Health economic evaluation of noninvasive prenatal testing and serum screening for down syndrome

Background: Down syndrome (DS), also known as trisomy 21 (T21), is the most common genetic disorder associated with intellectual disability. There are two methods commonly used for prenatal testing of DS: serum screening (SS) for biomarkers in maternal serum and noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy by cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in maternal plasma. However, cost-effectiveness analyses of these two methods are mostly based on data derived from simulations with various models, with theoretical values calculated. In this study, we statistically analyzed clinical DS screening data and pregnancy outcomes during the follow-up of pregnant women in Zhuhai City, China. The economics of the two mainstream prenatal DS screening methods was evaluated from a public health perspective. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on the data of 17,363 pregnant women who received SS and NIPT during gestation in Zhuhai from 2018 to 2019, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with four screening strategies. In strategy I, all pregnant women received SS, and those with T21 risk ≥1/270 had invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD). In strategy II, all pregnant women received SS, those with T21 risk ≥ 1/270 had IPD, and those with 1/270 > T21 risk ≥ 1/1,000 had NIPT; then, women at high risk based on NIPT also had IPD. In strategy III, all pregnant women received SS, and those with T21 risk ≥1,000 had NIPT; then, women at high risk based on NIPT results had IPD. In strategy IV, all pregnant women received NIPT and those at high risk based on NIPT results had IPD. Finally, to assess the cost and effectiveness of DS screening, the total costs were calculated as the sum of screening and diagnosis as well as the direct and indirect economic burden during the average life cycle of DS patients. Results: A total of 22 of the 17,363 (1/789) pregnant women had DS, of which only one woman was over 35 years of age. SS detected 1,024 cases at high risk of T21 (≥1/270), 8 cases were true positive, with a positive predictive value of 0.78% and a detection rate of 36.4%. NIPT detected 27 cases at high risk of T21 (Z ≥ 3) and 22 cases of DS, with a positive predictive value of 81.5% and a detection rate of 100%. Strategy I had the largest total cost of 65.54 million CNY, strategy II and III had similar total costs of 40 million CNY, and strategy IV had the lowest total cost of 14.91 million CNY. By comparison, the screening strategy with NIPT alone had the highest health economic value for DS. Conclusions: SS was greatly affected by nuchal translucency and the accuracy of gestational age measured by ultrasonography. Unstandardized ultrasonography was an important reason for the low DS detection rate with SS. The influence of interfering factors on NIPT was much lower than in SS. NIPT can be used as an alternative to SS and as a primary screening strategy of prenatal DS screening for secondary prevention and control of birth defects. NIPT greatly decreased the frequency of IPD and the miscarriages associated with IPD, saved the limited medical and health resources, and greatly increased DS detection rate. Therefore, NIPT has great social and economic benefits.