Literature DB >> 21516255

An economic model of amniocentesis choice.

Eduardo Fajnzylber1, V Joseph Hotz, Seth G Sanders.   

Abstract

Medical practitioners typically utilize the following protocol when advising pregnant women about testing for the possibility of genetic disorders with their fetus: Pregnant women over the age of 35 should be tested for Down syndrome and other genetic disorders, while for younger women, such tests are discouraged (or not discussed) as the test can cause a pregnancy to miscarry. The logic appears compelling. The rate at which amniocentesis causes a pregnancy to miscarry is constant while the rate of genetic disorder rises substantially over a woman's reproductive years. Hence the potential benefit from testing - being able to terminate a fetus that is known to have a genetic disorder - rises with maternal age. This article argues that this logic is incomplete. While the benefits to testing do rise with age, the costs rise as well. Undergoing an amniocentesis always entails the risk of inducing a miscarriage of a healthy fetus. However, these costs are lower at early ages, because there is a higher probability of being able to replace a miscarried fetus with a healthy birth at a later age. We develop and calibrate a dynamic model of amniocentesis choice to explore this tradeoff. For parameters that characterize realistic age patterns of chromosomal abnormalities, fertility rates and miscarriages following amniocentesis, our model implies a falling, rather than rising, rate of amniocentesis as women approach menopause.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 21516255      PMCID: PMC3079912          DOI: 10.1016/j.alcr.2010.08.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Life Course Res        ISSN: 1569-4909


  7 in total

1.  An economic model of family planning and fertility.

Authors:  T P Schultz
Journal:  J Polit Econ       Date:  1969

2.  A new estimate of permanent sterility by age: sterility defined as the inability to conceive.

Authors:  Henri Leridon
Journal:  Popul Stud (Camb)       Date:  2008-03

3.  Rates of chromosome abnormalities at different maternal ages.

Authors:  E B Hook
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Estimates of the economic costs of birth defects.

Authors:  N J Waitzman; P S Romano; R M Scheffler
Journal:  Inquiry       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 1.730

5.  Chromosomal abnormality rates at amniocentesis and in live-born infants.

Authors:  E B Hook; P K Cross; D M Schreinemachers
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1983-04-15       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Periodic health examination, 1996 update: 1. Prenatal screening for and diagnosis of Down syndrome. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination.

Authors:  P T Dick
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-02-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 7.  Current maternal age recommendations for prenatal diagnosis: a reappraisal using the expected utility theory.

Authors:  N Sicherman; A T Bombard; P Rappoport
Journal:  Fetal Diagn Ther       Date:  1995 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.587

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.