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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Verhoef, Talitha I., Hill, Melissa, Drury, Suzanne, Mason, Sarah, Jenkins, Lucy, Morris, Stephen, Chitty, Lyn S.
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