Cost-effectiveness of noninvasive fetal RhD blood group genotyping in nonalloimmunized and alloimmunized pregnancies.

Background: We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of noninvasive fetal RhD blood group genotyping in nonalloimmunized and alloimmunized pregnancies in Canada.

Study Design And Methods: We developed two probabilistic state-transition (Markov) microsimulation models to compare fetal genotyping followed by targeted management versus usual care (i.e.

Noninvasive Fetal RhD Blood Group Genotyping: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.

Objective: Noninvasive fetal rhesus D (RhD) blood group genotyping may prevent unnecessary use of anti-D immunoglobulin (RhIG) in non-alloimmunized RhD-negative pregnancies and can guide management of alloimmunized pregnancies. We conducted a systematic review of the economic literature to determine the cost-effectiveness of this intervention over usual care.

Data Sources: Systematic literature searches of bibliographic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane) until February 26, 2019, and auto-alerts until October 30, 2020, and of grey literature sources were performed to retrieve all English-language studies.

Cost-effectiveness of genome-wide sequencing for unexplained developmental disabilities and multiple congenital anomalies.

Purpose: Genetic testing is routine practice for individuals with unexplained developmental disabilities and multiple congenital anomalies. However, current testing pathways can be costly and time consuming, and the diagnostic yield low. Genome-wide sequencing, including exome sequencing (ES) and genome sequencing (GS), can improve diagnosis, but at a higher cost.

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomies 21, 18, and 13, Sex Chromosome Aneuploidies, and Microdeletions in Average-Risk Pregnancies: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Objective: The cost effectiveness of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been established for high-risk pregnancies but remains unclear for pregnancies at other risk levels. The aim was to assess the cost effectiveness of NIPT in average-risk pregnancies from the perspective of a provincial public payer in Canada.

Methods: A model was developed to compare traditional prenatal screening (TPS), NIPT as a second-tier test (performed only after a positive TPS result), and NIPT as a first-tier test (performed instead of TPS) for trisomies 21, 18, and 13; sex chromosome aneuploidies; and microdeletions in a hypothetical annual population cohort of average-risk pregnancies (142 000 to 148,000) in Ontario, Canada.