Search

Objectives: To examine the costs and outcomes of different screening strategies for Down Syndrome (DS) in singleton pregnancies.Study Design: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the costs and the outcomes of different prenatal screening strategies. Five strategies were compared for women under 35-year of age: 1A) triple test (TT), 2A); combined test (CT), 3A) Non-invasive Prenatal Screening Test by using cell free fetal DNA (NIPT), 4A) and 5A) NIPT as a second-step screening for high-risk patients detected by either TT, or CT respectively. For women ≥35-year of age, 1B) implementing invasive test (amniocentesis -AC) and 2B) NIPT for all women were compared. Data was analyzed to obtain the outcomes, total costs, the cost per women and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for screening strategies.Results: Among the current strategies for women under 35 years old, CT is clearly dominated to TT, as it is more effective and less costly. Although, the current routine practice (2A) is the least-costly strategy, implementing NIPT as a second step screening to high-risk women identified by CT (5A) would be more effective than 2A; leading to a 10.2% increase in the number of detected DS cases and a 96.3% reduction in procedural related losses (PRL). However, its cost to the Social Security Institution that is a public entity would be 17 times higher and increase screening costs by 1.5 times. Strategy 5A would result in an incremental cost effectiveness of 6,873,082 (PPP) US$ when compared to the current one (2A). Strategy 1B-for offering AC to all women ≥35-year of age is dominated over NIPT (2B), as it would detect more DS cases and would be less costly. On the other hand, there would be 206 PRL associated with AC, but NIPT provides clear clinical benefits as there would be no PRL with NIPT.Conclusions: NIPT leads to very high costs despite its high effectiveness in terms of detecting DS cases and avoiding PRL. The cost of NIPT should be decreased, otherwise, only individuals who can afford to pay from out-of-pocket could benefit. We believe that reliable cost-effective prenatal screening policies are essential in countries with low and smiddle income and high birth rates as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is grounded in the analysis of free circulating fetal DNA (cfDNA) in pregnant women's blood. The rolling out of this screening method was in large part driven by commercial firms, which hoped to reach a huge potential market by offering a test that was expected to be risk-free, reliable, inexpensive, and able to detect a wide range of genetic traits of the future child. To date, most predictions about the scope and uses of NIPT have not materialized: in 2020 NIPT detects only a limited number of genetic anomalies, while results have to be confirmed by amniocentesis. NIPT has become a commercial success. Nevertheless the implementation of NIPT has tended to diverge across different national settings. In countries that already have state-sponsored screening for Down risk, NIPT has been offered by the state health insurance to women defined as "high risk", using a variant of the test that detects only three autosomal aneuploidies: trisomy 21, 13 and 18. These countries effectively regulate the supply of NIPT on grounds of cost-effectiveness and reliability. In countries without state-sponsored screening for Down risk, in contrast, multiple versions of NIPT covering a wider range of birth defects are commonly available on the free market, and purchased by women at low as well as high risk of having an affected child. Market-based healthcare systems tend to present women who can afford to pay for NIPT with a largely unregulated choice of technologies – though reimbursement rules imposed by private insurance providers may serve in effect to regulate use by those consumers who cannot afford to pay for tests from their own pockets. This regulatory divergence is shaped by the presence or absence of prior state-sponsored screening programs for Down risk. • Uses of non -invasive prenatal diagnosis were often shaped by commercial firms. • In spite of its limitations, non -invasive prenatal diagnosis is a marketing success. • There are important national differences in use of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis. • Stratified uses of non -invasive prenatal diagnosis produce situated fetal risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study was undertaken to describe a new prenatal diagnosis program among human immunodeficiency virus (H1V)-infected women, and the perinatal outcome of this program's application over a more than 2-year period. Study design: From June 2000 to December 2003, all HIV-infected women who were booked into the antenatal clinic before 20 weeks were offered a screening for chromosomal anomalies, with midtrimester amniocentesis in the tests that were positive. Results: A total of 116 pregnancies (including 3 sets of twins) were seen: 96 women were offered and accepted screening for chromosomal anomalies. Thirteen pregnancies had a positive screening test and amniocentesis was performed in 10 at median 16.5 gestational weeks: a trisomy 21 and a monosomy X were diagnosed. No vertical transmissions were documented by age 6 months in the 6 liveborn infants who underwent amniocentesis. Conclusion: A program of prenatal diagnosis for chromosomal anomalies appears to be effective when applied to HIV-infected women, although safety remains to be proven. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]