Cost-effectiveness of cell-free DNA in maternal blood testing for prenatal detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13: a systematic review

Lidia García-Pérez (), Renata Linertová (), Margarita Álvarez- de-la-Rosa (), Juan Carlos Bayón (), Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia (), Jorge Ferrer-Rodríguez () and Pedro Serrano-Aguilar ()
Additional contact information
Lidia García-Pérez: Servicio de Evaluación, Servicio Canario de la Salud
Renata Linertová: Servicio de Evaluación, Servicio Canario de la Salud
Margarita Álvarez- de-la-Rosa: Universidad de La Laguna (ULL)
Juan Carlos Bayón: Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment (OSTEBA)
Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia: Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC)
Jorge Ferrer-Rodríguez: Fundación Canaria de Investigación Sanitaria (FUNCANIS)
Pedro Serrano-Aguilar: Servicio de Evaluación, Servicio Canario de la Salud

The European Journal of Health Economics, 2018, vol. 19, issue 7, No 8, 979-991

Abstract: Abstract The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of the analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood, often called the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT), in the prenatal screening of trisomy in chromosomes 21, 18 and 13. MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched in April 2017. We selected: (1) economic evaluations that estimated the costs and detected cases of trisomy 21, 18 or 13; (2) comparisons of prenatal screening with NIPT (universal or contingent strategies) and the usual screening without NIPT, (3) in pregnant women with any risk of foetal anomalies. Studies were reviewed by two researchers. Data were extracted, the methodological quality was assessed and a narrative synthesis was prepared. In total, 12 studies were included, four of them performed in Europe. Three studies evaluated NIPT as a contingent test, three studies evaluated a universal NIPT, and six studies evaluated both. The results are heterogeneous, especially for the contingent NIPT where the results range from NIPT being dominant to a dominated strategy. Universal NIPT was found to be more effective but also costlier than the usual screening, with very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One advantage of screening with NIPT is lower invasive procedure-related foetal losses than with usual screening. In conclusion, the cost-effectiveness of contingent NIPT is uncertain according to several studies, while the universal NIPT is not cost-effective currently.

Keywords: Cell-free DNA; Cost-effectiveness; Non-invasive prenatal test; Prenatal screening; Systematic review (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I19 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-017-0946-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0946-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... cs/journal/10198/PS2

DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0946-y

Access Statistics for this article

The European Journal of Health Economics is currently edited by J.-M.G.v.d. Schulenburg

More articles in The European Journal of Health Economics from Springer, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ) Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().