CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 149Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Uptake, outcomes, and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome into NHS maternity care: prospective cohort study in eight diverse maternity units

Open access
Chitty, Lyn S, Wright, David, Hill, Melissa, Verhoef, Talitha I, Daley, Rebecca, Lewis, Celine, Mason, Sarah, McKay, Fiona, Jenkins, Lucy, Howarth, Abigail, Cameron, Louise, McEwan, Alec, Fisher, Jane, Kroese, Mark, Morris, Stephen·2016·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.i3426PMC PMC4933930
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the benefits and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down's syndrome into the NHS maternity care pathway. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Eight maternity units across the United Kingdom between 1 November 2013 and 28 February 2015. PARTICIPANTS: All pregnant women with a current Down's syndrome risk on screening of at least 1/1000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were uptake of NIPT, number of cases of Down's syndrome detected, invasive tests performed, and miscarriages avoided. Pregnancy outcomes and costs associated with implementation of NIPT, compared with current screening, were determined using study data on NIPT uptake and invasive testing in combination with national datasets. RESULTS: NIPT was prospectively offered to 3175 pregnant women. In 934 women with a Down's syndrome risk greater than 1/150, 695 (74.4%) chose NIPT, 166 (17.8%) chose invasive testing, and 73 (7.8%) declined further testing. Of 2241 women with risks between 1/151 and 1/1000, 1799 (80.3%) chose NIPT. Of 71 pregnancies with a confirmed diagnosis of Down's syndrome, 13/42 (31%) with the diagnosis after NIPT and 2/29 (7%) after direct invasive testing continued, resulting in 12 live births. In an annual screening population of 698 500, offering NIPT as a contingent test to women with a Down's syndrome screening risk of at least 1/150 would increase detection by 195 (95% uncertainty interval -34 to 480) cases with 3368 (2279 to 4027) fewer invasive tests and 17 (7 to 30) fewer procedure related miscarriages, for a non-significant difference in total costs (£-46 000, £-1 802 000 to £2 661 000). The marginal cost of NIPT testing strategies versus current screening is very sensitive to NIPT costs; at a screening threshold of 1/150, NIPT would be cheaper than current screening if it cost less than £256. Lowering the risk threshold increases the number of Down's syndrome cases detected and overall costs, while maintaining the reduction in invasive tests and procedure related miscarriages. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of NIPT as a contingent test within a public sector Down's syndrome screening programme can improve quality of care, choices for women, and overall performance within the current budget. As some women use NIPT for information only, the Down's syndrome live birth rate may not change significantly. Future research should consider NIPT uptake and informed decision making outside of a research setting.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.i3426

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 Flowchart showing numbers of women recruited and outcomes. CVS=chorionic villus sampling; DSS=Down’s syndrome screening; NIPT=non-invasive prenatal testing; T13=trisomy 13; T18=trisomy 18; T21=trisomy 21. *Including 15 women with risk ≥1/150 for T13/T18 and risk 1/151-1/1000 for T21. †Some women underwent DSS and declined further testing but were known to have had NIPT in private sector (n=37). ‡One additional woman accepted NIPT but no blood sample was obtained. §One procedure was not possible. ¶Two women initially had inconclusive NIPT results but were positive on repeat testing; these are included in inconclusive/failed pathway and also predicted to be affected pathway. **Includes one case (T13) that had amniocentesis later in pregnancy after detection of fetal abnormalities
Fig 1 Flowchart showing numbers of women recruited and outcomes. CVS=chorionic villus sampling; DSS=Down’s syndrome screening; NIPT=non-invasive prenatal testing; T13=trisomy 13; T18=trisomy 18; T21=trisomy 21. *Including 15 women with risk ≥1/150 for T13/T18 and risk 1/151-1/1000 for T21. †Some women underwent DSS and declined further testing but were known to have had NIPT in private sector (n=37). ‡One additional woman accepted NIPT but no blood sample was obtained. §One procedure was not possible. ¶Two women initially had inconclusive NIPT results but were positive on repeat testing; these are included in inconclusive/failed pathway and also predicted to be affected pathway. **Includes one case (T13) that had amniocentesis later in pregnancy after detection of fetal abnormalitiesCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Decision tree depicting current screening pathway and new pathway using non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as contingent screening. In current screening pathway, women are offered invasive testing when their risk based on combined or quadruple test is ≥1/150. Small risk of procedure related miscarriage exists, so some women at high risk decide not to undergo any further testing. If result of invasive test is positive, women can decide to terminate pregnancy. In NIPT pathway, women are offered NIPT test after high risk result (depending on threshold: ≥1/150, ≥1/500, or ≥1/1000) based on combined or quadruple test. Pathways for different thresholds are similar except for threshold risk at which NIPT is offered as contingent screening. If NIPT test result is positive, invasive test is offered to confirm diagnosis. Some women with risk ≥1/150 after combined or quadruple test might decide to have invasive test directly and not have NIPT first. DS=Down’s syndrome
Fig 2 Decision tree depicting current screening pathway and new pathway using non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as contingent screening. In current screening pathway, women are offered invasive testing when their risk based on combined or quadruple test is ≥1/150. Small risk of procedure related miscarriage exists, so some women at high risk decide not to undergo any further testing. If result of invasive test is positive, women can decide to terminate pregnancy. In NIPT pathway, women are offered NIPT test after high risk result (depending on threshold: ≥1/150, ≥1/500, or ≥1/1000) based on combined or quadruple test. Pathways for different thresholds are similar except for threshold risk at which NIPT is offered as contingent screening. If NIPT test result is positive, invasive test is offered to confirm diagnosis. Some women with risk ≥1/150 after combined or quadruple test might decide to have invasive test directly and not have NIPT first. DS=Down’s syndromeCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 3 Benefits and costs of Down’s syndrome screening pathway nationally for current pathway and using non-invasive prenatal testing as contingent test for women with risk of ≥1/150, 1/500, and 1/1000. Estimates are based on population of 698 000
Fig 3 Benefits and costs of Down’s syndrome screening pathway nationally for current pathway and using non-invasive prenatal testing as contingent test for women with risk of ≥1/150, 1/500, and 1/1000. Estimates are based on population of 698 000CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 4 Marginal costs for different base prices of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as contingent test for Down’s syndrome for women with screening risk ≥1/150, 1/500, or 1/1000. Dashed lines indicate costs without option of direct invasive prenatal testing (IPD); solid lines indicate costs allowing option of direct IPD without previous NIPT. Figures are based on national data
Fig 4 Marginal costs for different base prices of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as contingent test for Down’s syndrome for women with screening risk ≥1/150, 1/500, or 1/1000. Dashed lines indicate costs without option of direct invasive prenatal testing (IPD); solid lines indicate costs allowing option of direct IPD without previous NIPT. Figures are based on national dataCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [13]Cuckle H, Benn P, Pergament E. Maternal cfDNA screening for Down syndrome--a cost sensitivity analysis. Prenat Diagn 2013; 33: 636- 42. 10.1002/pd.4157 pmid:23674341. 23674341 · DOI
  2. [14]Garfield SS, Armstrong SO. Clinical and cost consequences of incorporating a novel non-invasive prenatal test into the diagnostic pathway for fetal trisomies. J Managed Care Med 2012; 15: 34- 41.
  3. [35]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. NICE, 2014 (available from https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg20/chapter/glossary#costconsequences-analysis). 26677490

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 149

Related

Metadata

Authors
Chitty, L. S., Wright, D., Hill, M., Verhoef, T. I., Daley, R., Lewis, C., Mason, S., McKay, F., Jenkins, L., Howarth, A., Cameron, L., McEwan, A., Fisher, J., Kroese, M., & Morris, S.
Affiliations
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital (GB)
  • University of Plymouth (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • PHG Foundation (GB)
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Chitty, Lyn S
ORCID
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-07-04
Volume
354
Pages
i3426
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/bmj.i3426
PMC
PMC4933930
OpenAlex
W2462899390
Cited by
149
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 6
FWCI
31.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0513-10141, RP-PG-0707-10107)
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity
  • Programme Grants for Applied Research (RP-PG-0707-10107)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
non-invasive prenatal testing, Down syndrome, prenatal screening, implementation costs, invasive prenatal diagnosis, miscarriage prevention, screening thresholds, diagnostic accuracy, pregnancy outcomes, cost-effectiveness, NHS Health Scotland
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Down Syndrome, Female, Genetic Testing, United Kingdom, Humans, Maternal Age, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Pregnancy Trimester, Second, Prenatal Diagnosis, Prospective Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review