Erik Iwarsson1, Bo Jacobsson2,3, Jessica Dagerhamn4, Thomas Davidson4,5, Eduardo Bernabé6, Marianne Heibert Arnlind4,7. 1. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Clinical Genetics Unit, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Department of Genetics and Bioinformatics, Area of Health Data and Digitalisation, Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. 4. Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Division of Health Care Analysis, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 6. Division of Population and Patient Health, King's College London Dental Institute at Guy's, King's College and St Thomas Hospitals, London, UK. 7. Medical Management Center/LIME, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to review the performance of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13 (T21, T18 and T13) in a general pregnant population as well as to update the data on high-risk pregnancies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. Methodological quality was rated using QUADAS and scientific evidence using GRADE. Summary measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. RESULTS: In a general pregnant population, there is moderate evidence that the pooled sensitivity is 0.993 (95% CI 0.955-0.999) and specificity was 0.999 (95% CI 0.998-0.999) for the analysis of T21. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for T13 and T18 was not calculated in this population due to the low number of studies. In a high-risk pregnant population, there is moderate evidence that the pooled sensitivities for T21 and T18 are 0.998 (95% CI 0.981-0.999) and 0.977 (95% CI 0.958-0.987) respectively, and low evidence that the pooled sensitivity for T13 is 0.975 (95% CI 0.819-0.997). The pooled specificity for all three trisomies is 0.999 (95% CI 0.998-0.999). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis using GRADE that shows that NIPT performs well as a screen for trisomy 21 in a general pregnant population. Although the false positive rate is low compared with first trimester combined screening, women should still be advised to confirm a positive result by invasive testing if termination of pregnancy is under consideration.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to review the performance of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13 (T21, T18 and T13) in a general pregnant population as well as to update the data on high-risk pregnancies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. Methodological quality was rated using QUADAS and scientific evidence using GRADE. Summary measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. RESULTS: In a general pregnant population, there is moderate evidence that the pooled sensitivity is 0.993 (95% CI 0.955-0.999) and specificity was 0.999 (95% CI 0.998-0.999) for the analysis of T21. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for T13 and T18 was not calculated in this population due to the low number of studies. In a high-risk pregnant population, there is moderate evidence that the pooled sensitivities for T21 and T18 are 0.998 (95% CI 0.981-0.999) and 0.977 (95% CI 0.958-0.987) respectively, and low evidence that the pooled sensitivity for T13 is 0.975 (95% CI 0.819-0.997). The pooled specificity for all three trisomies is 0.999 (95% CI 0.998-0.999). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis using GRADE that shows that NIPT performs well as a screen for trisomy 21 in a general pregnant population. Although the false positive rate is low compared with first trimester combined screening, women should still be advised to confirm a positive result by invasive testing if termination of pregnancy is under consideration.
Authors: Lidia García-Pérez; Renata Linertová; Margarita Álvarez-de-la-Rosa; Juan Carlos Bayón; Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia; Jorge Ferrer-Rodríguez; Pedro Serrano-Aguilar Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2017-12-16
Authors: Arthur A M Wilde; Christopher Semsarian; Manlio F Márquez; Alireza Sepehri Shamloo; Michael J Ackerman; Euan A Ashley; Back Sternick Eduardo; Héctor Barajas-Martinez; Elijah R Behr; Connie R Bezzina; Jeroen Breckpot; Philippe Charron; Priya Chockalingam; Lia Crotti; Michael H Gollob; Steven Lubitz; Naomasa Makita; Seiko Ohno; Martín Ortiz-Genga; Luciana Sacilotto; Eric Schulze-Bahr; Wataru Shimizu; Nona Sotoodehnia; Rafik Tadros; James S Ware; David S Winlaw; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Takeshi Aiba; Andreas Bollmann; Jong-Il Choi; Aarti Dalal; Francisco Darrieux; John Giudicessi; Mariana Guerchicoff; Kui Hong; Andrew D Krahn; Ciorsti Mac Intyre; Judith A Mackall; Lluís Mont; Carlo Napolitano; Pablo Ochoa Juan; Petr Peichl; Alexandre C Pereira; Peter J Schwartz; Jon Skinner; Christoph Stellbrink; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Thomas Deneke Journal: J Arrhythm Date: 2022-05-31
Authors: Arthur A M Wilde; Christopher Semsarian; Manlio F Márquez; Alireza Sepehri Shamloo; Michael J Ackerman; Euan A Ashley; Eduardo Back Sternick; Héctor Barajas-Martinez; Elijah R Behr; Connie R Bezzina; Jeroen Breckpot; Philippe Charron; Priya Chockalingam; Lia Crotti; Michael H Gollob; Steven Lubitz; Naomasa Makita; Seiko Ohno; Martín Ortiz-Genga; Luciana Sacilotto; Eric Schulze-Bahr; Wataru Shimizu; Nona Sotoodehnia; Rafik Tadros; James S Ware; David S Winlaw; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Takeshi Aiba; Andreas Bollmann; Jong Il Choi; Aarti Dalal; Francisco Darrieux; John Giudicessi; Mariana Guerchicoff; Kui Hong; Andrew D Krahn; Ciorsti MacIntyre; Judith A Mackall; Lluís Mont; Carlo Napolitano; Juan Pablo Ochoa; Petr Peichl; Alexandre C Pereira; Peter J Schwartz; Jon Skinner; Christoph Stellbrink; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Thomas Deneke Journal: Europace Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 5.486
Authors: Malou A Lugthart; Bo B Bet; Fleur Elsman; Karline van de Kamp; Bernadette S de Bakker; Ingeborg H Linskens; Merel C van Maarle; Elisabeth van Leeuwen; Eva Pajkrt Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 3.242
Authors: Alex Friedman Peahl; Alli Novara; Michele Heisler; Vanessa K Dalton; Michelle H Moniz; Roger D Smith Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Marion Imbert-Bouteille; Jean Chiesa; Jean-Baptiste Gaillard; Véronique Dorvaux; Lucille Altounian; Vincent Gatinois; Eve Mousty; Sanae Finge; Pascal Bourquard; Joris Robert Vermeesch; Eric Legius; Peter Vandenberghe Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 3.050