Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30867656›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2019

The consequences of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing with cell-free foetal DNA for the detection of Down syndrome in the Spanish National Health Service: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

J C Bayón, E Orruño, M I Portillo, J Asua

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impact of Structural Differences on the Modeled Cost-Effectiveness of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J C Bayón1Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment (OSTEBA), Ministry of Health, Basque Government, c/Donostia 1, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2463-1811
E OrruñoBioaraba Health Research Institute, Methodology and Statistics Unit, Araba University Hospital, Txagorritxu Headquarters, 4th Floor, c/José Achótegui, 01009 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4434-7562
M I PortilloColorectal and Prenatal Screening Coordinating Centre, Basque Health Service, Bilbao, Basque Country Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3871-3423
J Asua1Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment (OSTEBA), Ministry of Health, Basque Government, c/Donostia 1, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5359-1145
Basque Government · ESBasque Centre for Climate Change · ESHospital Txagorritxu · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDNA-based non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using maternal blood constitutes an emerging technology for the detection of Down syndrome (DS). The aim of the study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the economic costs and health implications of the introduction of NIPT based on cell-free foetal DNA analysis through different screening strategies for the detection of DS.

methodsAn analytical short-term decision model was developed, from the payer´s perspective (Spanish National Health Service). The main outcome measure was the number of DS cases detected. Secondary measures included associated miscarriages, women undergoing current screening, women undergoing NIPT, positive NIPT and invasive procedures performed. The study setting was the Spanish National Health Service. Three strategies were compared: (a) first- and second-trimester screening (current screening); (b) NIPT as contingent testing; and (c) NIPT as first-line testing. Modelling was based on a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 Spanish pregnant women. Population data were obtained from the database of the Basque Antenatal Screening Programme. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess variations in the cost of NIPT, screening risk cut-off, screening uptake-rate and rate of failure of NIPT.

resultsNIPT as contingent testing (strategy b) led to fewer miscarriages following invasive procedures and a slight reduction in the number of DS cases detected compared to current screening. However, lowering the screening cut-off to ≥ 1:500 would improve the overall effectiveness of NIPT as contingent testing, increasing the number of DS cases detected and decreasing foetal losses as compared to the current screening, despite there would be an extra-cost of 3.5%. When NIPT was used as first-line testing (strategy c), the screening would be more effective but also more expensive, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per additional case of DS detected of €1,299,763 and €1,232,763, compared with strategies a and b, respectively. Results were sensitive to the different parameters considered in the analysis.

conclusionsBoth, as first-line testing and as contingent testing when screening cut-off was lowered ≥ 1:500, NIPT would lead to more favourable outcomes as compared to the current screening (both in terms of DS cases detected and miscarriages avoided), but at a greater cost.

Indexed as

cffDNACost-effectiveness analysisDown syndromeNIPT, non-invasive prenatal testingPrenatal screeningTrisomy 21

Identifiers

PMID30867656
PMCPMC6397500
OpenAlexW2933665330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.