Literature DB >> 11520837

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

R E Gilbert1, C Augood, R Gupta, A E Ades, S Logan, M Sculpher, J H van Der Meulen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of antenatal screening strategies for Down's syndrome.
DESIGN: Analysis of incremental cost effectiveness.
SETTING: United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11520837      PMCID: PMC37550          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.323.7310.423

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  29 in total

1.  Cost-benefit analysis of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome using the British or the American approach.

Authors:  A M Vintzileos; C V Ananth; J C Smulian; D L Day-Salvatore; T Beazoglou; R A Knuppel
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 2.  Effect of study design on the association between nuchal translucency measurement and Down syndrome.

Authors:  B W Mol; J G Lijmer; J van der Meulen; E Pajkrt; C M Bilardo; P M Bossuyt
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Intra- and interoperator repeatability of the nuchal translucency measurement.

Authors:  E Pajkrt; B W Mol; K Boer; A P Drogtrop; P M Bossuyt; C M Bilardo
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 7.299

4.  Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnostic choice: long-term outcomes matter most.

Authors:  M Kuppermann; D Feeny; E Gates; S F Posner; B Blumberg; A E Washington
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.050

5.  First trimester fetal nuchal translucency: problems with screening the general population. 2.

Authors:  S Bewley; L J Roberts; A M Mackinson; C H Rodeck
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1995-05

6.  Integrated screening for Down's syndrome based on tests performed during the first and second trimesters.

Authors:  N J Wald; H C Watt; A K Hackshaw
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-08-12       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Use of the disutility ratio in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome.

Authors:  J H van der Meulen; B W Mol; E Pajkrt; J M van Lith; W Voorn
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1999-02

8.  Second trimester prenatal screening for Down's syndrome using alpha-fetoprotein and free beta hCG: a seven year review.

Authors:  K Spencer
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1999-12

9.  UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal-translucency thickness at 10-14 weeks of gestation. Fetal Medicine Foundation First Trimester Screening Group.

Authors:  R J Snijders; P Noble; N Sebire; A Souka; K H Nicolaides
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-08-01       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Economic evaluation of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in the U.S.A.

Authors:  T Beazoglou; D Heffley; J Kyriopoulos; A Vintzileos; P Benn
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 3.050

View more
  10 in total

1.  Screening for Down's syndrome. Antenatal screening has human costs.

Authors:  Josephine Venn-Treloar
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-01-12

2.  Socioeconomic barriers to informed decisionmaking regarding maternal serum screening for down syndrome: results of the French National Perinatal Survey of 1998.

Authors:  Babak Khoshnood; Béatrice Blondel; Catherine de Vigan; Gérard Bréart
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Ultrasound diagnostic schema for the determination of increased risk for chromosomal fetal aneuploidies in the first half of pregnancy.

Authors:  Piotr Sieroszewski; Małgorzata Perenc; Elzbieta Baś-Budecka; Jacek Suzin
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?

Authors:  Fernando Antoñanzas; R Rodríguez-Ibeas; M F Hutter; R Lorente; C Juárez; M Pinillos
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-05-20

5.  Cost effectiveness analysis of intensive versus conventional follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Andrew G Renehan; Sarah T O'Dwyer; David K Whynes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-10

6.  Health behaviour modelling for prenatal diagnosis in Australia: a geodemographic framework for health service utilisation and policy development.

Authors:  Evelyne E Muggli; David McCloskey; Jane L Halliday
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Screening of Fetal Chromosome Aneuploidies in the First and Second Trimester of 125,170 Iranian Pregnant Women.

Authors:  Elham Seyyed Kavoosi; Sarang Younessi; Dariush D Farhud
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.429

8.  The impact of Down syndrome screening on Taiwanese Down syndrome births: a nationwide retrospective study and a screening result from a single medical centre.

Authors:  Shin-Yu Lin; Chia-Jung Hsieh; Yi-Li Chen; S W Steven Shaw; Sheng-Wen Steven Shaw; Ming-Wei Lin; Pau-Chung Chen; Chien-Nan Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-20       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Early amniocentesis as a method of choice in diagnosing gynecological diseases.

Authors:  Sebija Izetbegovic; Senad Mehmedbasic
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2013-12-04

10.  Is routine prenatal screening and testing fundamentally incompatible with a commitment to reproductive choice? Learning from the historical context.

Authors:  Panagiota Nakou
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2020-10-30
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.