Nuchal translucency and first trimester biochemical markers for Down syndrome screening: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Aaron Caughey, Miriam Kuppermann, Mary E. Norton, A. Eugene Washington

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis that compared the first-and second-trimester screening tools for Down syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: A decision tree was designed that compared four possible screens for Down syndrome: (1) current second-trimester expanded maternal serum α-fetoprotein test (AFP), (2) first-trimester nuchal translucency screen, (3) first-trimester serum screen, and (4) combined first-trimester screen with both nuchal translucency screen and a serum screen. Incremental cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated that compared the first-trimester screens with expanded α-fetoprotein. RESULTS: The combined screen (nuchal translucency screen + first-trimester serum screen) identified 3833 Down syndrome fetuses, the nuchal translucency alone identified 3413 Down syndrome fetuses, and the first-trimester serum screen identified 2993 Down syndrome fetuses. Each of these screens was an improvement over the current expanded AFP screen, which diagnosed 2446 Down syndrome fetuses. It would cost $98,381 for each additional Down syndrome case that would be identified by nuchal translucency alone, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.85. The addition of the first-trimester serum screen is still cost-effective compared with expanded AFP; the cost would be $319,934 for each additional Down syndrome fetus who was identified, which would be a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.57. CONCLUSION: First-trimester screening for Down syndrome with nuchal translucency screening alone or with serum markers is more clinically effective and cost-effective than the current expanded AFP screen that is being used.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1239-1245
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume187
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Nuchal Translucency Measurement
First Pregnancy Trimester
Down Syndrome
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Biomarkers
Fetus
Serum
Fetal Proteins
Costs and Cost Analysis
Second Pregnancy Trimester
Decision Trees
Mothers

Keywords

  • Cost-effectiveness analysis
  • Down syndrome
  • Prenatal testing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Nuchal translucency and first trimester biochemical markers for Down syndrome screening : A cost-effectiveness analysis. / Caughey, Aaron; Kuppermann, Miriam; Norton, Mary E.; Washington, A. Eugene.

In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 187, No. 5, 01.11.2002, p. 1239-1245.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{92ad55a65afe4ab18ce5875d004bcf69,
title = "Nuchal translucency and first trimester biochemical markers for Down syndrome screening: A cost-effectiveness analysis",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis that compared the first-and second-trimester screening tools for Down syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: A decision tree was designed that compared four possible screens for Down syndrome: (1) current second-trimester expanded maternal serum α-fetoprotein test (AFP), (2) first-trimester nuchal translucency screen, (3) first-trimester serum screen, and (4) combined first-trimester screen with both nuchal translucency screen and a serum screen. Incremental cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated that compared the first-trimester screens with expanded α-fetoprotein. RESULTS: The combined screen (nuchal translucency screen + first-trimester serum screen) identified 3833 Down syndrome fetuses, the nuchal translucency alone identified 3413 Down syndrome fetuses, and the first-trimester serum screen identified 2993 Down syndrome fetuses. Each of these screens was an improvement over the current expanded AFP screen, which diagnosed 2446 Down syndrome fetuses. It would cost $98,381 for each additional Down syndrome case that would be identified by nuchal translucency alone, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.85. The addition of the first-trimester serum screen is still cost-effective compared with expanded AFP; the cost would be $319,934 for each additional Down syndrome fetus who was identified, which would be a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.57. CONCLUSION: First-trimester screening for Down syndrome with nuchal translucency screening alone or with serum markers is more clinically effective and cost-effective than the current expanded AFP screen that is being used.",
keywords = "Cost-effectiveness analysis, Down syndrome, Prenatal testing",
author = "Aaron Caughey and Miriam Kuppermann and Norton, {Mary E.} and Washington, {A. Eugene}",
year = "2002",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1067/mob.2002.127144",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "187",
pages = "1239--1245",
journal = "American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology",
issn = "0002-9378",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nuchal translucency and first trimester biochemical markers for Down syndrome screening

T2 - A cost-effectiveness analysis

AU - Caughey, Aaron

AU - Kuppermann, Miriam

AU - Norton, Mary E.

AU - Washington, A. Eugene

PY - 2002/11/1

Y1 - 2002/11/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis that compared the first-and second-trimester screening tools for Down syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: A decision tree was designed that compared four possible screens for Down syndrome: (1) current second-trimester expanded maternal serum α-fetoprotein test (AFP), (2) first-trimester nuchal translucency screen, (3) first-trimester serum screen, and (4) combined first-trimester screen with both nuchal translucency screen and a serum screen. Incremental cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated that compared the first-trimester screens with expanded α-fetoprotein. RESULTS: The combined screen (nuchal translucency screen + first-trimester serum screen) identified 3833 Down syndrome fetuses, the nuchal translucency alone identified 3413 Down syndrome fetuses, and the first-trimester serum screen identified 2993 Down syndrome fetuses. Each of these screens was an improvement over the current expanded AFP screen, which diagnosed 2446 Down syndrome fetuses. It would cost $98,381 for each additional Down syndrome case that would be identified by nuchal translucency alone, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.85. The addition of the first-trimester serum screen is still cost-effective compared with expanded AFP; the cost would be $319,934 for each additional Down syndrome fetus who was identified, which would be a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.57. CONCLUSION: First-trimester screening for Down syndrome with nuchal translucency screening alone or with serum markers is more clinically effective and cost-effective than the current expanded AFP screen that is being used.

AB - OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis that compared the first-and second-trimester screening tools for Down syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: A decision tree was designed that compared four possible screens for Down syndrome: (1) current second-trimester expanded maternal serum α-fetoprotein test (AFP), (2) first-trimester nuchal translucency screen, (3) first-trimester serum screen, and (4) combined first-trimester screen with both nuchal translucency screen and a serum screen. Incremental cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated that compared the first-trimester screens with expanded α-fetoprotein. RESULTS: The combined screen (nuchal translucency screen + first-trimester serum screen) identified 3833 Down syndrome fetuses, the nuchal translucency alone identified 3413 Down syndrome fetuses, and the first-trimester serum screen identified 2993 Down syndrome fetuses. Each of these screens was an improvement over the current expanded AFP screen, which diagnosed 2446 Down syndrome fetuses. It would cost $98,381 for each additional Down syndrome case that would be identified by nuchal translucency alone, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.85. The addition of the first-trimester serum screen is still cost-effective compared with expanded AFP; the cost would be $319,934 for each additional Down syndrome fetus who was identified, which would be a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.57. CONCLUSION: First-trimester screening for Down syndrome with nuchal translucency screening alone or with serum markers is more clinically effective and cost-effective than the current expanded AFP screen that is being used.

KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - Down syndrome

KW - Prenatal testing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036856194&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036856194&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1067/mob.2002.127144

DO - 10.1067/mob.2002.127144

M3 - Article

C2 - 12439512

AN - SCOPUS:0036856194

VL - 187

SP - 1239

EP - 1245

JO - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

JF - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

SN - 0002-9378

IS - 5

ER -