Literature DB >> 8630836

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

P T Dick1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations to physicians providing prenatal care on (1) whether prenatal screening for and diagnosis of Down syndrome (DS) is advisable and (2) alternative screening and diagnosis manoeuvres. OPTIONS: "Triple-marker" screening of maternal serum levels of alpha-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin and unconjugated estriol; fetal ultrasonographic examination; amniocentesis; and chorionic villus sampling (CVS). OUTCOMES: Accuracy of detection of DS in fetuses, and risks to the mother, including psychologic distress, and to the fetus from the screening and diagnostic interventions. EVIDENCE: A MEDLINE search for relevant articles published from Jan. 1, 1966, to Mar. 31, 1994, with the use of MeSH terms "Down syndrome," "prenatal diagnosis," "screening," "prevention," "amniocentesis," "chorionic villus sampling," "ultrasonography," "anxiety," "depression" and "psychological stress" and a manual search of bibliographies, recent issues of key journals and Current Contents. VALUES: The evidence-based methods and values of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination were used. A high value was placed on providing pregnant women with the opportunity to determine whether they are carrying a fetus with DS and to make choices concerning the termination of the pregnancy. The economic issues involved are complex and were not considered. BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: Triple-marker screening identifies an estimated 58% of fetuses with DS, but it has an estimated rate of true-positive results of 0.1% and of false-positive results of 3.7% (given a risk cut-off of one chance in 190 of DS). These rates vary with maternal age and the risk cut-off chosen. Women with a known risk of having a fetus with DS (e.g., those who have had a previous child with DS) may benefit from a reduction in anxiety after confirmation that their fetus does not have DS. Screening allows women at low risk of having a child with DS to detect fetuses with the syndrome, but may cause psychologic distress if there is a false-positive screening test result. Up to 20% of women with positive results of screening tests may decline to undergo a subsequent amniocentesis. Amniocentesis and CVS are very accurate in diagnosing DS in fetuses and have a very low rate of serious complications for the mother. Amniocentesis is associated with a 1.7% rate of fetal loss when it is performed after 16 weeks' gestation, whereas the rate among controls is 0.7% (for a difference of 1%, 95% confidence interval 0.3% to 1.5%). CVS entails a greater risk of fetal loss than amniocentesis (odds ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.57). There is little evidence from controlled trials of significant associations between amniocentesis or CVS and neonatal morbidity or malformations; however, samples have been too small to show differences in rare outcomes. Results from some case-control studies suggest that CVS increases the risk of transverse limb deficiency. Costs were not considered because they are beyond the scope of this review. RECOMMENDATIONS: There is fair evidence to offer triple-marker screening through a comprehensive program to pregnant women under 35 years of age (grade B recommendation). Women given detailed information about serum-marker screening show more satisfaction with the screening than those not given this information. There is fair evidence to offer amniocentesis or CVS to pregnant women 35 years of age and older and to women with a history of a fetus with DS or of a chromosome 21 anomaly (grade B recommendation). Information on the limitations and advantages of each procedure should be offered. Triple-marker screening may be offered as an alternative to CVS or amniocentesis to pregnant women over 35. VALIDATION: Recommendations concerning prenatal diagnosis are similar to those of the US Preventive Services Task Force, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. No previous specific recommendations concerning triple-maker screening exist. SPONSORS: These guidelines were developed and endorsed by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, which is funded by Health Canada and the National Health Research and Development Program.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8630836      PMCID: PMC1487598     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  132 in total

1.  Mortality and life-table in Down's syndrome.

Authors:  J Oster; M Mikkelsen; A Nielsen
Journal:  Acta Paediatr Scand       Date:  1975-03

2.  Review of drug treatment for Down's syndrome persons.

Authors:  J B Share
Journal:  Am J Ment Defic       Date:  1976-01

3.  Estimated rates of Down syndrome in live births by one year maternal age intervals for mothers aged 20-49 in a New York State study-implications of the risk figures for genetic counseling and cost-benefit analysis of prenatal diagnosis programs.

Authors:  E B Hook; G M Chambers
Journal:  Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser       Date:  1977

4.  Reexamination of paternal age effect in Down's syndrome.

Authors:  E Matsunaga; A Tonomura; H Oishi; Y Kikuchi
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  1978-02-16       Impact factor: 4.132

5.  Down syndrome in live births by single year maternal age interval in a Swedish study: comparison with results from a New York State study.

Authors:  E B Hook; A Lindsjö
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1978-01       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Immediate and long-term effects of developmental training in children with Down's syndrome.

Authors:  M Aronson; K Fällström
Journal:  Dev Med Child Neurol       Date:  1977-08       Impact factor: 5.449

7.  Update on MSAFP policy statement from the American Society of Human Genetics.

Authors:  K L Garver
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Prenatal diagnosis and psychological distress: amniocentesis or chorionic villus biopsy?

Authors:  B Sjögren; N Uddenberg
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 3.050

9.  A statistical segregation analysis of (21q22q)-translocations.

Authors:  J Stene
Journal:  Hum Hered       Date:  1970       Impact factor: 0.444

10.  Prenatal diagnosis of genetic disease in Canada: report of a collaborative study.

Authors:  N E Simpson; L Dallaire; J R Miller; L Siminovich; J L Hamerton; J Miller; C McKeen
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1976-10-23       Impact factor: 8.262

View more
  6 in total

1.  An economic model of amniocentesis choice.

Authors:  Eduardo Fajnzylber; V Joseph Hotz; Seth G Sanders
Journal:  Adv Life Course Res       Date:  2010-03-01

2.  Hyperechogenic fetal bowel: an ultrasonographic marker for adverse fetal and neonatal outcome?

Authors:  Maria Antonietta De Oronzo
Journal:  J Prenat Med       Date:  2011-01

3.  The importance of screening and prenatal diagnosis in the identification of the numerical chromosomal abnormalities.

Authors:  Daniela Neagos; Ruxandra Cretu; Roxana Corina Sfetea; Laurentiu Camil Bohiltea
Journal:  Maedica (Bucur)       Date:  2011-07

4.  Going the distance: the influence of practice location on the Ontario Maternal Serum Screening Program.

Authors:  J A Permaul-Woods; J C Carroll; A J Reid; C A Woodward; G Ryan; S Domb; S Arbitman; B Fallis; J Kilthei
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1999-08-24       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Prediction, prevention and personalisation of medication for the prenatal period: genetic prenatal tests for both rare and common diseases.

Authors:  Munis Dundar; Asli Subasioglu Uzak; Murat Erdogan; Yagut Akbarova
Journal:  EPMA J       Date:  2011-05-06       Impact factor: 6.543

6.  Termination of pregnancy due to Thalassemia major, Hemophilia, and Down's syndrome: the views of Iranian physicians.

Authors:  Mehran Karimi; Mohammadmehdi Bonyadi; Mohhamad reza Galehdari; Soheila Zareifar
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2008-12-23       Impact factor: 2.652

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.