Search

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., (© 2021 Howard Cuckle et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

Objective: Advances in prenatal genetics place additional challenges as patients must receive information about a growing array of screening and testing options. This raises concerns about how to achieve a shared decision-making process that prepares patients to make an informed decision about their choices about prenatal genetic screening and testing options, calling for a reconsideration of how healthcare providers approach the first prenatal visit., Methods: We conducted interviews with 40 pregnant women to identify components of decision-making regarding prenatal genetic screens and tests at this visit. Analysis was approached using grounded theory., Results: Participants brought distinct notions of risk to the visit, including skewed perceptions of baseline risk for a fetal genetic condition and the implications of screening and testing. Participants were very concerned about financial considerations associated with these options, ranking out-of-pocket costs on par with medical considerations. Participants noted diverging priorities at the first visit from those of their healthcare provider, leading to barriers to shared decision-making regarding screening and testing during this visit., Conclusion: Research is needed to determine how to restructure the initiation of prenatal care in a way that best positions patients to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic screens and tests., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: Determine cost differences between cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and serum integrated screening (INT) in obese women given the limitations of aneuploidy screening in this population., Methods: Using a decision-analytic model, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of trisomy 21 screening in class III obese women using cfDNA compared with INT. Primary outcomes of the model were cost, number of unnecessary invasive tests, procedure-related fetal losses, and missed cases of trisomy 21., Results: In base case, the mean cost of cfDNA was $498 greater than INT ($1399 vs $901). cfDNA resulted in lower probabilities of unnecessary invasive testing (2.9% vs 3.5%), procedure-related loss (0.015% vs 0.019%), and missed cases of T21 (0.00013% vs 0.02%). cfDNA cost $87 485 per unnecessary invasive test avoided, $11 million per procedure-related fetal loss avoided, and $2.2 million per missed case of T21 avoided. In sensitivity analysis, when the probability of insufficient fetal fraction is assumed to be >25%, cfDNA is both costlier than INT and results in more unnecessary invasive testing (a dominated strategy)., Conclusion: When the probability of insufficient fetal fraction more than 25% (a maternal weight of ≥300 lbs), cfDNA is costlier and results in more unnecessary invasive testing than INT., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Introduction: Analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from maternal blood has showed a great potential as a screening method for fetal aneuploidies. cfDNA can be used as a first line screening tool or in a contingent model, after the combined test., Methods: Prospective study of women attending for first trimester combined screening in our Hospital, in the first year of contingent cfDNA screening. According to the combined screening test result patients were divided in high-risk (offered invasive test or routine follow-up), intermediate-risk (counselled for cfDNA, invasive or routine follow-up) or low-risk (routine ultrasound follow-up). Pregnancy outcomes and performance of screening were evaluated. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also done., Results: The majority of the 1272 enrolled participants were Caucasian (82,6%), multiparous (51,7%) and the median maternal age was 30 years old. Thirty women screened high-risk and 83,3% of them opted for an invasive test. Forty-nine patients had an intermediate risk and 75,5% of them choose cfDNA testing. Our rate of invasive tests decreased from 3.5% to 2.4%., Discussion: The cut-offs used to determine high and intermediate-risk are based on a compromise between detection rate, pregnancy lost rate and cost. Above a determined cut-off in the intermediate-risk group, the cost for each additional detected trisomy case is very high. One major benefit of this contingent model was the decrease in invasive testing., Conclusion: The contingent cfDNA screening model can be easily implemented in a public hospital with a low-risk population. Since cost/benefit is an important issue, further studies are needed to determine the ideal cut-off for our country., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare costs and efficacy of reflex and recall prenatal DNA screening for trisomy 21, 18 and 13 (affected pregnancies). In both methods women have Combined test markers measured. With recall screening, women with a high Combined test risk are recalled for counselling and offered a DNA blood test or invasive diagnostic testing. With reflex screening, a DNA analysis is automatically performed on plasma collected when blood was collected for measurement of the Combined test markers., Methods: Published data were used to estimate, for each method, using various unit costs and risk cut-offs, the cost per woman screened, cost per affected pregnancy diagnosed, and for a given number of women screened, numbers of affected pregnancies diagnosed, unaffected pregnancies with positive results, and women with unaffected pregnancies having invasive diagnostic testing., Results: Cost per woman screened is lower with reflex v recall screening: £37 v £38, and £11,043 v £11,178 per affected pregnancy diagnosed (DNA £250, Combined test markers risk cut-off 1 in 150). Reflex screening results in similar numbers of affected pregnancies diagnosed, with 100-fold fewer false-positives and 20-fold fewer women with unaffected pregnancies having invasive diagnostic testing., Conclusions: Reflex DNA screening is less expensive, more cost-effective, and safer than recall screening., Competing Interests: Nicholas J. Wald is director of Logical Medical Systems, which produces software for the interpretation of prenatal screening tests.This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: High-throughput non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal rhesus (D antigen) (RhD) status could avoid unnecessary treatment with routine anti-D immunoglobulin for RhD-negative women carrying a RhD-negative fetus, although this may lead to an increased risk of RhD sensitisations., Objectives: To systematically review the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and implementation of high-throughput NIPT and to develop a cost-effectiveness model., Methods: We searched MEDLINE and other databases, from inception to February 2016, for studies of high-throughput NIPT free-cell fetal deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) tests of maternal plasma to determine fetal RhD status in RhD-negative pregnant women who were not known to be sensitised to the RhD antigen. Study quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) and A Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool: for Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions (ACROBAT-NRSI). Summary estimates of false-positive rates (FPRs) and false-negative rates (FNRs) were calculated using bivariate models. Clinical effectiveness evidence was used to conduct a simulation study. We developed a de novo probabilistic decision tree-based cohort model that considered four alternative ways in which the results of NIPT could guide the use of anti-D immunoglobulin antenatally and post partum. Sensitivity analyses (SAs) were conducted to address key uncertainties and model assumptions., Results: Eight studies were included in the diagnostic accuracy review, seven studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review and 12 studies were included in the review of implementation. Meta-analyses included women mostly at or post 11 weeks' gestation. The pooled FNR (women at risk of sensitisation) was 0.34% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15% to 0.76%] and the pooled FPR (women needlessly receiving anti-D) was 3.86% (95% CI 2.54% to 5.82%). SAs did not materially alter the overall results. Data on clinical outcomes, including sensitisation rates, were limited. Our simulation suggests that NIPT could substantially reduce unnecessary use of antenatal anti-D with only a small increase in the risk of sensitisation. All large implementation studies suggested that large-scale implementation of high-throughput NIPT was feasible. Seven cost-effectiveness studies were included in the review, which found that the potential for the use of NIPT to produce cost savings was dependent on the cost of the test. Our de novo model suggested that high-throughput NIPT is likely to be cost saving compared with the current practice of providing routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis to all women who are RhD negative. The extent of the cost saving appeared to be sufficient to outweigh the small increase in sensitisations. However, the magnitude of the cost saving is highly sensitive to the cost of NIPT itself., Limitations: There was very limited evidence relating to the clinical effectiveness of high-throughput NIPT, with no evidence on potential adverse effects. The generalisability of the findings to non-white women and multiple pregnancies is unclear., Conclusions: High-throughput NIPT is sufficiently accurate to detect fetal RhD status in RhD-negative women from 11 weeks' gestation and would considerably reduce unnecessary treatment with routine anti-D immunoglobulin, potentially resulting in cost savings of between £485,000 and £671,000 per 100,000 pregnancies if the cost of implementing NIPT is in line with that reflected in this evaluation., Future Work: Further research on the diagnostic accuracy of NIPT in non-white women is needed., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015029497., Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme., Competing Interests: No competing interests were declared.

Objective: Yearly, 450 000 pregnant Canadians are eligible for voluntary prenatal screening for trisomy 21. Different screening strategies select approximately 4% of women for invasive fetal chromosome testing. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using maternal blood cell-free DNA could reduce those invasive procedures but is expensive. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of NIPT strategies compared with conventional strategies., Methods: This study used a decision analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 13 prenatal screening strategies for fetal aneuploidies: six frequently used strategies, universal NIPT, and six strategies incorporating NIPT as a second-tier test. The study considered a virtual cohort of pregnant women of similar size and age as women in Quebec. Model data were obtained from published sources and government databases. The study predicted the number of chromosomal anomalies detected (trisomies 21, 13, and 18), invasive procedures and euploid fetal losses, direct costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios., Results: Of the 13 strategies compared, eight identified fewer cases at a higher cost than at least one of the remaining five strategies. Integrated serum screening with conditional NIPT had the lowest cost, and the cost per case detected was $63 139, with a 90% reduction of invasive procedures. The number of cases identified was improved with four other screening strategies, but with increasing of incremental costs per case (from $61 623 to $1 553 615). Results remained robust, except when NIPT costs and risk cut-offs varied., Conclusion: NIPT as a second-tier test for high-risk women is likely to be cost-effective as compared with screening algorithms not involving NIPT., (Copyright © 2018 The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis of noninvasive fetal RHD genotyping to target pregnant women for antenatal anti-D prophylaxis therapy., Method: A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare RHD testing and targeted anti-D prophylaxis, with current universal anti-D prophylaxis among pregnant women with RhD negative blood type. Model estimates were derived from national perinatal statistics, published literature, donor program records, and national cost sources. One-way sensitivity analyses addressed the uncertainty of variables on the main findings., Results: The unit cost for RHD genotyping was estimated at AU$45.48 (US$31.84). The "mean cost per healthy baby" was AU$7495 (US$5247) for universal prophylaxis and AU$7471 (US$5230) for targeted prophylaxis. The findings were sensitive to the unit costs of anti-D 625 IU (AU$59-AU$88) (US$41-US$62), the genetic test (AU$36-AU$55) (US$25-US$39), and packaging/transport costs of the samples for testing (AU$15-AU$40, US$11-US$28 per sample). With RHD genotyping, 13 938 women would avoid antenatal anti-D prophylaxis at a total cost savings to the National Blood Authority of AU$2.1 million (US$1.5 million) per year. To the health system, net cost savings of AU$159 701 (US$111 791) per year (0.05%) were predicted for total health care costs., Conclusions: Given the vulnerable supply of donor plasma and other health concerns, RHD genotyping is an economically sound option for Australia., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of three different first trimester screening models for trisomies 21, 18 and 13, in terms of detection rate, invasive test rate and final costs., Material and Methods: We analyzed the distribution of risk for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in a population of 20,831 singleton pregnancies based on maternal age, fetal heart rate, nuchal translucency, free beta human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (Combined test). On the basis of our data, we estimated the performance and cost of screening for trisomies using three different models at specific cutoffs: Combined test; Cell free DNA test and Contingent screening test., Results: Using Combined test, DR for major trisomies was estimated to be 94.92%, invasive test rate was 6.3%. cfDNA would result in a DR of 97.92%, with an invasive test rate of 3.64%. Contingent screening approach would result in an overall DR of 97.82, with a rate for invasive procedure of 1.36% and a final cost lower than other screening policies (2,338,433 euro vs 5,796,060 of cfDNA and 2,385,473 of Combined test)., Conclusions: Contingent screening test could be a cost-efficient and feasible first trimester screening test for aneuploidies in public health system.

Objective: To compare the unit cost of noninvasive prenatal testing (cell-free DNA [cfDNA]) in an urban population who did not have first-trimester screening as a primary screening tool for trisomy 21 (T21) to multiple marker screening (QUAD)., Methods: Retrospective study of all QUAD screens performed at a single center from 2013 to 2015. All QUAD screen performed between 15 and 21 weeks were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were patients without anatomy scans or delivery information. Utilizing our population characteristics, we extrapolated to determine the cost of QUAD with additional screening (cfDNA and amniocentesis) versus QUAD for this entire population., Results: 590 QUAD screens were performed during the study time period. After ultrasound correction of gestational age, 5.9% (35) were screen positive. Within this cohort, 51.4% (18) patients underwent cfDNA and 11.4% (4) had invasive testing. No cases of T21 were identified. It would be cost equivalent to offer cfDNA as a primary screen for T21 at less than $360.54 to the entire population regardless of a priori risk status. Invasive procedures were reduced by 55.4%., Conclusions: cfDNA is an acceptable option for second-trimester screening and as a primary screen eliminates the need for multi-step screening preserving valuable healthcare resources.

Objective: Prenatal screening for trisomy 21 is a standard of care. Emerging cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) technologies can improve screening performance, but they are expensive. This study was conducted to propose a contingent screening model that would incorporate cffDNA technology, would remain affordable, and could be applied equitably in a publically funded system., Methods: Using performance and cost parameters from published literature, four prenatal screening strategies were compared. Scenario 1 modelled integrated prenatal screening (first trimester nuchal translucency and biochemical markers from both the first and second trimesters) with no cffDNA. Scenarios 2 and 3 modelled first trimester combined screening (FTS) and "enhanced FTS" (adding serum placental growth factor and alpha fetoprotein to FTS), respectively, with contingent cffDNA following a positive result. Scenario 4 modelled cffDNA as the primary screening test., Results: Scenario 1 provides a known detection rate (DR) of 88%, with a false positive rate (FPR) of 3.3%. Scenarios 2 and 3 result in a DR of 94% and overall FPR of 0.59% and 0.33%, respectively, comparable to the DR of 96% and FPR of 0.1% with primary cffDNA (assuming the published test failure rate of 3%). The total cost, cost per woman screened, and cost per case of trisomy 21 detected were lower with scenario 3 (enhanced FTS with contingent cffDNA) compared with primary cffDNA or scenario 2 (FTS with contingent cffDNA)., Conclusion: Enhanced FTS with contingent cffDNA following a positive result provides a similar performance to that of primary cffDNA at a substantially lower cost., (Copyright © 2017 The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To assess the determinants associated with the use of analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood for detection of trisomy 21 in high-risk women., Materials and Methods: Prospective study conducted in a single center between July 15, 2014 and December 15, 2014 on 99 consecutive women with increased risk of trisomy 21 above 1/250., Results: Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood for detection of fetal trisomy 21 was proposed to 95 women out of 99, among them, 43 women (45.3%) required the test. Among these 43 women, 17 (38.6%) had a higher socio-economic status versus 10 (19.2%) among the women who did not request the test (P=0.03). The most common reason given by the 52 women who did not request the analysis of cell-free DNA was the cost, for 30 of them (57.7%), then because the test was not providing certainty for the diagnostic of trisomy 21 for 23 women (44.2%)., Conclusion: Analysis of cell-free DNA on maternal blood for detection of trisomy 21 does not seem accepted by the majority of women. The cost is probably the main reason for not using this test, but it seems that the lack of diagnostic certainty is also an obstacle for some women., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To provide data on how screen-positive and detection rates of first trimester prenatal screening for fetal Down syndrome vary with changes in the risk cut-off and maternal age to inform contingency criteria for publicly funded noninvasive prenatal testing., Materials and Methods: First trimester screening and diagnostic data were collected for all women attending for first trimester fetal aneuploidy screening in Western Australia between 2005 and 2009. Prenatal screening and diagnostic data were linked to pregnancy outcomes, including data from the Midwives' Notification System and the Western Australian Registry of Developmental Anomalies. The prevalence of Down syndrome and performance of screening by risk cut-off and/or for women >35 years were analysed., Results: The current screening risk cut-off of 1:300 has screen-positive and detection rates of 3.5% and 82%. The screen-positive rate increases by 0.7-0.8% for each 100 point change in risk, up to 19.2% at 1:2500 (96% detection rate). Including all women >35 years as screen positive would increase the screen-positive rate and detection rates to 30.2% and 97.2%., Conclusion: Variation in screening risk cut-off and the use of maternal age to assess eligibility for noninvasive testing could significantly impact the demand for, and cost of, the test. A contingent first trimester screening approach for risk assessment is superior to the use of a combination of screening and maternal age alone. These data will inform decisions regarding the criteria used to determine eligibility for publicly funded noninvasive prenatal testing., (© 2016 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objectives: We aim to develop non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for cystic fibrosis (CF) and determine costs and implications for implementation., Methods: A next-generation sequencing assay was developed to detect ten common CF mutations for exclusion of the paternal mutation in maternal plasma. Using uptake data from a study exploring views on NIPD for CF, total test-related costs were estimated for the current care pathway and compared with those incorporating NIPD., Results: The assay reliably predicted mutation status in all control and maternal plasma samples. Of carrier or affected adults with CF (n = 142) surveyed, only 43.5% reported willingness to have invasive testing for CF with 94.4% saying they would have NIPD. Using these potential uptake data, the incremental costs of NIPD over invasive testing per 100 pregnancies at risk of CF are £9025 for paternal mutation exclusion, and £26,510 for direct diagnosis., Conclusions: We have developed NIPD for risk stratification in around a third of CF families. There are economic implications due to potential increased test demand to inform postnatal management rather than to inform decisions around termination of an affected pregnancy., (© 2015 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of universal screening for thyroid disease in pregnant women in Spain as compared to high risk screening and no screening., Methodology: A decision-analytic model comparing the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of universal screening versus high risk screening and versus no screening. was used for the pregnancy and postpartum period. Probabilities from randomized controlled trials were considered for adverse obstetrical outcomes. A Markov model was used to assess the lifetime period after the first postpartum year and account for development of overt hypothyroidism. The main assumptions in the model and use of resources were assessed by local clinical experts. The analysis considered direct healthcare costs only., Results: Universal screening gained .011 QALYs over high risk screening and .014 QALYS over no screening. Total direct costs per patient were €5,786 for universal screening, €5,791 for high risk screening, and €5,781 for no screening. Universal screening was dominant compared to risk-based screening and a very cost-effective alternative as compared to no screening. Use of universal screening instead of high risk screening would result in €2,653,854 annual savings for the Spanish National Health System., Conclusions: Universal screening for thyroid disease in pregnant women in the first trimester is dominant in Spain as compared to risk-based screening, and is cost-effective as compared to no screening (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €374 per QALY). Moreover, it allows diagnosing and treating cases of clinical and subclinical hypothyroidism that may not be detected when only high-risk women are screened., (Copyright © 2014 SEEN. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the performance and cost efficacy of different first-trimester contingent screening strategies based on an initial analysis of biochemical markers., Design: Retrospective study., Setting: Swedish National Quality Register for prenatal diagnosis., Population: 35,780 women with singleton pregnancies., Methods: Serum values from first trimester biochemistry were re-analyzed in a contingent approach. For risks between 1:40 and 1:1000, risk estimates from nuchal translucency measurements were added and outcomes were compared using either a final cut-off risk of 1:200 to proceed with invasive testing or offering non-invasive prenatal testing. In a subgroup of 12,836 women with regular menstrual cycles the same analyses were performed using data on the last menstrual period for determining gestational age. The costs of detecting one case of aneuploidy were compared., Main Outcome Measures: Comparison of screening strategies., Results: The detection rate was the same (87%) in the contingent group as in complete combined screening, with only 41% requiring a nuchal translucency scan. As an alternative, offering non-invasive prenatal testing to the intermediate risk group would result in a detection rate of 98%, but the cost to detect one case of trisomy 21 would be 83% higher than the cost associated with traditional combined screening., Conclusions: First trimester examination using a contingent approach will achieve similar results compared with full combined screening. Non-invasive prenatal testing will not be cost-effective when a high proportion of pregnancies need further testing., (© 2015 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

Unlabelled: Prenatal screening by definition is a way of identifying pregnancies, with a high enough risk to specific fetal damage as to justify the subsequent invasive diagnosis among the seemingly normal pregnancies. [1] The aim of the prenatal screening test is to reach the high diagnostic frequency (DR > 95%), with low false-positive rate (FPR < 1%). Several non-invasive prenatal tests (NIPT) are widely adopted and use in clinical practice: 1st Trimester Combined screening (First trimester Combined Screening) and 2nd trimester biochemical screening (Second trimester biochemical screening) and in the last few years through screening Fetal DNA in Maternal serum (cfDNA screening). Since the introduction of the sfDNA test were examined and discussed the results of several ways of application: (1) as a primary screening method without preceding the result of 1st trimester combined screening for chromosomal abnormalities, (2) as a contingent test after 1st trimester combined screening in high risk pregnancies (> 1:100) (3) as a contingent test after 1st trimester combined screening, when the calculated risk is between ( 1:10 to 1:2500). The purpose of the study: to compare the results of different ways of application screening through cfDNA: detection rate (DR) for Tri21, Tri18 and Tri13, procentage of invasive diagnostics and cost-effectiveness ratio of cfDNA test in comparison with the 1st trimester combined screening. To establish the most suitable algorithm for application of cfDNA test., Methods and Materials: Analyzed were the results of several randomized multi-center clinical studies whose data are processed through a meta-analysis., Results: cfDNA-test has a higher DR for Tri21 for lower FPR, compared to the combined screening in 1st trimester (cfDNA-DR 99%, 1st trimester screening-DR 96% and 0.4%FPR, respectively FPR 5%), but although it is with better results and reduces the incidence of invasive tests, does not justify the significant difference in price-performance ratio. On the other hand cfDNA-test is with a lower detection rate for Tri 18 or 13 (93-95%), which makes it worse for a primary screening test instead of combined screening in the 1st trimester., Conclusions: The performance of cfDNA-test in terms of the three most common Trisomies: 21,18 and 13 is highest when used after (contingent to) 1st trimester screening and only for patients with an intermediate risk from 1-st trimester screening (risk > 1:10 and 1:2500, around 27% of all pregnancies), as it increases the diagnostic rate of combined screening for Down syndrome (from 90% to 98%), and significantly reduces the percentage of invasive diagnostics (from 3% to 0.7-1%) and that way we are able to achieve optimal result in price-performance result.

Objective: Evaluate the clinical and economic consequences of fetal trisomy 21 (T21) screening with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in high-risk pregnant women., Methods: Using a decision-analytic model, we estimated the number of T21 cases detected, the number of invasive procedures performed, corresponding euploid fetal losses and total costs for three screening strategies: first trimester combined screening (FTS), integrated screening (INT) or NIPT, whereby NIPT was performed in high-risk patients (women 35 years or older or women with a positive conventional screening test). Modeling was based on a 4 million pregnant women cohort in the US., Results: NIPT, at a base case price of $795, was more clinically effective and less costly (dominant) over both FTS and INT. NIPT detected 4823 T21 cases based on 5330 invasive procedures. FTS detected 3364 T21 cases based on 108 364 procedures and INT detected 3760 cases based on 108 760 procedures. NIPT detected 28% and 43% more T21 cases compared to INT and FTS, respectively, while reducing invasive procedures by >95% and reducing euploid fetal losses by >99%. Total costs were $3786M with FTS, $3919M with INT and $3403M with NIPT., Conclusions: NIPT leads to improved T21 detection and reduction in euploid fetal loss at lower total healthcare expenditures.