Questioning the costs and benefits of non-invasive prenatal testing. (April 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Stoll, Katie; Lutgendorf, Monica; Knutzen, Dana; Nielsen, Peter E.
• Is Part Of: Journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine. Volume 27:Number 6(2014:Jun.)
• Page Start: 633
• Page End: 634
• Publication Date: 2014-04
• Subjects: Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Perinatology -- Periodicals; Infants (Newborn) -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Neonatology -- Periodicals; 618.2
• DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2013.820699
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1476-7058

Abstract

<abstract> <title>Abstract</title> <p>Prenatal testing for Down syndrome through the use of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been increasingly implemented in clinical practice and a recent cost analysis suggests that NIPT is cost effective when compared to other screening modalities in high risk populations. However, this anaylsis makes many assumptions regarding uptake of testing and pregnancy termination, which cannot be applied to all populations in the United States. Additionally, this cost analysis, which hinges on fewer Down syndrome births, does not align with the goals of prenatal testing to support autonomous and value consistent decisions. NIPT is an expensive new technology and more careful analysis is needed to determine the impact of NIPT on outcomes and overall healthcare costs.</p> </abstract>