![]() ![]() Women presenting in the second trimester received STS with the triple test. Women who presented for screening in the first trimester received FTS. In the conventional screening scenario, a small percentage (1%) of pregnant women were assumed to go directly to invasive testing in place of screening either because it provides more certainty or based solely on age. ![]() However, modelled results are dependent on the adoption of an NIPT with a low FPR. Conclusion: NIPT first-line screening at a reasonable cost is cost-effective and provides better clinical outcomes. Increasing the FPR of NIPT (from < 0.01 to 1.0%) increased the average number of invasive procedures required to diagnose a trisomy from 2.2 to 4.5, respectively. NIPT reduced unnecessary invasive tests by 94.8%, decreased procedure-related miscarriages by 90.8%, and increased trisomies detected by 29.1%. Results: The cost per trisomy detected was EUR 63,016 for conventional screening versus EUR 66,633 for NIPT, with a difference of EUR 3,617. Sensitivity analysis measured the impact of NIPT false-positive rate (FPR) on modelled results. Clinical outcomes and the cost per trisomy detected were assessed. The model takes the Belgium perspective and includes only the direct medical cost of screening, diagnosis, and procedure-related complications. Methods: A decision-analytical model was developed to assess the impact of adopting NIPT as a primary screening test compared to conventional screening methods. Objective: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of adopting noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using circulating cell-free DNA as a first-line screening method for trisomy 21, 18, and 13 in the general pregnancy population. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |