Genetic sonography: a cost-effective method for evaluating women 35 years and older who decline genetic amniocentesis
- PMID: 11794403
- DOI: 10.7863/jum.2002.21.1.5
Genetic sonography: a cost-effective method for evaluating women 35 years and older who decline genetic amniocentesis
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether offering genetic sonography to patients who decline invasive testing can increase the detection rate of trisomy 21 and is cost-effective.
Methods: The detection rate of trisomy 21, the number of pregnancy losses after amniocentesis, and the cost of detecting a single fetus with trisomy 21 were determined in women 35 years and older managed according to the following 3 policies: (1) universal amniocentesis, (2) genetic counseling for maternal age-associated risks for trisomy 21 followed by amniocentesis in patients who elected it, and (3) genetic counseling followed by genetic sonography in patients who originally declined genetic amniocentesis.
Result: From a population of 40,143 women 35 years and older, the expected number of trisomy 21 fetuses was 349. After genetic counseling, 32% of patients declined invasive testing, resulting in detection of 70% of fetuses with trisomy 21. For universal amniocentesis, the cost to detect 1 fetus with trisomy 21 was $138,036. For the 32% who declined invasive testing after genetic counseling and underwent genetic sonography, the cost to detect a single fetus with trisomy 21 was a function of sensitivity and the screen-positive rate. For screen-positive rates between 5% and 25%, genetic sonography resulted in a cost savings between 14.3% and 18.8% when compared with universal invasive testing and resulted in a considerable increase in detection of fetuses with trisomy 21 (77% to 97%).
Conclusions: A policy of offering genetic sonography followed by amniocentesis to patients 35 years and older who originally decline invasive testing for the diagnosis of trisomy 21 is cost-effective and results in a higher overall detection rate for trisomy 21 without an increased risk of pregnancy loss.
Similar articles
-
Is genetic ultrasound cost-effective?Semin Perinatol. 2003 Apr;27(2):173-82. doi: 10.1053/sper.2003.50016. Semin Perinatol. 2003. PMID: 12769203 Review.
-
Genetic sonography: an option for women of advanced maternal age with negative triple-marker maternal serum screening results.J Ultrasound Med. 2003 Nov;22(11):1191-9. doi: 10.7863/jum.2003.22.11.1191. J Ultrasound Med. 2003. PMID: 14620890
-
Combined use of genetic sonography and maternal serum triple-marker screening: an effective method for increasing the detection of trisomy 21 in women younger than 35 years.J Ultrasound Med. 2001 Jun;20(6):645-54. doi: 10.7863/jum.2001.20.6.645. J Ultrasound Med. 2001. PMID: 11400939
-
Noninvasive prenatal testing: impact on genetic counseling, invasive prenatal diagnosis, and trisomy 21 detection.J Clin Ultrasound. 2015 Jan;43(1):1-6. doi: 10.1002/jcu.22243. Epub 2014 Oct 9. J Clin Ultrasound. 2015. PMID: 25303161
-
Down syndrome: prenatal risk assessment and diagnosis.Am Fam Physician. 2000 Aug 15;62(4):825-32, 837-8. Am Fam Physician. 2000. PMID: 10969860 Review.
Cited by
-
Prenatal Aneuploidies Computerized Screening (SCA TEST): a pilot study on 1000 women.J Prenat Med. 2007 Oct;1(4):47-56. J Prenat Med. 2007. PMID: 22470829 Free PMC article.
-
Benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes in health economic assessments: the VALENTIA systematic review and qualitative investigation.Health Technol Assess. 2024 Jun;28(25):1-180. doi: 10.3310/PYTK6591. Health Technol Assess. 2024. PMID: 38938110 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical