A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prenatal Screening Strategies for Down Syndrome
- 1 September 2005
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Vol. 106 (3) , 562-568
- https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000174581.24338.6f
Abstract
To evaluate which Down syndrome screening strategy is the most cost-effective. Using decision-analysis modeling, we compared the cost-effectiveness of 9 screening strategies for Down syndrome: 1) no screening, 2) first-trimester nuchal translucency (NT) only, 3) first-trimester combined NT and serum screen, 4) first-trimester serum only, 5) quadruple screen, 6) integrated screening, 7) sequential screening, 8) integrated serum only, or 9) maternal age. Costs included cost of tests and resources used for raising a child with Down syndrome. One-way and multiway sensitivity analyses were performed for all model variables. The main outcome measures were cost per Down syndrome case detected, rate of delivering a liveborn neonate with Down syndrome, and rate of diagnostic procedure-related pregnancy loss for each strategy. Sequential screening detected more Down syndrome cases compared with the other strategies, but it had a higher procedure-related loss rate. Integrated serum screening was the most cost-effective strategy. Sensitivity analyses revealed the model to be robust over a wide range of values for the variables. The addition of the cost of genetic sonogram to the second-trimester strategies resulted in first-trimester combined screening becoming the most cost-effective strategy. Within our baseline assumptions, integrated serum screening was the most cost-effective screening strategy for Down syndrome. If the cost of nuchal translucency is less than dollars 57 or when genetic sonogram is included in the second-trimester strategies, first-trimester combined screening became the most cost-effective strategy. III.Keywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- An outcomes analysis of five prenatal screening strategies for trisomy 21 in women younger than 35 yearsAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2004
- First-Trimester Sonographic Screening for Down Syndrome*1Published by Wolters Kluwer Health ,2003
- Screening for Down's syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies Commentary: Results may not be widely applicable Authors' responseBMJ, 2001
- Cost-benefit analysis of prenatal diagnosis for down syndrome using the British or the American approachObstetrics & Gynecology, 2000
- A screening program for trisomy 21 at 10–14 weeks using fetal nuchal translucency, maternal serum free β‐human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy‐associated plasma protein‐AUltrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1999
- The use of second-trimester genetic sonogram in guiding clinical management of patients at increased risk for fetal trisomy 21Published by Wolters Kluwer Health ,1999
- α-Fetoprotein, free β-human chorionic gonadotropin, and dimeric inhibin A produce the best results in a three-analyte, multiple-marker screening test for fetal Down syndromeAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1997
- NUCHAL TRANSLUCENCY CANNOT BE USED AS A SCREENING TEST FOR CHROMOSOMAL ABNORMALITIES IN THE FIRST TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY IN A ROUTINE ULTRASOUND PRACTICEPrenatal Diagnosis, 1996
- Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy.BMJ, 1992
- Maternal serum screening for Down's syndrome: the effect of routine ultrasound scan determination of gestational age and adjustment for maternal weightBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1992