Literature DB >> 12969542

Screening for fragile X syndrome: a literature review and modelling study.

F J Song1, P Barton, V Sleightholme, G L Yao, A Fry-Smith.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness, estimate the associated costs, and summarise available evidence about the feasibility and acceptability of different screening strategies in England and Wales. Also to establish a model for estimating effectiveness and costs of these different strategies. DATA SOURCES: Literature searches were restricted to MEDLINE and EMBASE, as well as citations in included papers. A broad search strategy was used involving all aspects of fragile X syndrome (FXS) and covered all relevant literature published between 1991 and 2001. REVIEW
METHODS: An assessment was conducted of published literature and efforts focused on the development of a model that could be used to synthesise data from various sources, estimate cost-effectiveness of different strategies, and conduct sensitivity analyses according to different assumptions.
RESULTS: The identified screening programmes were effective in detecting carriers, but a comparison of different strategies was not possible. Simulation results by the FXS Model showed that, over the first 10 years, 4% of premutation (PM) females and 70% of full mutation (FM) females could be detected by active cascade screening; it is 10% and 58%, respectively, by prenatal screening. The maximal detection rate for FM carriers by active cascade screening is higher than that by prenatal screening (91% versus 71%). However, the maximal rate of detection of female PM carriers by active cascade screening (6%) is much lower than that by prenatal screening (60%). During the first 10 years of simulation, the estimated direct cost per year to the NHS in England and Wales is 0.7-0.2 million pounds sterling by active cascade screening and 14.5-9.1 million pounds sterling by a programme of prenatal screening. The incremental cost per extra carrier detected (using current practice as the reference standard) is on average only 165 pounds sterling by active cascade screening and 7543 pounds sterling by prenatal screening. The incremental cost per FXS birth avoided is on average 8494 pounds sterling by active cascade screening and 284,779 pounds sterling by prenatal screening.
CONCLUSIONS: The empirical evidence suggests that both prenatal screening and cascade screening are feasible and acceptable. Population-based prenatal screening is more efficacious, but it will cost more than active cascade screening. The active cascade screening of affected families is more efficient, cheaper, but less effective than a population-based prenatal screening. It is suggested that both strategies be evaluated in large-scale trials, which might also help to determine whether and how the different strategies could be simultaneously or sequentially combined.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12969542     DOI: 10.3310/hta7160

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Technol Assess        ISSN: 1366-5278            Impact factor:   4.014


  46 in total

1.  Daily health symptoms of mothers of adolescents and adults with fragile x syndrome and mothers of adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder.

Authors:  Leann E Smith; Marsha Mailick Seltzer; Jan S Greenberg
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2012-09

2.  Differential sensitivity to life stress in FMR1 premutation carrier mothers of children with fragile X syndrome.

Authors:  Marsha Mailick Seltzer; Erin T Barker; Jan S Greenberg; Jinkuk Hong; Christopher Coe; David Almeida
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2011-12-12       Impact factor: 4.267

3.  Carrier screening in preconception consultation in primary care.

Authors:  Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-12-20

4.  Signaling defects in iPSC-derived fragile X premutation neurons.

Authors:  Jing Liu; Katarzyna A Koscielska; Zhengyu Cao; Susan Hulsizer; Natalie Grace; Gaela Mitchell; Catherine Nacey; Jackline Githinji; Jeannine McGee; Dolores Garcia-Arocena; Randi J Hagerman; Jan Nolta; Isaac N Pessah; Paul J Hagerman
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2012-05-28       Impact factor: 6.150

Review 5.  Advanced technologies for the molecular diagnosis of fragile X syndrome.

Authors:  Flora Tassone
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 5.225

6.  Prevalence of CGG expansions of the FMR1 gene in a US population-based sample.

Authors:  Marsha Mailick Seltzer; Mei Wang Baker; Jinkuk Hong; Matthew Maenner; Jan Greenberg; Daniel Mandel
Journal:  Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 3.568

7.  FMR1 gene mutations in patients with fragile X syndrome and obligate carriers: 30 years of experience in Chile.

Authors:  Lorena Santa María; Solange Aliaga; Víctor Faundes; Paulina Morales; Ángela Pugin; Bianca Curotto; Paula Soto; M Ignacia Peña; Isabel Salas; M Angélica Alliende
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 1.588

8.  The fragile X prevalence paradox.

Authors:  Paul J Hagerman
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2008-04-15       Impact factor: 6.318

9.  Polymerase chain reaction, nuclease digestion, and mass spectrometry based assay for the trinucleotide repeat status of the fragile X mental retardation 1 gene.

Authors:  Eric D Dodds; Flora Tassone; Paul J Hagerman; Carlito B Lebrilla
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2009-07-01       Impact factor: 6.986

Review 10.  Systematic review of pharmacological treatments in fragile X syndrome.

Authors:  Jose-Ramon Rueda; Javier Ballesteros; Maria-Isabel Tejada
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2009-10-13       Impact factor: 2.474

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.