Table 1 Several studies for determining cost effectiveness of NIPT
Study | Method of analysis | Study population | Prenatal tests strategies | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Alice C. AYRES et al., 2014 [14] | Decision-analytic model | General population | Current practice and NIPT | Most cost-effective for women over 40 years of age |
Anjali J. Kaimal et al., 2015 [15] | Decision-analytic model | General population | Chromosomal microarray, miltiple marker screening, cell-free DNA screening, NT screening alone, in combination, or in sequence | NIPT is the most cost-effective after primary screen method at age 40 years and older |
Genevieve Fairbrother et al., 2015 [16] | Decision-analytic model | General population | NIPT, first trimester combined screening (FTS) | NIPT is more economical, below $453 |
Brandon S. Walker et al., 2015 [17] | Decision-analytic model | General population | Contingent NIPT, conventional maternal serum screening (MSS), universal NIPT | Universal NIPT is more cost-effective from a societal perspective view |
Lyn S Chitty et al., 2016 [18] | Real clinical setting | Pregnant women with risk for Down syndrome of at least 1/1000 | Contingent NIPT, Down syndrome screening program (DSS) | NIPT as a contingent test within DSS program can make more effective outcome of prenatal care |
Current study | Real clinical setting | General population | Maternal serum test (dual test, triple test, quad test, integrated test, sequential test, and contingent test), invasive test (CVS, amniocentesis, cordocentesis), NIPT |