A new fetal RHD genotyping test: costs and benefits of mass testing to target antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in England and Wales.
BACKGROUND
Postnatal and antenatal anti-D prophylaxis have dramatically reduced maternal sensitisations and cases of rhesus disease in babies born to women with RhD negative blood group. Recent scientific advances mean that non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD), based on the presence of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma, could be used to target prophylaxis on "at risk" pregnancies where the fetus is RhD positive. This paper provides the first assessment of cost-effectiveness of NIPD-targeted prophylaxis compared to current policies.


METHODS
We conducted an economic analysis of NIPD implementation in England and Wales. Two scenarios were considered. Scenario 1 assumed that NIPD will be only used to target antenatal prophylaxis with serology tests continuing to direct post-delivery prophylaxis. In Scenario 2, NIPD would also displace postnatal serology testing if an RhD negative fetus was identified. Costs were estimated from the provider's perspective for both scenarios together with a threshold royalty fee per test. Incremental costs were compared with clinical implications.


RESULTS
The basic cost of an NIPD in-house test is £16.25 per sample (excluding royalty fee). The two-dose antenatal prophylaxis policy recommended by NICE is estimated to cost the NHS £3.37 million each year. The estimated threshold royalty fee is £2.18 and £8.83 for Scenarios 1 and 2 respectively. At a £2.00 royalty fee, mass NIPD testing would produce no saving for Scenario 1 and £507,154 per annum for Scenario 2. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that, at a test sensitivity of 99.7% and this royalty fee, NIPD testing in Scenario 2 will generate one additional sensitisation for every £9,190 saved. If a single-dose prophylaxis policy were implemented nationally, as recently recommended by NICE, Scenario 2 savings would fall.


CONCLUSIONS
Currently, NIPD testing to target anti-D prophylaxis is unlikely to be sufficiently cost-effective to warrant its large scale introduction in England and Wales. Only minor savings are calculated and, balanced against this, the predicted increase in maternal sensitisations may be unacceptably high. Reliability of NIPD assays still needs to be demonstrated rigorously in different ethnic minority populations. First trimester testing is unlikely to alter this picture significantly although other emerging technologies may.
Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. ala.szczepura@warwick.ac.uk
Ala
A
Szczepura
Leeza
L
Osipenko
Karoline
K
Freeman
D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004739:England; D005260:Female; D005333:Fetus / Q000276:immunology; D005820:Genetic Testing / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods; D005838:Genotype; D006801:Humans; D007518:Isoantibodies / Q000627:therapeutic use; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000191:economics*; D011247:Pregnancy; D011296:Prenatal Diagnosis / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods; D012203:Rh Isoimmunization / Q000097:blood / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000517:prevention & control*; D012204:Rh-Hr Blood-Group System / Q000097:blood / Q000235:genetics* / Q000276:immunology; D018029:Rho(D) Immune Globulin; D014852:Wales
D007518:Isoantibodies; C061961:RHO(D) antibody; D012204:Rh-Hr Blood-Group System; D018029:Rho(D) Immune Globulin; C026410:Rho(D) antigen
Am J Clin Pathol. 2010 Sep;134(3):438-42
20716800
Transfusion. 2008 Feb;48(2):373-81
18039319
Blood Transfus. 2007 Jan;5(1):7-14
19204745
Transfus Clin Biol. 2006 Mar-Apr;13(1-2):53-7
16564727
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Nov;105 Suppl 18:7-10
9863972
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Oct;195(4):1163-73
17000250
Br J Haematol. 2002 Oct;119(1):255-60
12358932
Transfusion. 2003 Dec;43(12):1661-6
14641860
BMJ. 2008 Apr 12;336(7648):816-8
18390496
Transfusion. 2004 Nov;44(11):1663-73
15504174
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Nov;105 Suppl 18:11-8
9863973
Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008 Apr;13(2):63-8
18249590
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Jul 15;149(6):633-8
6331166
Clin Chem. 2003 Apr;49(4):678-80
12651830
Transfusion. 2008 Nov;48(11):2292-301
18694461
Mol Diagn. 2004;8(1):23-31
15230639
Clin Exp Immunol. 2008 Oct;154(1):1-5
18727626
Prenat Diagn. 2007 Sep;27(9):824-9
17604339
Transfus Med Rev. 2007 Apr;21(2):101-17
17397761
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Feb;142(2):91-8
19081172
Lancet. 2007 Feb 10;369(9560):474-81
17292767
Biologicals. 2004 Mar;32(1):1-10
15026020
Pract Midwife. 2000 Nov;3(10):11-2
12026485
Blood Transfus. 2010 Jan;8(1):8-16
20104273
Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2007 Feb 15;145C(1):5-17
17299735
Transfus Med. 2007 Oct;17(5):399-403
17903141
Am J Hum Genet. 1998 Apr;62(4):768-75
9529358
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2005 Jul-Aug;20(4):275-80
15980640
Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(4):iii-62
12633527
Lancet. 1994 Oct 22;344(8930):1166-7
7934528
Lancet. 1983 Jul 30;2(8344):244-6
6135077
Midwifery Today Int Midwife. 2000 Spring;(53):44-5
11189626
Prenat Diagn. 2005 Nov;25(11):1040-4
16231312
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007 Aug;27(6):545-57
17896248
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Sep;1075:88-95
17108196
BJOG. 2006 Jul;113(7):839-43
16827770
Health Technol Assess. 2009 Feb;13(10):iii, ix-xi, 1-103
19210896
BMJ. 1997 Dec 13;315(7122):1588
9437277
Curr Opin Hematol. 2007 Nov;14(6):677-81
17898574
Transfusion. 2002 Aug;42(8):1079-85
12385421
Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(10):1-146
12773259
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2006 Jul-Aug;52(4):232-5
16967140
BJOG. 2004 Sep;111(9):903-7
15327602
J Hepatol. 1991 Nov;13(3):323-7
1725527
Vox Sang. 2007 Aug;93(2):99-111
17683353
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Aug 7;104(32):13116-21
17664418
Postgrad Med J. 2005 Mar;81(953):141-7
15749788