Prenatal screening for Down Syndrome in Australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the cost-effectiveness and performance of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for high-risk pregnancies following first-trimester screening compared with current practice.METHODS: A decision tree analysis was used to compare the costs and benefits of current practice of first-t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: O'Leary, Peter, Maxwell, S., Murch, A., Hendrie, Delia
Format: Journal Article
Published: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/24528
_version_ 1848751455884804096
author O'Leary, Peter
Maxwell, S.
Murch, A.
Hendrie, Delia
author_facet O'Leary, Peter
Maxwell, S.
Murch, A.
Hendrie, Delia
author_sort O'Leary, Peter
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description OBJECTIVE: To analyse the cost-effectiveness and performance of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for high-risk pregnancies following first-trimester screening compared with current practice.METHODS: A decision tree analysis was used to compare the costs and benefits of current practice of first-trimester screening with a testing pathway incorporating NIPT. We applied the model to 32 478 singleton pregnancies screened between January 2005 and December 2006, adding Medicare rebate data as a measure of public health system costs. The analyses reflect the actual uptake of screening and diagnostic testing and pregnancy outcomes in this cohort.RESULTS: The introduction of NIPT would reduce the number of invasive diagnostic procedures and procedure-related fetal losses in high-risk women by 88%. If NIPT was adopted by all women identified as high risk by first-trimester combined screening, up to 7 additional Down syndrome fetuses could be confirmed. The cost per trisomy 21 case confirmed, including NIPT was 9.7% higher ($56 360) than the current prenatal testing strategy ($51 372) at a total cost of $3.91 million compared with $3.57 million over 2 years.CONCLUSION: Based on the uptake of screening and diagnostic testing in a retrospective cohort of first-trimester screening in Western Australia, the implementation of NIPT would reduce the number of invasive diagnostic tests and the number of procedure-related fetal losses and increase the cost by 9.7% over two years. Policy planning and guidelines are urgently required to manage the funding and demand for NIPT services in Australia.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T07:53:00Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-24528
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T07:53:00Z
publishDate 2013
publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-245282017-09-13T15:55:20Z Prenatal screening for Down Syndrome in Australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies O'Leary, Peter Maxwell, S. Murch, A. Hendrie, Delia Down syndrome antenatal screening policy noninvasive prenatal testing economic analysis OBJECTIVE: To analyse the cost-effectiveness and performance of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for high-risk pregnancies following first-trimester screening compared with current practice.METHODS: A decision tree analysis was used to compare the costs and benefits of current practice of first-trimester screening with a testing pathway incorporating NIPT. We applied the model to 32 478 singleton pregnancies screened between January 2005 and December 2006, adding Medicare rebate data as a measure of public health system costs. The analyses reflect the actual uptake of screening and diagnostic testing and pregnancy outcomes in this cohort.RESULTS: The introduction of NIPT would reduce the number of invasive diagnostic procedures and procedure-related fetal losses in high-risk women by 88%. If NIPT was adopted by all women identified as high risk by first-trimester combined screening, up to 7 additional Down syndrome fetuses could be confirmed. The cost per trisomy 21 case confirmed, including NIPT was 9.7% higher ($56 360) than the current prenatal testing strategy ($51 372) at a total cost of $3.91 million compared with $3.57 million over 2 years.CONCLUSION: Based on the uptake of screening and diagnostic testing in a retrospective cohort of first-trimester screening in Western Australia, the implementation of NIPT would reduce the number of invasive diagnostic tests and the number of procedure-related fetal losses and increase the cost by 9.7% over two years. Policy planning and guidelines are urgently required to manage the funding and demand for NIPT services in Australia. 2013 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/24528 10.1111/ajo.12136 Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia restricted
spellingShingle Down syndrome
antenatal screening
policy
noninvasive prenatal testing
economic analysis
O'Leary, Peter
Maxwell, S.
Murch, A.
Hendrie, Delia
Prenatal screening for Down Syndrome in Australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies
title Prenatal screening for Down Syndrome in Australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies
title_full Prenatal screening for Down Syndrome in Australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies
title_fullStr Prenatal screening for Down Syndrome in Australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies
title_full_unstemmed Prenatal screening for Down Syndrome in Australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies
title_short Prenatal screening for Down Syndrome in Australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies
title_sort prenatal screening for down syndrome in australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies
topic Down syndrome
antenatal screening
policy
noninvasive prenatal testing
economic analysis
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/24528