Article

Screening for Down's syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies.

Systematic Reviews Training Unit, Department of Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Child Health, London WC1N 1EH.
BMJ Clinical Research (Impact Factor: 14.09). 09/2001; 323(7310):423-5.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare the effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of antenatal screening strategies for Down's syndrome.
Analysis of incremental cost effectiveness. Setting: United Kingdom.
Number of liveborn babies with Down's syndrome, miscarriages due to chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis, health care costs of screening programme, and additional costs and additional miscarriages per additional affected live birth prevented by adopting a more effective strategy.
Compared with no screening, the additional cost per additional liveborn baby with Down's syndrome prevented was 22 000 pound sterling for measurement of nuchal translucency. The cost of the integrated test was 51 000 pound sterling compared with measurement of nuchal translucency. All other strategies were more costly and less effective, or cost more per additional affected baby prevented. Depending on the cost of the screening test, the first trimester combined test and the quadruple test would also be cost effective options.
The choice of screening strategy should be between the integrated test, first trimester combined test, quadruple test, or nuchal translucency measurement depending on how much service providers are willing to pay, the total budget available, and values on safety. Screening based on maternal age, the second trimester double test, and the first trimester serum test was less effective, less safe, and more costly than these four options.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Mark J Sculpher, Feb 10, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
69 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Aims: To evaluate the prevalence of congenital heart defects (CHDs) in live-born infants with Down syndrome (DS) and to investigate whether these CHDs might be detected during routine second trimester ultrasound screening performed at the primary level. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 66 cases of DS in live-born infants. The infants with DS underwent a detailed echocardiographic examination to evaluate cardiac morphological characteristics and function. Results: Thirty-six live-born DS infants (54.5%) had associated CHDs. According to the apical four-chamber view at the first postnatal echocardiographic examination, we estimated that 20 (55.6%) of the 36 patients with associated CHDs should have been identified during the routine second-trimester prenatal scan [17 infants with complete atrioventricular septal defect (AVSD), two with partial AVSD, and one with non-restrictive perimembranous ventricular septal defect] if the results had been correctly interpreted. An additional seven patients with associated CHDs should have been identified if the evaluation of both outflow tracts had been included into the screening protocol. Conclusion: Our data suggest that the prenatal DS detection rate can be significantly increased by improving obstetricians' skills of performing adequate foetal cardiac examination as part of the routine 18- to 23-week ultrasound examination at the primary level.
    Journal of Perinatal Medicine 11/2012; 41(3):1-5. DOI:10.1515/jpm-2012-0204 · 1.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Screening tests have become increasingly popular in women's health care over the last two decades. The initiative for screening is typically generated by either an agency or the health care professional being consulted for some reason. In many instances, however, the demand for screening tests is patient driven with the health care provider being poorly prepared to determine the usefulness of screening. This review illustrates the complexity of screening using three disorders where early detection and treatment have the potential to improve the quality and longevity of life. Prenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome does not offer the parents the opportunity for cure but does offer the opportunity for education and rational choice as the impact of the diagnosis on the family is weighed. The evidence for breast cancer screening is more persuasive for older than younger women, but even in older women, there is a balance of risks and benefits. Treatment options for osteoporosis have improved in terms of reductions in fracture risk as well as beneficial effects on bone density, but evidence of the effectiveness of a screening programme for this condition in an unselected population is lacking. Ultimately, it is crucial that women be provided with clear and comprehensive information about the screening programme, in terms of possible gains but also costs of various kinds: physical, economic and psychological.
    Human Reproduction Update 12(5):499-512. DOI:10.1093/humupd/dml027 · 8.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down's syndrome (DS) using cell free fetal DNA in maternal blood has the potential to dramatically alter the way prenatal screening and diagnosis is delivered. Before NIPT can be implemented into routine practice, information is required on its costs and benefits. We investigated the costs and outcomes of NIPT for DS as contingent testing and as first-line testing compared with the current DS screening programme in the UK National Health Service. We used a pre-existing model to evaluate the costs and outcomes associated with NIPT compared with the current DS screening programme. The analysis was based on a hypothetical screening population of 10,000 pregnant women. Model inputs were taken from published sources. The main outcome measures were number of DS cases detected, number of procedure-related miscarriages and total cost. At a screening risk cut-off of 1∶150 NIPT as contingent testing detects slightly fewer DS cases, has fewer procedure-related miscarriages, and costs the same as current DS screening (around UK£280,000) at a cost of £500 per NIPT. As first-line testing NIPT detects more DS cases, has fewer procedure-related miscarriages, and is more expensive than current screening at a cost of £50 per NIPT. When NIPT uptake increases, NIPT detects more DS cases with a small increase in procedure-related miscarriages and costs. NIPT is currently available in the private sector in the UK at a price of £400-£900. If the NHS cost was at the lower end of this range then at a screening risk cut-off of 1∶150 NIPT as contingent testing would be cost neutral or cost saving compared with current DS screening. As first-line testing NIPT is likely to produce more favourable outcomes but at greater cost. Further research is needed to evaluate NIPT under real world conditions.
    PLoS ONE 04/2014; 9(4):e93559. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0093559 · 3.53 Impact Factor