with a high sensitivity and specificity. However, it has not been widely used as a primary screen tool due to its high cost and the cheaper SBT is still the choice for primary screen even with well-known shortages in sensitivity and specificity. Here, we report a multiplex droplet digital PCR NIPT (dPCR-NIPT) assay that can detect trisomies 21, 18 and 13 (T21, T18 and T13) in a single tube reaction with a better sensitivity and specificity than the SBT and a much cheaper price than the NGS-NIPT.

Methods

In this study, the dPCR-NIPT assay’s non-clinical characteristics were evaluated to verify the cell free fetal DNA (cffDNA) fraction enrichment efficiencies, the target cell free DNA (cfDNA) concentration enrichment, the analytical sensitivity, and the sample quality control on the minimum concentration of cfDNA required for the assay. We validated the clinical performance for this assay by blindly testing 283 clinical maternal plasma samples, including 36 trisomic positive samples, from high risk pregnancies to access its sensitivity and specificity. The cost effectiveness of using the dPCR-NIPT assay as the primary screen tool was also analyzed and compared to that of the existing contingent strategy (CS) using the SBT as the primary screen tool and the strategy of NGS-NIPT as the first-tier screen tool in a simulating situation.

Results

For the non-clinical characteristics, the sample processing reagents could enrich the cffDNA fraction by around 2 folds, and the analytical sensitivity showed that the assay was able to detect trisomies at a cffDNA fraction as low as 5% and the extracted cfDNA concentration as low as 0.2 ng/μL. By testing the 283 clinical samples, the dPCR-NIPT assay demonstrated a detection sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 95.12%. Compared to the existing CS and the NGS-NIPT as the first-tier screen strategy, dPCR-NIPT assay used as a primary screen tool followed by the NGS-NIPT rescreen is the most economical approach to screen pregnant women for fetal aneuploidies without sacrificing the positive detection rate.

Conclusion

This is the first report on a dPCR-NIPT assay, consisting of all the necessary reagents from sample processing to multiplex dPCR amplification, can detect T21, T18 and T13 in a single tube reaction. The study results reveal that this assay has a sensitivity and specificity superior to the SBT and a cost much lower than the NGS-NIPT. Thus, from both the test performance and the economic benefit points of views, using the dPCR-NIPT assay to replace the SBT as a primary screen tool followed by the NGS-NIPT rescreen would be a better approach than the existing CS for detection of fetal aneuploidies in maternal plasma.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12967-022-03455-y.

Universal First-Trimester Cytomegalovirus Screening and Valaciclovir Prophylaxis in Pregnant Persons: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest a possible benefit of valaciclovir prophylaxis to prevent vertical transmission after a positive serologic screen for primary maternal cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy, although its cost-effectiveness remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the circumstances under which universal first-trimester maternal serologic screening for maternal cytomegalovirus infection, with valaciclovir prophylaxis to prevent congenital cytomegalovirus, is cost-effective.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a decision analysis from the perspective of the pregnant person to assess whether universal maternal screening in the first trimester, with subsequent valaciclovir prophylaxis (8g/day from time of positive serologic screen for primary maternal cytomegalovirus infection through 21 weeks' gestation) for those who are acutely infected, is cost-effective compared to usual care (i.e., no routine serologic screening, but amniocentesis if mid-trimester sonographic findings suggest cytomegalovirus). For baseline estimates, we assumed a 35% risk of congenital cytomegalovirus after primary maternal infection and a 71% risk reduction with valaciclovir. We varied valaciclovir's efficacy to identify whether and at what threshold universal screening would be estimated to be cost-effective, compared to usual care. Monte Carlo analyses were performed. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year was used to define cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Under base-case estimates, first-trimester universal screening and valaciclovir prophylaxis for seropositive pregnant persons with acute cytomegalovirus infection is not cost-effective, with a cost of $137,854 per maternal QALY, but results in 14 fewer cytomegalovirus-affected children per 100,000 pregnancies compared to usual care. In one-way sensitivity analysis, universal screening and treatment is estimated to be the cost-effective strategy if the incidence of primary maternal cytomegalovirus infection exceeds 2.6%, baseline risk of vertical transmission of cytomegalovirus without prophylaxis is greater than 36.8%, and the risk reduction of vertical transmission of cytomegalovirus with valaciclovir prophylaxis exceeds 75.9%. In Monte Carlo analyses, first-trimester universal serologic screening with valaciclovir prophylaxis is estimated to be the cost-effective strategy in 46.8% of runs.

CONCLUSION

Universal first-trimester serologic screening with valaciclovir prophylaxis is not the cost-effective strategy for antenatal management of cytomegalovirus under the base-case estimates. Although universal screening is cost-effective in certain circumstances when the efficacy of valaciclovir exceeds the base case, that result is not robust to variation of estimates across their reasonable ranges. These data can inform future studies to evaluate screening and treatment to prevent congenital CMV.

Health economic evaluation of noninvasive prenatal testing and serum screening for down syndrome

Background

Down syndrome (DS), also known as trisomy 21 (T21), is the most common genetic disorder associated with intellectual disability. There are two methods commonly used for prenatal testing of DS: serum screening (SS) for biomarkers in maternal serum and noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy by cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in maternal plasma. However, cost-effectiveness analyses of these two methods are mostly based on data derived from simulations with various models, with theoretical values calculated. In this study, we statistically analyzed clinical DS screening data and pregnancy outcomes during the follow-up of pregnant women in Zhuhai City, China. The economics of the two mainstream prenatal DS screening methods was evaluated from a public health perspective.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on the data of 17,363 pregnant women who received SS and NIPT during gestation in Zhuhai from 2018 to 2019, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with four screening strategies. In strategy I, all pregnant women received SS, and those with T21 risk ≥1/270 had invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD). In strategy II, all pregnant women received SS, those with T21 risk ≥ 1/270 had IPD, and those with 1/270 > T21 risk ≥ 1/1,000 had NIPT; then, women at high risk based on NIPT also had IPD. In strategy III, all pregnant women received SS, and those with T21 risk ≥1,000 had NIPT; then, women at high risk based on NIPT results had IPD. In strategy IV, all pregnant women received NIPT and those at high risk based on NIPT results had IPD. Finally, to assess the cost and effectiveness of DS screening, the total costs were calculated as the sum of screening and diagnosis as well as the direct and indirect economic burden during the average life cycle of DS patients.

Results

A total of 22 of the 17,363 (1/789) pregnant women had DS, of which only one woman was over 35 years of age. SS detected 1,024 cases at high risk of T21 (≥1/270), 8 cases were true positive, with a positive predictive value of 0.78% and a detection rate of 36.4%. NIPT detected 27 cases at high risk of T21 (Z ≥ 3) and 22 cases of DS, with a positive predictive value of 81.5% and a detection rate of 100%. Strategy I had the largest total cost of 65.54 million CNY, strategy II and III had similar total costs of 40 million CNY, and strategy IV had the lowest total cost of 14.91 million CNY. By comparison, the screening strategy with NIPT alone had the highest health economic value for DS.

Conclusions

SS was greatly affected by nuchal translucency and the accuracy of gestational age measured by ultrasonography. Unstandardized ultrasonography was an important reason for the low DS detection rate with SS. The influence of interfering factors on NIPT was much lower than in SS. NIPT can be used as an alternative to SS and as a primary screening strategy of prenatal DS screening for secondary prevention and control of birth defects. NIPT greatly decreased the frequency of IPD and the miscarriages associated with IPD, saved the limited medical and health resources, and greatly increased DS detection rate. Therefore, NIPT has great social and economic benefits.

Cost of providing cell-free DNA screening for Down syndrome in Finland using different strategies

OBJECTIVES

A financial analysis is carried out to assess costs and benefits of providing cell-free DNA screening in Finland, using different strategies.

METHODS

Three cell-free DNA screening strategies are considered: Primary, all women; Secondary, those with positive Combined test; and Contingent, the 10-30% with the highest Combined test risks. Three costs are estimated: additional cost for 10,000 pregnancies compared with the Combined test; 'marginal' cost of avoiding a Down syndrome birth which occurs in a pregnancy that would have been false-negative using the Combined test; and marginal cost of preventing the iatrogenic loss of a non-Down syndrome birth which occurs in a pregnancy that would have been false-positive.

RESULTS

Primary cell-free DNA will require additional funds of €250,000. The marginal cost per Down syndrome birth avoided is considerably less than the lifetime medical and indirect cost; the marginal cost per unaffected iatrogenic fetal loss prevented is higher than one benefit measure but lower than another. If the ultrasound component of the Combined test is retained, as would be in Finland, the additional funds required rise to €992,000. Secondary cell-free DNA is cost-saving as is a Contingent strategy with 10% selected but whilst when 20-30% costs rise they are much less than for the Primary strategy and are cost-beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

When considering the place of cell-free DNA screening it is important to make explicit the additional and marginal costs of different screening strategies and the associated benefits. Under most assumptions the balance is favorable for Contingent screening.

Population contingent cfDNA screening implementation: increasing diagnostic accuracy and reducing invasive testing. 6 years results in a single center

OBJECTIVES

In 2018, a contingent screening program was implemented in the community of Castilla y Leon (Spain). This study aimed to compare the results achieved in the University Hospital of Salamanca during the three years of contingent screening (2018-2020) with those of the previous three years (2015-2017) to assess the modification in the rate of trisomies detection and the number of invasive tests.

METHODS

A total of 9903 singleton pregnancies without malformations nor nuchal translucency >p99 were included. 5165 patients underwent combined screening and 4738 had contingent screening based on the combined test risk. In the combined test group, women were offered an invasive test if the risk was ≥1:270 whilst risks under 1:270 were considered low risks, and no further testing was offered. In the contingent screening group, invasive testing was offered if the risk was ≥1:100 (≥1:50 from 2020 onwards) whilst cfDNA was offered if the combined test risk was between 1:100 to 1:1000 (1:50-1:1000 from 2020 onwards). When risk was <1:1000, no further testing was offered.

RESULTS

There were 30 cases of trisomy 21 throughout the 6 years of study. 4 cases had risks <1:270 and were diagnosed by cfDNA. Risk >1:1000 threshold for contingent test detected 100% T21. There were no false-negative results. "No-call" cfDNA results were minimized by repeating blood collection two weeks later, as fetal fraction was doubled. Invasive testing had a drop rate of 84% after contingent screening implementation.

DISCUSSION

The implementation of population-based contingent screening significantly reduces the number of invasive tests without lowering diagnostic accuracy. To achieve the maximum efficiency of the program, it is important to know the best cut-offs according to the population where the program is to be implemented. The number of uninformative results due to low fetal fraction (FF) can be reduced by repeating the test 2 weeks after the initial extraction: this increases the FF to twice the initial one, achieving informative results and avoiding unnecessary invasive tests.

The effect of co-payments on the take-up of prenatal tests

Noninvasive prenatal screening tests help identify genetic disorders in a fetus, but their take-up remains low in several countries. Using a regression discontinuity design, we test the causal effect of a policy that eliminated co-payments for noninvasive screening tests in Italy. We identify the treatment effects by a discontinuity in women's eligibility for a free test based on their conception date. We find that the policy increases the probability of women's undergoing noninvasive screening tests by 5.5 percentage points, and the effect varies by socioeconomic status. We do not find evidence of substitution effects with more expensive and riskier invasive diagnostic tests. In addition, the increase in take-up does not affect pregnancy termination or newborn health. We find some evidence of positive effects on mothers' health behaviors during pregnancy as measured by reductions in mothers' weight gain and hospital admissions during pregnancy, but these are statistically significant only at the 10 percent level.

A comparison of first trimester prenatal screening strategies for Down Syndrome with maternal age and preferences considerations

OBJECTIVE

Screening for Down Syndrome (DS) includes traditional ultrasound and serum-based and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing. While cfDNA testing usually has superior performance, it is significantly more costly. As an alternative, a hybrid strategy combining contingent cfDNA with traditional testing is recommended when universal cfDNA screening is not feasible. This study compares the efficacy of traditional, contingent cfDNA, and universal cfDNA screening strategies at various cut-offs based on maternal age and parents' preferences, which may improve testing outcomes and patients' satisfaction.

METHOD

Decision trees were used to analyze a cohort of 3 855 500 pregnancies from 12 to 50 years old. The performance of the strategies was compared using the number of adverse outcomes (undetected DS live births and euploid procedure-related losses).

RESULTS

Universal cfDNA results in the fewest number of adverse outcomes in every scenario. Contingent cfDNA performs better than traditional screening when the cut-offs used to identify high-risk cases for cfDNA testing are relatively low. These cut-offs change depending on the maternal age and parents' preference.

CONCLUSION

Maternal age and parents' preferences should be considered when choosing cut-offs for contingent cfDNA to remain as an effective strategy compared to traditional screening and to improve patient satisfaction.

Comparing prenatal screening experiences of Icelandic women who received false-positive and true-negative first-trimester combined screening results in Iceland in 2012-2016

First-trimester combined screening (FTS) has been offered to all pregnant women in Iceland since 2003. Individuals with high-risk FTS results are offered an invasive test option with a ≤1% risk of fetal loss. This study gives insight into the prenatal screening and diagnosis experiences and preferences of 101 women who underwent FTS in Iceland in the years 2012-2016, comparing the experience of those who received false-positive FTS results to those who received true-negative results. Retrospective patient-reported anxiety levels at the time of receiving FTS results were significantly higher in those who received false-positive results compared to those who received true-negative results. For a subset of these participants, the anxiety lasted through pregnancy, and for a smaller subset, it lasted even longer. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is currently not offered in Iceland, aside from the rare exceptional case. Given the extremely low false-positive rates of NIPT, we believe NIPT is worth considering as Iceland's standard first-tier screening method for trisomy 13, 18, and 21. We believe the findings of this study are beneficial not only for Iceland but also for other countries where FTS is the first-tier prenatal screening method or the only offered test. Additionally, only 21% of participants in our study reported that they had heard of NIPT, which emphasizes the need for comprehensive NIPT pretest information to be available prior to its uptake to ensure informed and autonomous decision-making.