Objectives: To evaluate prenatal screening methods for Down syndrome and neural tube defects (NTD) with regard to costs per detected case and the number of screening-related miscarriages. Methods: The screening methods compared were risk assessment tests, i.e. serum tests and nuchal translucency measurement (NT), and invasive testing through chorionic villus sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis. Costs, the number of cases detected and screening-related miscarriages were calculated using a decision tree model. Results: The costs per detected case of Down syndrome ranged from EUR 98,000 for the first-trimester (serum) double test to EUR 191,000 for invasive testing. If NTD detection was included, the (serum) triple test had the lowest costs, EUR 73,000, per detected case of Down syndrome or NTD. The number of screening-related miscarriages due to invasive diagnostic tests varied from 13 per 100,000 women for the (serum) first- and second-trimester combined test to 914 per 100,000 women for invasive testing. Conclusions: Considering screening for both Down syndrome and NTD favors the triple test in terms of costs per detected case. Compared to invasive testing, risk assessment tests in general substantially lower screening-related miscarriages, which raises the question of whether invasive testing should still be offered in a screening program for Down syndrome.

Keywords:
Cost-effectiveness, Down syndrome, Neural tube defects, Prenatal screening
1.
Morris JK, Mutton DE, Alberman E: Revised estimates of the maternal age specific live birth prevalence of Down’s syndrome. J Med Screen 2002;9:2–6.
2.
Statistics Netherlands: Live-born infants: key figures of fertility per region (in Dutch). www.cbs.nl.
3.
Anthony S, Kateman H, Dorrepaal CA, Buitendijk SE: Congenital disorders in The Netherlands 1996–2000 (in Dutch). Leiden, TNO, 2003.
4.
Alfirevic Z, Sundberg K, Brigham S: Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;3:CD003252.
5.
Caughey AB, Kuppermann M, Norton ME, Washington AE: Nuchal translucency and first trimester biochemical markers for Down syndrome screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:1239–1245.
6.
Cusick W, Buchanan P, Hallahan W, Krantz DA, Larsen JW, Macri JN: Combined first-trimester versus second-trimester serum screening for Down’s syndrome: a cost analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:745–751.
7.
Gilbert RE, Augood C, Gupta R, Ades AE, Logan S, Sculpher M, Van der Meulen JHP: Screening for Down’s syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies. BMJ 2001;323:423.
8.
Harris AH: The cost effectiveness of prenatal screening for trisomy 21. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:464–468.
9.
Working Group Prenatal Diagnostics: Annual Report of Working Group Prenatal Diagnostics (in Dutch). Amsterdam, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie, Vereniging Klinische Genetica Nederland, 2001.
10.
Cuckle H, Arbuzova S: Multi-marker maternal serum screening for chromosomal abnormalities; in Milunsky A (ed): Genetic Disorders and the Fetus. Diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004.
11.
Boyd PA, Wellesley DG, De Walle HEK, Tenconi R, Garcia-Minaur S, Zandwijken GRJ, Stoll C, Clementi M: Evaluation of the prenatal diagnosis of neural tube defects by fetal ultrasonographic examination in different centres across Europe. J Med Screen 2000;7:169–174.
12.
Vos JMI, Offringa M, Bilardo CM, Lijmer JG, Barth PG: Sensitive and specific screening for detection of spina bifida by echography in the second trimester; systematic review and meta-analysis (in Dutch). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2000;144:1736–1741.
13.
CTG (Health Care Tariffs Board of The Netherlands): Supplement to tariff list for health care institutions 2003 (in Dutch). www.ctg-zaio.nl.
14.
Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH: Methods and Guideline Prices for Economic Evaluations in Health Care (in Dutch). Amstelveen, CVZ (Health Care Insurance Board), 2000.
15.
Prismant 2003: Other obstetric surgery (in Dutch). www.prismant.nl.
16.
Liu DTY, Jeavons B, Preston C, Pearson D: A prospective study of spontaneous miscarriage in ultrasonically normal pregnancies and relevance to chorion villus sampling. Prenat Diagn 1987;7:223–227.
17.
Spencer K: What is the true fetal loss rate in pregnancies affected by trisomy 21 and how does this influence whether first trimester detection rates are superior to those in the second trimester? Prenat Diagn 2001;21:788–789.
18.
Kriek R, Korenromp MJ, Hagenaars AM, Christiaens GCML, Bruinse HW: Screening for fetal neural tube defects. Alfa-fetoprotein concentration in maternal serum. Med Contact 1994;49:321–324.
19.
Wald NJ, Cuckle H: Maternal serum-alpha-fetoprotein measurement in antenatal screening for anencephaly and spina bifida in early pregnancy. Lancet 1977;i:1323–1332.
20.
Wald NJ, Cuckle HS, Boreham J, Brett R: Antenatal screening in Oxford for fetal neural tube defects. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1979;86:91–100.
21.
Wald NJ, Kennard A, Hackshaw A, McGuire A: Antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:1–112.
22.
Spencer K: Second trimester prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome using alpha-fetoprotein and free beta hCG: a seven year review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:1287–1293.
23.
Health Council of The Netherlands: Prenatal screening: Down’s syndrome, neural tube defects, routine ultrasonography. The Hague, Health Council of The Netherlands, 2001, Publ No 2001/11. www.gezondheidsraad.nl.
24.
Cunningham GC, Tompkinson DG: Cost and effectiveness of the California triple marker prenatal screening program. Genet Med 1999;1:199–206.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.