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.

0 Followers
 · 
66 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Presentar las posibilidades diagnósticas de una ecografía practicada a la población general de gestantes alrededor de la semana 12. Presentar la técnica de su realización.Material y métodosEstudio de los artículos relevantes aparecidos entre 1985 y 2001, obtenidos del Medline o citados en otros artículos.ResultadosLa aportación más valiosa de esta ecografía es el cribado del síndrome de Down y la definición de la corionicidad en la gestación múltiple, pero también establecer la edad gestacional con precisión e identificar muchas malformaciones.ConclusionesLa ecografía de la semana 12 debe convertirse en una exploración habitual para todas las gestantes. Sus objetivos y características hacen necesario el consentimiento informado y la evaluación continuada de su eficacia diagnóstica.
    Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecología 01/2003; 46(2):75-90. DOI:10.1016/S0304-5013(03)75861-0
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of prenatal diagnosis is to detect fetal structural and genetic abnormalities. Used are different medical methods, procedures, processes and techniques. For this reason we can speak about the prevention and detection of hereditary diseases and congenital anomalies in the unborn fetus. The authors analyzed the results of early amniocentesis tests performed during 2009 in Institute for Gynecology, Infertility and Perinatology "Mehmedbasic" in Sarajevo. Performed is 299 analysis of amniotic fluid after amnion puncture done in the Institute or at the Clinic of Gynecology and Obstetrics (GAK) Sarajevo. INDICATIONS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF EARLY AMNIOCENTESIS WERE: age greater over 35 (84.9%), positive ultrasound markers (1.6%), positive biochemical markers (5.6%) and positive family history for hereditary diseases (7.9%). Detected was 19 pathological cariograms or very high 7% of the total annual number of amniocentesis. An analysis of the distribution of pregnant women in relation to the indication of the result of cytogenetic analysis for each table made positive predictive value (PPV). For indicator age PPV was 0.11, 0.66 for ultrasound markers, for biochemical markers 0.13, for other indications-0.04. The logistic regression model (odds -ratio 11.234 ) indicate a positive ultrasound findings in relation to the year indicates that the risk to gain abnormal fetal karyotype 13 times higher when using only age as an indication for early amniocentesis. Of the 19 pathological cariogram largest number refers to M.Down (10), Sy. Edwards was detected in 2 patients, Sy. Klinefelter in 3, mosaicism in 3 and translocation gene in two of the fetus. The authors would like to acknowledge a very high percentage of pathological cariogram risk groups, the extension of indications for RAC indicate the value of ultrasound markers as a good screening methods and the need for social incentives to perform screening tests and early amniocentesis in B&H in order to prevent genetic abnormalities.
    Acta Informatica Medica 12/2013; 21(4):270-273. DOI:10.5455/aim.2013.21.270-273
  • 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

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
8 Downloads
Available from
May 28, 2014