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%....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Neyt, Mattias, Hulstaert, Frank, Gyselaers, Wilfried
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