Literature DB >> 26946227

Preferences regarding contemporary prenatal genetic tests among women desiring testing: implications for optimal testing strategies.

Miriam Kuppermann1,2, Mary E Norton1, Kao Thao1, Allison O'Leary1, Onouwem Nseyo1, Abigail Cortez1, Anjali J Kaimal3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare utilities for prenatal testing outcomes among women inclined to continue their pregnancy despite abnormal results versus those inclined to terminate and to analyze how differences affect optimal prenatal testing strategies.
METHOD: Time tradeoff utilities for 23 outcomes were elicited from 281 women. We compared utilities based on termination inclination and applied them to a decision-analytic framework.
RESULTS: Of participants, 46.6% indicated that they would 'definitely' or 'probably' continue their pregnancy despite results indicating an intellectual disability. These women assigned higher utilities to abnormal testing results and having a child with an intellectual disability than women who would probably or definitely terminate. Primary cell-free DNA screening had the most quality-adjusted life years for women inclined to continue their pregnancy but yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1 685 449. Multiple marker screening with either cell-free DNA or diagnostic testing as follow-up had an ICER of $9037. Primary diagnostic testing resulted in the most quality-adjusted life years for women inclined to terminate, with an ICER of $111 776.
CONCLUSION: Women seeking testing vary in prenatal testing outcome preferences and termination inclinations in the context of results indicating an intellectual disability. How they envision utilizing prenatal testing information impacts their optimal testing strategy.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26946227     DOI: 10.1002/pd.4808

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  4 in total

Review 1.  How should costs and cost-effectiveness be considered in prenatal genetic testing?

Authors:  Teresa N Sparks; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 3.300

2.  Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening and diagnostic strategies for Down syndrome: A microsimulation modeling analysis.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Tima Mohammadi; Julie Sou; Aslam H Anis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Decision-making for prenatal genetic screening: how will pregnant women navigate a growing number of aneuploidy and carrier screening options?

Authors:  Ruth M Farrell; Madelyn Pierce; Christina Collart; Meng Yao; Marissa Coleridge; Edward K Chien; Susannah S Rose; Mary Lintel; Uma Perni; Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-12-04       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 4.  Has noninvasive prenatal testing impacted termination of pregnancy and live birth rates of infants with Down syndrome?

Authors:  Melissa Hill; Angela Barrett; Mahesh Choolani; Celine Lewis; Jane Fisher; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.050

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.