Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening and diagnostic strategies for Down syndrome: A microsimulation modeling analysis

Autoři: Wei Zhang aff001;  Tima Mohammadi aff001;  Julie Sou aff001;  Aslam H. Anis aff001
Působiště autorů: Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada aff001;  School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225281



Down syndrome (DS) is the most frequently occurring fetal chromosomal abnormality and different prenatal screening strategies are used for determining risk of DS worldwide. New non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), which uses cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood can provide benefits due to its higher sensitivity and specificity in comparison to conventional screening tests. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of using population-level NIPT in fetal aneuploidy screening for DS.


We developed a microsimulation decision-analytic model to perform a probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of prenatal screening and diagnostic strategies for DS. The model followed individual simulated pregnant women through the pregnancy pathway. The comparators were serum-only screening, contingent NIPT (i.e., NIPT as a second-tier screening test) and universal NIPT (i.e., NIPT as a first-tier screening test). To address uncertainty around the model parameters, the expected values of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in the base case and all scenario analyses were obtained through probabilistic analysis from a Monte Carlo simulation.


Base case and scenario analyses were conducted by repeating the micro-simulation 1,000 times for a sample of 45,605 pregnant women per the population of British Columbia, Canada (N = 4.8 million). Preliminary results of the sequential CEAs showed that contingent NIPT was a dominant strategy compared to serum-only screening. Compared with contingent NIPT, universal NIPT at the current test price was not cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over $100,000/QALY. Contingent NIPT also had the lowest cost per DS case detected among these three strategies.


Including NIPT in existing prenatal screening for DS is shown to be beneficial over conventional testing. However, at current prices, implementation of NIPT as a second-tier screening test is more cost-effective than deploying it as a universal test.

Klíčová slova:

Birth – Canada – Cost-effectiveness analysis – Down syndrome – Health screening – Pregnancy – Termination of pregnancy – Prenatal diagnosis


1. Nakata N, Wang Y, Bhatt S. Trends in prenatal screening and diagnostic testing among women referred for advanced maternal age. Prenat Diagn. 2010;30: 198–206. doi: 10.1002/pd.2434 20063323

2. Norton ME, Baer RJ, Wapner RJ, Kuppermann M, Jelliffe-Pawlowski LL, Currier RJ. Cell-free DNA vs sequential screening for the detection of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214: 727.e1-727.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.018 26709085

3. Barlow GM, Chen X-N, Shi ZY, Lyons GE, Kurnit DM, Celle L, et al. Down syndrome congenital heart disease: A narrowed region and a candidate gene. Genet Med. 2001;3: 91–101. doi: 10.1097/00125817-200103000-00002 11280955

4. Greenwood RD, Nadas AS. The Clinical Course of Cardiac Disease in Down’s Syndrome. Pediatrics. 1976;58: 893–897. 136632

5. Vis JC, Duffels MGJ, Winter MM, Weijerman ME, Cobben JM, Huisman SA, et al. Down syndrome: a cardiovascular perspective. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2009;53: 419–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01158.x 19228275

6. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy, Practice Bulletin No. 163. 2016. Available:

7. Graham L. ACOG Releases Guidelines on Screening for Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76: 712.

8. Chitayat D, Langlois S, Douglas Wilson R, SOGC GENETICS COMMITTEE, CCMG PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS COMMITTEE. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy in singleton pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can JOGC J Obstet Gynecol Can JOGC. 2011;33: 736–750. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34961-1

9. Gregg AR, Gross SJ, Best RG, Monaghan KG, Bajaj K, Skotko BG, et al. ACMG statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genet Med Off J Am Coll Med Genet. 2013;15: 395–398. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.29 23558255

10. Gil MM, Quezada MS, Revello R, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45: 249–266. doi: 10.1002/uog.14791 25639627

11. Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B, Plana MN, Nicolaides KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50: 302–314. doi: 10.1002/uog.17484 28397325

12. Mackie FL, Hemming K, Allen S, Morris RK, Kilby MD. The accuracy of cell-free fetal DNA-based non-invasive prenatal testing in singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;124: 32–46. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14050 27245374

13. Taylor-Phillips S, Freeman K, Geppert J, Agbebiyi A, Uthman OA, Madan J, et al. Accuracy of non-invasive prenatal testing using cell-free DNA for detection of Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6: e010002. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010002 26781507

14. García-Pérez L, Linertová R, Álvarez-de-la-Rosa M, Bayón JC, Imaz-Iglesia I, Ferrer-Rodríguez J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cell-free DNA in maternal blood testing for prenatal detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13: a systematic review. Eur J Health Econ HEPAC Health Econ Prev Care. 2018;19: 979–991. doi: 10.1007/s10198-017-0946-y 29249015

15. Kuppermann M, Nease RF, Learman LA, Gates E, Blumberg B, Washington AE. Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women’s preferences. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96: 511–516. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00969-8 11004350

16. Kuppermann M, Nease RF, Gates E, Learman LA, Blumberg B, Gildengorin V, et al. How do women of diverse backgrounds value prenatal testing outcomes? Prenat Diagn. 2004;24: 424–429. doi: 10.1002/pd.892 15229840

17. Kuppermann M, Norton ME, Thao K, O’Leary A, Nseyo O, Cortez A, et al. Preferences regarding contemporary prenatal genetic tests among women desiring testing: implications for optimal testing strategies. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36: 469–475. doi: 10.1002/pd.4808 26946227

18. Perinatal Services BC. PSBC Obstetric Guideline: Prenatal Screening for Down Syndrome, Trisomy 18 and Open Neural Tube Defects. Perinatal Services BC; 2018. Available:

19. Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C, D’Antonio F. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45: 16–26. doi: 10.1002/uog.14636 25042845

20. Cuckle H, Aitken D, Goodburn S, Senior B, Spencer K, Standing S, et al. Age-standardisation when target setting and auditing performance of Down syndrome screening programmes. Prenat Diagn. 2004;24: 851–856. doi: 10.1002/pd.990 15565561

21. Perinatal Services BC. Perinatal Health Report: Deliveries in British Columbia 2015/16. 2017. Available:

22. Morris JK, Mutton DE, Alberman E. Revised estimates of the maternal age specific live birth prevalence of Down’s syndrome. J Med Screen. 2002;9: 2–6. doi: 10.1136/jms.9.1.2 11943789

23. Statistics Canada, Health Statistics Division. Pregnancy Outcomes. 2005; 49.

24. Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. Statistics-Abortion in Canada. 2018. Available:

25. Nshimyumukiza L, Beaumont J-A, Duplantie J, Langlois S, Little J, Audibert F, et al. Cell-Free DNA-Based Non-invasive Prenatal Screening for Common Aneuploidies in a Canadian Province: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can JOGC J Obstet Gynecol Can JOGC. 2018;40: 48–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.05.015 28784564

26. Chitty LS, Wright D, Hill M, Verhoef TI, Daley R, Lewis C, et al. Uptake, outcomes, and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for Down’s syndrome into NHS maternity care: prospective cohort study in eight diverse maternity units. BMJ. 2016;354: i3426. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3426 27378786

27. Snijders RJM, Sundberg K, Holzgreve W, Henry G, Nicolaides KH. Maternal age- and gestation-specific risk for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999;13: 167–170. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.13030167.x 10204206

28. Savva GM, Morris JK, Mutton DE, Alberman E. Maternal age-specific fetal loss rates in Down syndrome pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2006;26: 499–504. doi: 10.1002/pd.1443 16634111

29. B.C. Ministry of Health. Medical Services Commission Payment Schedule. 2018. Available:

30. B.C. Ministry of Health. Schedule of Fees for the Laboratory Services Outpatient, Payment Schedule. 2018. Available:

31. Kageleiry A, Samuelson D, Duh MS, Lefebvre P, Campbell J, Skotko BG. Out-of-pocket medical costs and third-party healthcare costs for children with Down syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2017;173: 627–637. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.38050 27966292

32. Lorenzoni L, Belloni A, Sassi F. Health-care expenditure and health policy in the USA versus other high-spending OECD countries. The Lancet. 2014;384: 83–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60571-7

33. Black AY, Guilbert E, Hassan F, Chatziheofilou I, Lowin J, Jeddi M, et al. The Cost of Unintended Pregnancies in Canada: Estimating Direct Cost, Role of Imperfect Adherence, and the Potential Impact of Increased Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives. J Obstet Gynaecol Can JOGC J Obstet Gynecol Can JOGC. 2015;37: 1086–1097.

34. Kaimal AJ, Norton ME, Kuppermann M. Prenatal Testing in the Genomic Age: Clinical Outcomes, Quality of Life, and Costs. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126: 737–746. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001029 26348190

35. Kuppermann M, Feeny D, Gates E, Posner SF, Blumberg B, Washington AE. Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnostic choice: long-term outcomes matter most. Prenat Diagn. 1999;19: 711–716. 10451513

36. Cohen-Overbeek TE, Hop WC, den Ouden M, Pijpers L, Jahoda MG, Wladimiroff JW. Spontaneous abortion rate and advanced maternal age: consequences for prenatal diagnosis. Lancet Lond Engl. 1990;336: 27–29.

37. Leridon H. Can assisted reproduction technology compensate for the natural decline in fertility with age? A model assessment. Hum Reprod. 2004;19: 1548–1553. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh304 15205397

38. Benn P, Cuckle H, Pergament E. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: current status and future prospects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42: 15–33. doi: 10.1002/uog.12513 23765643

39. Gil MM, Quezada MS, Bregant B, Ferraro M, Nicolaides KH. Implementation of maternal blood cell-free DNA testing in early screening for aneuploidies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42: 34–40. doi: 10.1002/uog.12504 23744609

40. B.C. Ministry of Health, Health Sector Information, Analysis & Reporting Division. MSP Information Resource Manual. 2017. Available:

41. Public Health Agency of Canada. Down Syndrome Surveillance in Canada 2005–2013. 2 Mar 2017 [cited 9 Apr 2019]. Available:

42. Public Health Agency of Canada. Perinatal Health Indicators for Canada 2017. 2017. Available:

43. Garfield S, Armstrong SO. Clinical and Cost Consequences of Incorporating a Novel Non-Invasive Prenatal Test into the Diagnostic Pathway for Fetal Trisomies. Journal of Managed Care Medicine. 2012;15: 34–41.

44. Song K, Musci TJ, Caughey AB. Clinical utility and cost of non-invasive prenatal testing with cfDNA analysis in high-risk women based on a US population. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med Off J Eur Assoc Perinat Med Fed Asia Ocean Perinat Soc Int Soc Perinat Obstet. 2013;26: 1180–1185. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2013.770464 23356557

45. Walker BS, Nelson RE, Jackson BR, Grenache DG, Ashwood ER, Schmidt RL. A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First Trimester Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening for Fetal Trisomies in the United States. PLOS ONE. 2015;10: e0131402. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131402 26133556

46. Morris S, Karlsen S, Chung N, Hill M, Chitty LS. Model-Based Analysis of Costs and Outcomes of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Down’s Syndrome Using Cell Free Fetal DNA in the UK National Health Service. PLOS ONE. 2014;9: e93559. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093559 24714162

47. O’Leary P, Maxwell S, Murch A, Hendrie D. Prenatal screening for Down syndrome in Australia: costs and benefits of current and novel screening strategies. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;53: 425–433. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12136 24090461

48. Walker BS, Jackson BR, LaGrave D, Ashwood ER, Schmidt RL. A cost-effectiveness analysis of cell free DNA as a replacement for serum screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35: 440–446. doi: 10.1002/pd.4511 25273838

49. Fairbrother G, Burigo J, Sharon T, Song K. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies with cell-free DNA in the general pregnancy population: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med Off J Eur Assoc Perinat Med Fed Asia Ocean Perinat Soc Int Soc Perinat Obstet. 2016;29: 1160–1164. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1038703 26000626

50. Okun N, Teitelbaum M, Huang T, Dewa CS, Hoch JS. The price of performance: a cost and performance analysis of the implementation of cell-free fetal DNA testing for Down syndrome in Ontario, Canada. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34: 350–356. doi: 10.1002/pd.4311 24395030

51. CADTH. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. In: [Internet]. 2 Dec 2015 [cited 2 Oct 2019]. Available:

52. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. Apr 2013 [cited 2 Oct 2019]. Available:

53. Cromwell I, Peacock SJ, Mitton C. “Real-world” health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15: 164. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0814-3 25927636

54. Government of B.C. Health Technology Assessment Committee Terms of Reference. Available:

Článok vyšiel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12