NIPT: cost effective, first line screening for all pregnant women


Prior to 2011, prenatal aneuploidy screening options for trisomy 21 included measurement of serum markers and/or sonographic evaluation of the fetus.

1,2 These tests could also report a risk for trisomy 18.

1 The introduction of cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) created a new screening option and facilitated screening for a greater range of fetal aneuploidies (trisomies 21, 18, 13, and sex chromosome aneuploidies).

3 NIPT is now endorsed as a screening option for all pregnant women.

1,4,5. Although NIPT is more expensive than serum screening, it is actually cost effective, as shown below.

Finding the most cost effective solution

While NIPT is an endorsed screening option, 1,4,5 professional societies recommend that diagnostic testing be done following any positive or failed screening test for confirmation.

6,7 Although these invasive diagnostic tests are necessary to confirm results, they’re expensive.

8-10 Therefore, false positive rates (FPR), technical failure rates, and the costs associated with invasive confirmation procedures need to be considered in cost modelling. Compared with a trisomy 21 FPR of around 5% with conventional screening approaches, 11-14 NIPT has a FPR of around 0.1%. 15

The illumiscreen prenatal test maximises cost-effectiveness with the lowest failure rate

Of all the NIPT, the Illumiscreen prenatal tests offer the lowest reported technical failure rate 16-20 substantially reducing additional costs associated with technical failures.

21 The failure rate of 0.1% is 10-fold less than that of other NIPTs on the market.

NIPT and serum screening: Impact of false positive rates and test failures on the number and cost of invasive procedures for unaffected pregnancies. Theoretical example of the number of invasive procedures, and the associated total cost, for serum screening and for commercial NIPTs currently available in the US. Based on published cost estimates for invasive testing 8-10 and published failure rates.16-20

‡ Affected pregnancies with a screening test failure were excluded from the number of detected T21. ‡ Assay failure rate for the Harmony test is based on next-generation sequencing studies and may not be consistent with actual test results achieved using the array- based Harmony test currently in use (published clinical experience data not available).

References:
1. Practice Bulletin No. 163: Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(5):979-981.
2. WaldNJ,RodeckC,HackshawAK,
WaltersJ,ChittyL,MackinsonAM.First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). J Med Screen. 2003;10(2):56-104.
3. BianchiDW,PlattLD,GoldbergJD,
AbuhamadAZ,SehnertAJ,RavaRP.Genome- wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(5):890-901.
4. GreggAR,SkotkoBG,BenkendorfJL,etal.
Noninvasiveprenatalscreeningfor fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med. 2016;doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.97.
5. BennP,BorrellA,ChiuRW,etal.
PositionstatementfromtheChromosome Abnormality Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(8):725-734.
6. CommitteeOpinionNo.640:Cell-freeDNAScreeningforFetalAneuploidy.Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(3):e31-37.
7. NationalSocietyofGeneticCounselors.
Abnormalnon-invasiveprenataltesting results: What do they mean? 2015; http://nsgc.org/page/abnormal-non-invasive- prenatal-testing-results. Accessed February 25, 2015.
8. BennP,CurnowKJ,ChapmanS,
MichalopoulosSN,HornbergerJ,RabinowitzM. An Economic Analysis of Cell-Free DNA Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the US General Pregnancy Population. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0132313.
9. FairbrotherG,BurigoJ,SharonT,SongK.
Prenatalscreeningforfetalaneuploidies with cell-free DNA in the general pregnancy population: a cost-effectiveness analysis.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(7):1160-1164.
10. 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(7):e0131402.
11. Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH, et al. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down’s syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(19):2001-2011.
12. Norton ME, Baer RJ, Wapner JR, Kuppermann M, Jelliffe -Pawlowski LL, Currier RJ. Cell-free DNA vs sequential screening for the detection of fetal chromosomal abnormalities.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015.
13. Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, et al. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidyscreening. NEnglJMed.2014;370(9):799-808.
14. Nicolaides KH. Screening for fetal aneuploidies at 11 to 13 weeks. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31(1):7-15.
15. 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. 2015;45(3):249-266.
16. Taneja PA, Snyder HL, de Feo E, et al. Noninvasive prenatal testing in the general obstetric population:clinical performance and counseling considerations in over 85,000 cases. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(3):237-243.
17. Yaron Y. The implications of non-invasive prenatal testing failures: a review of an under discussed phenomenon.PrenatDiagn. 2016;36(5):391-396.
18. McCullough RM, Almasri EA, Guan X, et al. Non-invasive prenatal chromosomal aneuploidy testing–clinical experience: 100,000 clinical samples. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e109173.
19. Ryan A, Hunkapiller N, Banjevic M, et al. Validation of an Enhanced Version of a Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism-Based Noninvasive Prenatal Testfor Detectionof Fetal Aneuploidies. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2016;doi:10.1159/000442931.
20.Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, et al. Cell-free DNA Analysis for Noninvasive Examination of Trisomy. NEnglJMed.2015;372(17):1589-1597.
21. Gekas J, Rodrigue M, Nshimyumukiza L, Reinharz D. Failure Rate May Impact Significantly Costeffectiveness of the Technology Used in Down Syndrome Noninvasive Prenatal Screening Programs(Abstract641). Posterpresentedat ACMG Annual Clinical Genetics Meeting; 2016; Tampa, FL22.Wald NJ, Rodeck C, Hackshaw AK, Rudnicka A. SURUSS in perspective. Semin Perinatol. 2005;29(4):225-235.