Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Nov;20(8):1123-1131.
doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01082-x. Epub 2019 Jun 22.

The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review

Affiliations

The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review

Nikita M John et al. Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Technological progress has led to changes in the antenatal screening programmes, most significantly the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). The availability of a new type of testing changes the type of information that the parent(s) require before, during and after screening to mitigate anxiety about the testing process and results.

Objectives: To identify the extent to which economic evaluations of NIPT have accounted for the need to provide information alongside testing and the associated costs and health outcomes of information provision.

Methods: A systematic review of economic evaluations of NIPTs (up to February 2018) was conducted. Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO were searched using an electronic search strategy combining a published economic search filter (from NHS economic evaluations database) with terms related to NIPT and screening-related technologies. Data were extracted using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards framework and the results were summarised as part of a narrative synthesis.

Results: A total of 12 economic evaluations were identified. The majority of evaluations (n = 10; 83.3%) involved cost effectiveness analysis. Only four studies (33.3%) included the cost of providing information about NIPT in their economic evaluation. Two studies considered the impact of test results on parents' quality of life by allowing utility decrements for different outcomes. Some studies suggested that the challenges of valuing information prohibited their inclusion in an economic evaluation.

Conclusion: Economic evaluations of NIPTs need to account for the costs and outcomes associated with information provision, otherwise estimates of cost effectiveness may prove inaccurate.

Keywords: Aneuploidy; Cost effectiveness; Down’s syndrome; Information; NIPT; Prenatal testing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram

References

    1. Genetic Alliance: The New York-mid-atlantic Consortium for genetic and newborn screening services: Understanding Genetics. (2009) - PubMed
    1. Wieacker P, Steinhard J. The prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2010;107:857–862. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0857. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. 2016;29:1160–1164. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1038703. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wald NJ, Cuckle HS, Densem JW, Nanchahal K, Royston P, Chard T, Haddow JE, Knight GJ, Palomaki GE, Canick JA. Maternal serum screening for Down’s syndrome in early pregnancy. BMJ. 1988;297:883–887. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6653.883. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kagan KO, Wright D, Baker A, Sahota D, Nicolaides KH. Screening for trisomy 21 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2008;31:618–624. doi: 10.1002/uog.5331. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources