Cargando…
Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis
BACKGROUND: The first- and second-trimester screening for trisomy 21 (T21) are reimbursed for all pregnant women in Belgium. Using a cut-off risk of 1:300 for T21, about 5% of all pregnant women are referred for definitive prenatal diagnosis using an invasive test, at a sensitivity of (only) 72.5%....
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225226/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25380810 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005922 |
_version_ | 1782343465068134400 |
---|---|
author | Neyt, Mattias Hulstaert, Frank Gyselaers, Wilfried |
author_facet | Neyt, Mattias Hulstaert, Frank Gyselaers, Wilfried |
author_sort | Neyt, Mattias |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The first- and second-trimester screening for trisomy 21 (T21) are reimbursed for all pregnant women in Belgium. Using a cut-off risk of 1:300 for T21, about 5% of all pregnant women are referred for definitive prenatal diagnosis using an invasive test, at a sensitivity of (only) 72.5%. The sensitivity and specificity of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) are over 99% but come at a cost of €460 (£373) per test. The objective is to estimate the consequences of introducing NIPT for the detection of T21. METHODS: A cost-consequences analysis was performed presenting the impact on benefits, harms and costs. Context-specific real-world information was available to set up a model reflecting the current screening situation in Belgium. This model was used to construct the second and first line NIPT screening scenarios applying information from the literature on NIPT's test accuracy. RESULTS: Introducing NIPT in the first or second line reduces harm by decreasing the number of procedure-related miscarriages after invasive testing. In contrast with NIPT in the second line, offering NIPT in the first line additionally will miss fewer cases of T21 due to less false-negative test results. The introduction of NIPT in the second line results in cost savings, which is not true for NIPT at the current price in the first line. If NIPT is offered to all pregnant women, the price should be lowered to about €150 to keep the screening cost per T21 diagnosis constant. CONCLUSIONS: In Belgium, the introduction and reimbursement of NIPT as a second line triage test significantly reduces procedure-related miscarriages without increasing the short-term screening costs. Offering and reimbursing NIPT in the first line to all pregnant women is preferred in the long term, as it would, in addition, miss fewer cases of T21. However, taking into account the government's limited resources for universal reimbursement, the price of NIPT should first be lowered substantially before this can be realised. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4225226 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42252262014-11-13 Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis Neyt, Mattias Hulstaert, Frank Gyselaers, Wilfried BMJ Open Health Economics BACKGROUND: The first- and second-trimester screening for trisomy 21 (T21) are reimbursed for all pregnant women in Belgium. Using a cut-off risk of 1:300 for T21, about 5% of all pregnant women are referred for definitive prenatal diagnosis using an invasive test, at a sensitivity of (only) 72.5%. The sensitivity and specificity of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) are over 99% but come at a cost of €460 (£373) per test. The objective is to estimate the consequences of introducing NIPT for the detection of T21. METHODS: A cost-consequences analysis was performed presenting the impact on benefits, harms and costs. Context-specific real-world information was available to set up a model reflecting the current screening situation in Belgium. This model was used to construct the second and first line NIPT screening scenarios applying information from the literature on NIPT's test accuracy. RESULTS: Introducing NIPT in the first or second line reduces harm by decreasing the number of procedure-related miscarriages after invasive testing. In contrast with NIPT in the second line, offering NIPT in the first line additionally will miss fewer cases of T21 due to less false-negative test results. The introduction of NIPT in the second line results in cost savings, which is not true for NIPT at the current price in the first line. If NIPT is offered to all pregnant women, the price should be lowered to about €150 to keep the screening cost per T21 diagnosis constant. CONCLUSIONS: In Belgium, the introduction and reimbursement of NIPT as a second line triage test significantly reduces procedure-related miscarriages without increasing the short-term screening costs. Offering and reimbursing NIPT in the first line to all pregnant women is preferred in the long term, as it would, in addition, miss fewer cases of T21. However, taking into account the government's limited resources for universal reimbursement, the price of NIPT should first be lowered substantially before this can be realised. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4225226/ /pubmed/25380810 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005922 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Health Economics Neyt, Mattias Hulstaert, Frank Gyselaers, Wilfried Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis |
title | Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis |
title_full | Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis |
title_fullStr | Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis |
title_short | Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis |
title_sort | introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in belgium: a cost-consequences analysis |
topic | Health Economics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225226/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25380810 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005922 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT neytmattias introducingthenoninvasiveprenataltestfortrisomy21inbelgiumacostconsequencesanalysis AT hulstaertfrank introducingthenoninvasiveprenataltestfortrisomy21inbelgiumacostconsequencesanalysis AT gyselaerswilfried introducingthenoninvasiveprenataltestfortrisomy21inbelgiumacostconsequencesanalysis |