Prospective observations study protocol to investigate cost-effectiveness of various prenatal test strategies after the introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing

被引:12
|
作者
Kim, So Yeon [1 ]
Lee, Seung Mi [1 ]
Jun, Jong Kwan [1 ]
Han, You Jung [2 ]
Kim, Min Hyoung [2 ]
Shim, Jae-Yoon [3 ]
Lee, Mi-Young [3 ]
Oh, Soo-Young [4 ]
Lee, JoonHo [5 ]
Kim, Soo Hyun [6 ]
Cha, Dong Hyun [6 ]
Cho, Geum Joon [7 ]
Kwon, Han-Sung [8 ]
Kim, Byoung Jae [9 ]
Park, Mi Hye [10 ]
Cho, Hee Young [11 ]
Ko, Hyun Sun [12 ]
Ahn, Jeonghoon [13 ]
Ryu, Hyun Mee [2 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Dankook Univ, Cheil Gen Hosp & Womens Healthcare Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Univ Ulsan, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Asan Med Ctr, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
[4] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Samsung Med Ctr, Sch Med, Seoul, South Korea
[5] Yonsei Univ Hlth Syst, Yonsei Univ, Inst Womens Life Med Sci, Dept Obstet & Gynecol,Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
[6] CHA Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, CHA Gangnam Med Ctr, Seoul, South Korea
[7] Korea Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
[8] Konkuk Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Sch Med, Seoul, South Korea
[9] Seoul Natl Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Seoul Metropolitan Govt, Boramae Med Ctr, Seoul, South Korea
[10] Ewha Womans Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Seoul, South Korea
[11] CHA Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Bundang CHA Med Ctr, Sch Med, Seongnam, South Korea
[12] Catholic Univ Korea, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
[13] Ewha Womans Univ, Dept Hlth Convergence, Seoul, South Korea
来源
关键词
Prenatal diagnosis; NIPT; Prenatal screening test; Prenatal genetic counseling; Clinical practice guidelines; CELL-FREE DNA; FETAL ANEUPLOIDY; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1186/s12884-018-1930-y
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Background: Among the non-invasive screening methods for the identification of fetal aneuploidy, NIPT (non-invasive prenatal testing) shows the highest sensitivity and specificity in high-risk pregnancies. Due to the low false positive rate of NIPT, it is assumed that the implementation of NIPT as a primary screening method may reduce the number of invasive fetal tests and result in a similar or lowered cost in the overall detection of Down syndrome. However, most previous studies are based on theoretical economic analysis. This study aims to determine the cost effectiveness of various prenatal test strategies, including NIPT, in real clinical settings in both low risk and high risk pregnancies. Methods/design: In this prospective observational study, women (<24 weeks) with singleton or twin pregnancies will be enrolled in 12 different healthcare institutions. The participants will be grouped based on the risks of fetal chromosomal abnormalities and will be counseled on the various screening or diagnostic methods, including NIPT, according to the aneuploidy risk. The final decision on screening or diagnostic methods will be made by patients after counseling. Questionnaires regarding factors affecting the decision on prenatal test will be answered by the participants and physicians. The economic analysis on final total costs will be compared according to the various prenatal test strategies. Discussion: The results of present study are expected to have a significant impact on national policies in determining Korean prenatal screening test strategies and to help in developing novel and effective prenatal screening tests in the future.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Prospective observations study protocol to investigate cost-effectiveness of various prenatal test strategies after the introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing
    So Yeon Kim
    Seung Mi Lee
    Jong Kwan Jun
    You Jung Han
    Min Hyoung Kim
    Jae-Yoon Shim
    Mi-Young Lee
    Soo-young Oh
    JoonHo Lee
    Soo Hyun Kim
    Dong Hyun Cha
    Geum Joon Cho
    Han-Sung Kwon
    Byoung Jae Kim
    Mi Hye Park
    Hee Young Cho
    Hyun Sun Ko
    Jeonghoon Ahn
    Hyun Mee Ryu
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 18
  • [2] Impact of Structural Differences on the Modeled Cost-Effectiveness of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing
    Salisbury, Amber
    Pearce, Alison
    Howard, Kirsten
    Norris, Sarah
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2024,
  • [3] Changes in Prenatal Testing Trends After Introduction of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing
    Larion, Sebastian
    Romary, Letty
    Mlynarczyk, Malgorzata
    Abuhamad, Alfred Z.
    Warsof, Steven L.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2014, 123 : 62S - 63S
  • [4] A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing different strategies to implement noninvasive prenatal testing into a Down syndrome screening program
    Ayres, Alice C.
    Whitty, Jennifer A.
    Ellwood, David A.
    AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2014, 54 (05): : 412 - 417
  • [5] The role of noninvasive prenatal testing as a diagnostic versus a screening tool - a cost-effectiveness analysis
    Ohno, Mika
    Caughey, Aaron
    PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2013, 33 (07) : 630 - 635
  • [6] Cost-effectiveness of prenatal HIV screening strategies in Uganda
    Kim, Lena
    Vogel, Sinae
    Cohan, Deborah
    Caughey, Aaron
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2009, 201 (06) : S236 - S236
  • [7] COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF PRENATAL TESTING FOR CHLAMYDIA-TRACHOMATIS
    NETTLEMAN, MD
    BELL, TA
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1991, 164 (05) : 1289 - 1294
  • [8] A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Different Strategies to Implement Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Into a Down Syndrome Screening Program EDITORIAL COMMENT
    Caughey, Aaron B.
    OBSTETRICAL & GYNECOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2015, 70 (02) : 63 - 65
  • [9] Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening strategies for congenital heart disease
    Pinto, N. M.
    Nelson, R.
    Puchalski, M.
    Metz, T. D.
    Smith, K. J.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2014, 44 (01) : 50 - 57
  • [10] A cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening strategies for Down syndrome
    Odibo, AO
    Stamilio, DM
    Nelson, DB
    Sehdev, HM
    Macones, GA
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2005, 106 (03): : 562 - 568