Cargando…
Non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders: cost analysis of NIPD and invasive testing pathways
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the costs of offering non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders compared to traditional invasive testing to inform NIPD implementation into clinical practice. METHOD: Total costs of diagnosis using NIPD or invasive testing pathways were compared for a repre...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680142/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27107169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.4832 |
_version_ | 1783441442051457024 |
---|---|
author | Verhoef, Talitha I. Hill, Melissa Drury, Suzanne Mason, Sarah Jenkins, Lucy Morris, Stephen Chitty, Lyn S. |
author_facet | Verhoef, Talitha I. Hill, Melissa Drury, Suzanne Mason, Sarah Jenkins, Lucy Morris, Stephen Chitty, Lyn S. |
author_sort | Verhoef, Talitha I. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the costs of offering non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders compared to traditional invasive testing to inform NIPD implementation into clinical practice. METHOD: Total costs of diagnosis using NIPD or invasive testing pathways were compared for a representative set of single gene disorders. RESULTS: For autosomal dominant conditions, where NIPD molecular techniques are straightforward, NIPD cost £314 less than invasive testing. NIPD for autosomal recessive and X‐linked conditions requires more complicated technical approaches and total costs were more than invasive testing, e.g. NIPD for spinal muscular atrophy was £1090 more than invasive testing. Impact of test uptake on costs was assessed using sickle cell disorder as an example. Anticipated high uptake of NIPD resulted in an incremental cost of NIPD over invasive testing of £48 635 per 100 pregnancies at risk of sickle cell disorder. CONCLUSION: Total costs of NIPD are dependent upon the complexity of the testing technique required. Anticipated increased demand for testing may have economic implications for prenatal diagnostic services. Ethical issues requiring further consideration are highlighted including directing resources to NIPD when used for information only and restricting access to safe tests if it is not cost‐effective to develop NIPD for rare conditions. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6680142 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66801422019-08-09 Non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders: cost analysis of NIPD and invasive testing pathways Verhoef, Talitha I. Hill, Melissa Drury, Suzanne Mason, Sarah Jenkins, Lucy Morris, Stephen Chitty, Lyn S. Prenat Diagn Original Articles OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the costs of offering non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders compared to traditional invasive testing to inform NIPD implementation into clinical practice. METHOD: Total costs of diagnosis using NIPD or invasive testing pathways were compared for a representative set of single gene disorders. RESULTS: For autosomal dominant conditions, where NIPD molecular techniques are straightforward, NIPD cost £314 less than invasive testing. NIPD for autosomal recessive and X‐linked conditions requires more complicated technical approaches and total costs were more than invasive testing, e.g. NIPD for spinal muscular atrophy was £1090 more than invasive testing. Impact of test uptake on costs was assessed using sickle cell disorder as an example. Anticipated high uptake of NIPD resulted in an incremental cost of NIPD over invasive testing of £48 635 per 100 pregnancies at risk of sickle cell disorder. CONCLUSION: Total costs of NIPD are dependent upon the complexity of the testing technique required. Anticipated increased demand for testing may have economic implications for prenatal diagnostic services. Ethical issues requiring further consideration are highlighted including directing resources to NIPD when used for information only and restricting access to safe tests if it is not cost‐effective to develop NIPD for rare conditions. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-05-22 2016-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6680142/ /pubmed/27107169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.4832 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Verhoef, Talitha I. Hill, Melissa Drury, Suzanne Mason, Sarah Jenkins, Lucy Morris, Stephen Chitty, Lyn S. Non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders: cost analysis of NIPD and invasive testing pathways |
title | Non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders: cost analysis of NIPD and invasive testing pathways |
title_full | Non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders: cost analysis of NIPD and invasive testing pathways |
title_fullStr | Non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders: cost analysis of NIPD and invasive testing pathways |
title_full_unstemmed | Non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders: cost analysis of NIPD and invasive testing pathways |
title_short | Non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders: cost analysis of NIPD and invasive testing pathways |
title_sort | non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (nipd) for single gene disorders: cost analysis of nipd and invasive testing pathways |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680142/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27107169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pd.4832 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT verhoeftalithai noninvasiveprenataldiagnosisnipdforsinglegenedisorderscostanalysisofnipdandinvasivetestingpathways AT hillmelissa noninvasiveprenataldiagnosisnipdforsinglegenedisorderscostanalysisofnipdandinvasivetestingpathways AT drurysuzanne noninvasiveprenataldiagnosisnipdforsinglegenedisorderscostanalysisofnipdandinvasivetestingpathways AT masonsarah noninvasiveprenataldiagnosisnipdforsinglegenedisorderscostanalysisofnipdandinvasivetestingpathways AT jenkinslucy noninvasiveprenataldiagnosisnipdforsinglegenedisorderscostanalysisofnipdandinvasivetestingpathways AT morrisstephen noninvasiveprenataldiagnosisnipdforsinglegenedisorderscostanalysisofnipdandinvasivetestingpathways AT chittylyns noninvasiveprenataldiagnosisnipdforsinglegenedisorderscostanalysisofnipdandinvasivetestingpathways |