Economic evaluation of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in the U.S.A

First trimester Down syndrome screening: Distribution of markers and comparison of assays for quantification of pregnancy‐associated plasma protein‐A

OBJECTIVE

First trimester screening for fetal chromosomal disease is now possible using the maternal serological markers pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and the free ss-form of human chorionic gonadotrophin (sshCG) in combination with the ultrasound marker nuchal translucency (NT) thickness. The availability of well-defined analytical methods and reference ranges for the involved parameters, and knowledge of the correlation between markers and clinical parameters, e.g. maternal weight, parity and age, are important for the design of efficient screening programs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Women (n = 2702), with singleton pregnancies, participating in the Copenhagen First Trimester Screening Study had PAPP-A and sshCG values determined and NT measured at a gestational age of 11 to 14 weeks, as determined from crown rump length (CRL). The distribution of gestational age-independent multiples of the median (MoM) of the parameters was defined and reference intervals established. Three methods for determination of PAPP-A, one manual in-house poly-monoclonal ELISA and two commercial semi-automatic double-monoclonal methods, i.e. PAPP-A for the AutoDelfia platform and PAPP-A for the Kryptor platform, were compared in 260 women.

RESULTS

All markers had log-normally distributed MoMs. Gestational age independent reference intervals were established. Maternal weight should be included in risk algorithms. The semi-automated PAPP-A assays (AutoDelfia and Kryptor) gave similar values, mean difference 10.5 %, whereas the manual assay gave higher values, mean differences 50.4 % and 41.0 %, respectively,

CONCLUSIONS

This calls for better standardization and a uniform quality control scheme that is focused on discriminatory ability rather than adherence to mean values from a large number of laboratories.

Using decision theory to derive optimal cut-off scores of screening instruments: an illustration explicating costs and benefits of mental health screening

This paper shows how decision theory can be used to determine optimal cut-off scores on mental health screeners. The procedure uses (a) the costs and benefits of correct and erroneous decisions, and (b) the rates of correct and erroneous decisions as a function of the cut-off score. Using this information, for each cut-off point expected costs are calculated. The cut-off point with the lowest expected costs is the optimal cut-off score. An illustration is given in which the General Health Questionnaire is employed as a major depression screener. Optimal cut-off points are determined for four different contexts: patients, health service providers, society, and mental health researchers. As in these four situations different costs are encountered, different optimal cut-off points were found.

First trimester screening: economic implications

The implementation of new strategies for the detection of Down syndrome will have economic implications. These economic considerations must be considered before implementation, since resources are limited and health care costs in the Unites States are soaring. Economic analyses of prenatal diagnosis have unique challenges that must be considered. Most analyses include only direct medical costs, ignoring indirect and intangible costs.

Trends in the use of second trimester maternal serum screening from 1991 to 2003

PURPOSE

To identify trends in the utilization of second trimester maternal serum screening, follow-up amniocenteses, and the detection of Down syndrome-affected pregnancies between 1991 and 2003.

METHODS

We reviewed all triple and quadruple maternal serum screening tests referred to the University of Connecticut screening laboratory from women with singleton pregnancies. For each calendar year, the total number of tests, proportion to women aged 35 or older, number of follow-up amniocenteses, and the number of prenatally and postnatally diagnosed Down syndrome cases were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 109,469 women received screening. In 1991, the proportion of older women who received screening was 58% of that present in the Connecticut population but by 2003 this had increased to 83% (P < 0.001). In Down syndrome screen-positive pregnancies, there was no significant change in the rate of amniocentesis utilization (average 73%), but in false-positives, there was a decline from 70% in 1991 to 27% in 2003 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Increased use of maternal serum screening by older women, use of second trimester ultrasound, and improvements in screening methodology have resulted in sharply reduced numbers of amniocenteses in unaffected pregnancies.

Cost-effectiveness model for first-trimester versus second-trimester ultrasound screening for down syndrome

PURPOSE

To develop a cost-effectiveness analysis model from the perspective of Medicare reimbursement to evaluate the costs and potential risks involved in performing second-trimester genetic sonography following the first-trimester sonographic measurement of nuchal translucency and serology for Down syndrome screening.

METHODS

Three clinical screening algorithms were constructed that detailed the diagnostic evaluation of the target population by using first-trimester or second-trimester ultrasound and appropriate serologies or first-trimester and second-trimester screening in combination. The cost analysis was then created by using a computer spreadsheet program by applying Medicare reimbursement, the prevalence of Down syndrome, and reported sensitivities of first-trimester and second-trimester ultrasound and analytes for Down syndrome for each clinical algorithm. Medicare Current Procedural Terminology codes, total relative value units, and payments for first-trimester and second-trimester ultrasound, chorionic villous sampling, amniocentesis, and serum analytes were obtained from the Medicare Part B Washington 2002 Provider Disclosure Report.

RESULTS

At any given prevalence of Down syndrome, first-trimester screening is always slightly less expensive to society than the other two models for both total cost and cost to diagnose each case of Down syndrome. Even if second-trimester screening were 100% sensitive, the sensitivity of first-trimester screening would have to fall below 55% for model 2 to be cheaper than model 1. Combining both first-trimester and second-trimester screening was substantially more expensive than models 1 or 2. More iatrogenic fetal deaths occur with combined screening than with either first or second trimester screening alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening using first-trimester ultrasound and serologic markers to screen for Down syndrome is always slightly less expensive to society than second-trimester serologic and ultrasound screening. However, there is a significantly increased risk for iatrogenic fetal death if second-trimester genetic sonography is performed following normal first-trimester screening using currently accepted risk ratios. Patients should be counseled appropriately with this information, because an individual's circumstances will affect that person's perception of risk and subsequently affect his or her decision making.

Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold

BACKGROUND

Prenatal testing guidelines recommend offering amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling to women aged 35 years or older, or who have been found by screening to be at a similarly high risk of giving birth to an infant with Down's syndrome or another chromosomal abnormality. This threshold was chosen, in part, because 35 was the approximate age at which amniocentesis was cost beneficial when testing guidelines were developed in the USA in the 1970s. We aimed to assess the economic validity of thresholds based on age or risk for offering invasive prenatal diagnosis.

METHODS

We did a cost-utility analysis of chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis versus no invasive testing using data from randomised trials, case registries, and a utility assessment of 534 diverse pregnant women aged 16-47 years.

FINDINGS

In the USA, compared with no diagnostic testing, amniocentesis costs less than US15000 dollars per quality-adjusted life year gained for women of all ages and risk levels. The results do not depend on maternal age or risk of Down's syndrome-affected birth. The cost-utility ratio for any individual woman depends on her preferences for reassurance about the chromosomal status of her fetus, and, to a lesser extent, for miscarriage.

INTERPRETATION

Prenatal diagnostic testing can be cost effective at any age or risk level. Current guidelines should be changed to offer testing to all pregnant women, not just those whose risk of carrying an affected fetus exceeds a specified threshold.

Combined first-trimester versus second-trimester serum screening for Down syndrome: a cost analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of combined first-trimester screening for fetal Down syndrome with second-trimester maternal serum triple screening.

STUDY DESIGN

A first-trimester screening approach that used nuchal translucency measurement and maternal serum screening was evaluated against second-trimester maternal serum triple screening in a hypothetic population. Screening sensitivities and screen-positive rates were 91% and 5% for the first-trimester approach and 70% and 7.5% for the second-trimester approach, respectively. The costs of fetal Down syndrome, live-born Down syndrome cost, and total costs (screening plus live-born costs) were calculated for each screening program.

RESULTS

First-trimester screening was associated with lower screening and live-born Down syndrome costs versus second-trimester serum screening. Total Down syndrome screening costs were 29.1% lower with first-trimester screening.

CONCLUSION

In this hypothetic model, combined first-trimester screening for fetal Down syndrome was more cost-effective than universal second-trimester triple serum screening.

Cost analysis of Down syndrome screening in advanced maternal age

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the potential cost and efficacy of Down syndrome screening in the population with advanced maternal age.

METHODS

Three screening methods defining Down syndrome risk for women with advanced maternal age were analyzed: advanced maternal age; advanced maternal age and maternal serum triple screen; and advanced maternal age, maternal serum triple screen and genetic sonogram. Costs for all tests and procedures were estimated. Procedure-related loss for amniocentesis was assumed to be 1:200. Efficacy was defined as: number of amniocenteses performed, number of Down syndrome cases detected, procedure-related losses, Down syndrome cases detected per fetal loss, cost per Down syndrome case detected and total cost of screening.

RESULTS

In 1999 in the USA, there were 530,610 women with advanced maternal age at 16 weeks' gestation carrying an estimated 4,043 fetuses with Down syndrome. Screening by maternal age alone would result in the 100% detection of Down syndrome cases, but would require over 530,000 amniocenteses and result in 2,653 procedure-related losses. Combining age with serum screen and genetic sonogram would detect 97.6% of Down syndrome cases, but would require only 119,791 amniocenteses and result in 599 procedure-related losses. The projected cost per Down syndrome case detected using age screening is 219,109 dollars versus 155,992 dollars using serum screen and genetic sonogram.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of advanced maternal age, maternal serum screen and genetic sonogram would result in the fewest procedure-related losses and lowest cost per Down syndrome case detected.

Advances in prenatal screening for Down syndrome: II first trimester testing, integrated testing, and future directions

BACKGROUND

The acceptability of prenatal screening and diagnosis of Down syndrome is dependent, in part, on the gestational age at which the testing is offered. First trimester screening could be advantageous if it has sufficient efficacy and can be effectively delivered.

ISSUES

Two first trimester maternal serum screening markers, pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG), are useful for identifying women at increased risk for fetal Down syndrome. In addition, measurement of an enlarged thickness of the subcutaneous fluid-filled space at the back of the neck of the developing fetus (referred to as nuchal translucency or NT) has been demonstrated to be an indicator for these high-risk pregnancies. When these three parameters are combined, estimates for Down syndrome efficacy exceed those currently attainable in the second trimester. Women who are screen-positive in the first trimester can elect to receive cytogenetic testing of a chorionic villus biopsy. The first trimester tests could also, theoretically, be combined with the second trimester maternal serum screening tests (integrated screening) to obtain even higher levels of efficacy. There are, however, several practical limitations to first trimester and integrated screening. These include scheduling of testing within relatively narrow gestational age intervals, availability of appropriately trained ultrasonographers for NT measurement, risks associated with chorionic villus biopsy, and costs. There is also increasing evidence that an enlarged NT measurement is indicative of a high risk for spontaneous abortion and for fetal abnormalities that are not detectable by cytogenetic analysis. Women whose fetuses show enlarged NT, therefore, need first trimester counseling regarding their Down syndrome risks and the possibility of other adverse pregnancy outcomes. Follow-up ultrasound and fetal echocardiography in the second trimester are also indicated.

CONCLUSION

First trimester screening appears to be a highly effective method to screen for Down syndrome. Women with screen-positive results based on NT measurement appear to be at increased risk for diverse fetal abnormalities. The finding of a normal fetal karyotype may not, therefore, carry a high level of reassurance for a normal baby.

Uniparental disomy in fetuses diagnosed with balanced Robertsonian translocations: risk estimate

Forty-two fetuses with non-homologous Robertsonian translocations were analyzed for uniparental disomy (UPD). One fetus with a de novo translocation t(13q;14q) had maternal isodisomy of chromosome 14. In a summary of the published data (including the present study), 315 cases were analyzed for UPD after prenatal diagnosis of balanced Robertsonian translocations, of these two fetuses had UPD, giving a risk estimate of 0.65% (CI 0.2-2.3). This risk justifies the recommendation of UPD analysis in fetuses diagnosed prenatally with Robertsonian translocations, with the emphasis on the chromosomes known to contain imprinted genes, such as 14 and 15. We also discuss the possibility of UPD in offspring of Robertsonian translocation carriers with normal karyotype. Based on the risk for UPD in fetuses with Robertsonian translocation we suggest to test these fetuses for UPD and to do so on amniocytes rather than chorionic villi when the risk for unbalanced karyotype is approximately 1%, comparable to the risk for UPD.

First-trimester screening for chromosomal abnormalities by fetal nuchal translucency in a Brazilian population

OBJECTIVES

To examine the detection rate of chromosomal abnormalities using nuchal translucency (NT) thickness in a Brazilian population.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of 2996 singleton pregnancies with a live fetus at 10-14 weeks of gestation attending for routine antenatal care in a teaching hospital in Brazil. Fetal crown-rump length (CRL) and NT thickness were measured and the risks for trisomy 21 were calculated by a combination of maternal age and fetal NT with the use of software provided by The Fetal Medicine Foundation. Sensitivity and positive predictive values for different risk cut-offs were calculated.

RESULTS

Chromosomal defects were diagnosed in 22 cases, including 10 cases of trisomy 21. The estimated risk based on maternal age and fetal NT was 1 in 300 or greater in 222 (7.4%) cases and these included nine of 10 (90.0%) pregnancies with trisomy 21 and nine of 12 (75.0%) pregnancies with other chromosomal defects. The NT was above the 95th centile in 5.8% of cases and this group included 70% of the trisomy 21 cases.

CONCLUSION

A combination of maternal age and fetal NT provides an effective method of screening for chromosomal defects. The performance of the test in a Brazilian population is similar to that in Britain.

Screening for Down's syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of antenatal screening strategies for Down's syndrome.

DESIGN

Analysis of incremental cost effectiveness.

SETTING

United Kingdom.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of liveborn babies with Down's syndrome, miscarriages due to chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis, health care costs of screening programme, and additional costs and additional miscarriages per additional affected live birth prevented by adopting a more effective strategy.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, the additional cost per additional liveborn baby with Down's syndrome prevented was 22 000 pound sterling for measurement of nuchal translucency. The cost of the integrated test was 51 000 pound sterling compared with measurement of nuchal translucency. All other strategies were more costly and less effective, or cost more per additional affected baby prevented. Depending on the cost of the screening test, the first trimester combined test and the quadruple test would also be cost effective options.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of screening strategy should be between the integrated test, first trimester combined test, quadruple test, or nuchal translucency measurement depending on how much service providers are willing to pay, the total budget available, and values on safety. Screening based on maternal age, the second trimester double test, and the first trimester serum test was less effective, less safe, and more costly than these four options.

Routine second-trimester ultrasonography in the United States: a cost-benefit analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to perform a cost-benefit analysis of routine second-trimester screening ultrasonography in the United States as compared with performing ultrasonography only in the presence of indications.

STUDY DESIGN

It was assumed that 1 million pregnant women are available annually who otherwise would not have an indication for an ultrasonographic examination. Cost savings from early detection and therapeutic abortion were considered only for fetal conditions for which lifetime cost estimates are available, including spina bifida, major cardiac disease, cleft lip or palate, renal agenesis or dysgenesis, urinary obstruction, lower or upper limb reduction, omphalocele, gastroschisis, and diaphragmatic hernia. Two separate cost-benefit analyses were considered with the range of fetal anomaly detection rates before 24 weeks' gestation as reported by tertiary and non-tertiary centers in the Routine Antenatal Diagnostic Imaging with Ultrasound (RADIUS) trial. Potential cost savings from averting treatment for preterm labor and postdate gestations were also considered.

RESULTS

The ratio of savings to cost was between 1.35 and 1.70 (savings of $1.35-$1.70 per $1 spent) if the ultrasonographic examinations were performed in tertiary care centers. The ratio of savings to cost was between 0.40 and 0.74 (loss of $0.26-$0.60 per $1 spent) if the examinations were performed in nontertiary centers. If the screening ultrasonography was performed in tertiary centers, the expected annual net benefits were estimated at $97 to 189 million. If ultrasonographic screening was performed in nontertiary centers, the expected annual net losses were estimated at $69 to 161 million.

CONCLUSION

Routine second-trimester ultrasonographic screening appears to be associated with net benefits only if the ultrasonography is performed in tertiary care centers.