Economic evaluation of prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies in Thailand
Issued Date
2023-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
19326203
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85171410282
Pubmed ID
37713438
Journal Title
PloS one
Volume
18
Issue
9
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
PloS one Vol.18 No.9 (2023) , e0291622
Suggested Citation
Wongkrajang P., Jittikoon J., Udomsinprasert W., Talungchit P., Sangroongruangsri S., Turongkaravee S., Chaikledkaew U. Economic evaluation of prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies in Thailand. PloS one Vol.18 No.9 (2023) , e0291622. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0291622 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/90207
Title
Economic evaluation of prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies in Thailand
Author's Affiliation
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Historically, there has been a lack of cost-effectiveness data regarding the inclusion of universal non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for trisomy 21, 18, and 13 in the benefit package of the Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in Thailand. Therefore, this study aimed to perform the cost-benefit analysis of prenatal screening tests and calculate the budget impact that would result from the implementation of a universal NIPT program. A decision-tree model was employed to evaluate cost and benefit of different prenatal chromosomal abnormalities screenings: 1) first-trimester screening (FTS), 2) NIPT, and 3) definitive diagnostic (amniocentesis). The comparison was made between these screenings and no screening in three groups of pregnant women: all ages, < 35 years, and ≥ 35 years. The analysis was conducted from societal and governmental perspectives. The costs comprised direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs, while the benefit was cost-avoidance associated with caring for children with trisomy and the loss of productivity for caregivers. Parameter uncertainties were evaluated through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. From a governmental perspective, all three methods were found to be cost-beneficial. Among them, FTS was identified as the most cost-beneficial, especially for pregnant women aged ≥ 35 years. From a societal perspective, the definitive diagnostic test was not cost-effective, but the other two screening tests were. The most sensitive parameters for FTS and NIPT strategies were the productivity loss of caregivers and the incidence of trisomy 21. Our study suggested that NIPT was the most cost-effective strategy in Thailand, if the cost was reduced to 47 USD. This evidence-based information can serve as a crucial resource for policymakers when making informed decisions regarding the allocation of resources for prenatal care in Thailand and similar context.