10. Cost-benefit Non-invasive Prenatal Testing: A A Canadian economic study providing information to journal article 10 Feb 2014 study Review of the Cost Effectiveness on the cost-effectiveness of NIPT and to describe and Guidelines. Rapid Response evidence-based guidelines for its use. Report: Summary with Critical Appraisal. Ottawa ON, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health., 2014 12. Observational McLennan A, Palma-Dias R, da Silva Australian study assessing the implementation of to journal article 29 Jan 2016 study Costa F, et al: Noninvasive prenatal NIPT as first and second line screening for fetal testing in routine clinical practice - aneuploidy (5267 pregnant women). The study An audit of NIPT and combined demonstrated that NIPT achieved 100% trisomy 21 screening in an detection and had a higher detection rate for all unselected Australian population. aneuploidies when used as a first-line test. It Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 56:22-8, concluded that NIPT is an advanced screening test, 2016 rather than a diagnostic test that benefits from additional CFTS. 13. Cost-benefit Morris S, Karlsen S, Chung N, et al: UK study of the cost-benefits of NIPT compared to journal article 10 Apr 2014 study Model-based analysis of costs and with current screening for Down Syndrome (DS) in outcomes of non-invasive prenatal the National Health Service (NHS). The study testing for Down's syndrome using concluded that if the NHS cost was at the lower end cell free fetal DNA in the UK of the £400-£900 private sector price range with National Health Service. PLoS One screening risk cut-off of 1:150, NIPT as contingent 9:e93559, 2014 testing would be cost-neutral or cost-saving compared with current DS screening.
10. Cost-benefit study Non-invasive Prenatal Testing: A Review of the Cost Effectiveness and Guidelines. Rapid Response Report: Summary with Critical Appraisal. Ottawa ON, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health., 2014 A Canadian economic study providing information on the cost-effectiveness of NIPT and to describe evidence-based guidelines for its use. to journal article 10 Feb 2014 12. Observational study McLennan A, Palma-Dias R, da Silva Costa F, et al: Noninvasive prenatal testing in routine clinical practice - An audit of NIPT and combined screening in an unselected Australian population. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 56:22-8, 2016 Australian study assessing the implementation of NIPT as first and second line screening for fetal aneuploidy (5267 pregnant women). The study demonstrated that NIPT achieved 100% trisomy 21 detection and had a higher detection rate for all aneuploidies when used as a first-line test. It concluded that NIPT is an advanced screening test, rather than a diagnostic test that benefits from additional CFTS. to journal article 29 Jan 2016 13. Cost-benefit study Morris S, Karlsen S, Chung N, et al: Model-based analysis of costs and outcomes of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome using cell free fetal DNA in the UK National Health Service. PLoS One 9:e93559, 2014 UK study of the cost-benefits of NIPT compared with current screening for Down Syndrome (DS) in the National Health Service (NHS). The study concluded that if the NHS cost was at the lower end of the £400-£900 private sector price range with screening risk cut-off of 1:150, NIPT as contingent testing would be cost-neutral or cost-saving compared with current DS screening. to journal article 10 Apr 2014