What is the value for money of prenatal carrier screening for spina muscular atrophy? Too soon to say

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 202, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 209-211

  Grosse, Scott D ^a  

^a NATIONAL CENTER ON BIRTH DEFECTS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DOWN SYNDROME; EDITORIAL; FRAGILE X SYNDROME; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TERMINATION; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SPINAL MUSCULAR ATROPHY;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SPINAL MUSCULAR ATROPHIES OF CHILDHOOD;

EID: 77649109048     PISSN: 00029378     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.031     Document Type: Editorial

References (31)

1. Little S.E., Janakiraman V., Kaiman A., Musci T., Ecker J., and Caughey A.B. The cost effectiveness of prenatal screening for spinal muscular atrophy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202 (2010) 253.e1-253.e7
2. GeneTests. Laboratory directory 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/GeneTests/lab?db=genetests Accessed Jan. 6, 2010.
3. Rogowski W.H., Grosse S.D., and Khoury M.J. Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nat Rev Genet 10 (2009) 489-495
4. Musci T.J., and Caughey A.B. Cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal population-based fragile X carrier screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192 (2005) 1905-1912
5. Caughey A.B., Kuppermann M., Norton M.E., and Washington A.E. Nuchal translucency and first trimester biochemical markers for down syndrome screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187 (2002) 1239-1245
6. Caughey A.B. Cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal diagnosis: methodological issues and concerns. Gynecol Obstet Invest 60 (2005) 11-18
7. Gold M.R., Stevenson D., and Fryback D.G. HALYs and QALYs and DALYs, oh my: similarities and differences in summary measures of population health. Annu Rev Public Health 23 (2002) 115-134
8. Tilford J.M., Grosse S.D., Robbins J.M., Pyne J.M., Cleves M.A., and Hobbs C.A. Health state preference scores of children with spina bifida and their caregivers. Qual Life Res 14 (2005) 1087-1098
9. Grosse S.D., Wordsworth S., and Payne K. Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis. Genet Med 10 (2008) 648-655
10. Grosse S.D., McBride C.M., Evans J.P., and Khoury M.J. Personal utility and genomic information: look before you leap. Genet Med 11 (2009) 575-576
11. Shackley P., and Cairns J. Evaluating the benefits of antenatal screening: an alternative approach. Health Policy 36 (1996) 103-115
12. Harris R.A., Washington A.E., Nease Jr. R.F., and Kuppermann M. Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold. Lancet 363 (2004) 276-282
13. Cairns J., Shackley P., and Hundley V. Decision making with respect to diagnostic testing: a method of valuing the benefits of antenatal screening. Med Decis Making 16 (1996) 161-168
14. Ganiats T.G. Justifying prenatal screening and genetic amniocentesis programs by cost-effectiveness analyses: a re-evaluation. Med Decis Making 16 (1996) 45-50
15. Petrou S. Methodological limitations of economic evaluations of antenatal screening. Health Econ 10 (2001) 775-778
16. Grosse S.D. Does newborn screening save money?. The difference between cost-effective and cost-saving interventions. J Pediatra 146 (2005) 168-170
17. Asch D.A., Hershey J.C., Pauly M.V., Patton J.P., Jedrziewski M.K., and Mennuti M.T. Genetic screening for reproductive planning: methodological and conceptual issues in policy analysis. Am J Public Health 86 (1996) 684-690
18. Carlson J.J., Henrikson N.B., Veenstra D.L., and Ramsey S.D. Economic analyses of human genetics services: a systematic review. Genet Med 7 (2005) 519-523
19. Grosse S.D. Cost-comparison analysis. In: Kattan M.W. (Ed). Encyclopedia of medical decision making (2009), SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA 207-208
20. Plass A.M., van El C.G., Pieters T., and Cornel M.C. Neonatal screening for treatable and untreatable disorders: prospective parents' opinions. Pediatrics 125 (2010) e99-e106
21. Donaldson C., Shackley P., and Abdalla M. Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisited. Health Econ 6 (1997) 145-159
22. Caughey A.B., Washington A.E., Gildengorin V., and Kuppermann M. Assessment of demand for prenatal diagnostic testing using willingness to pay. Obstet Gynecol 103 (2004) 539-545
23. Bishop A.J., Marteau T.M., Armstrong D., et al. Women and health care professionals' preferences for Down's syndrome screening tests: a conjoint analysis study. BJOG 111 (2004) 775-779
24. Ryan M., Diack J., Watson V., and Smith N. Rapid prenatal diagnostic testing for Down syndrome only or longer wait for full karyotype: the views of pregnant women. Prenat Diagn 25 (2005) 1206-1211
25. Whitehead N.S., Brown D.S., and Layton C.M. Developing a conjoint analysis survey of parental attitudes regarding voluntary newborn screening. Publication no. MR-0014-1002. (2010), RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC In press
26. National Human Genome Research Institute. Summary of population-based carrier screening for single-gene disorders: lessons learned and new opportunities. Rockville, MD. February 6-7, 2008. http://www.genome.gov/27026048 Accessed Dec. 22, 2009
27. Grosse S.D., Rogowski W.H., Ross L.F., Cornel M.C., Dondorp W.J., and Khoury M.J. Population screening strategies for genetic disorders: evidence, ethics, and economics. Public Health Genom 13 (2010) 106-115
28. Teutsch S.M., Bradley L.A., Palomaki G.E., et al. The evaluation of genomic applications in practice and prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP working group. Genet Med 11 (2009) 3-14
29. Green N.S., Rinaldo P., Brower A., et al. Committee report: advancing the current recommended panel of conditions for newborn screening. Genet Med 9 (2007) 792-796
30. Grosse S.D. Cost effectiveness as a criterion for newborn screening policy decisions. In: Baily M.A., and Murray T.H. (Eds). Ethics and newborn genetic screening: new technologies, new challenges (2009), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD 58-88
31. Grosse S.D., Teutsch S.M., and Haddix A.C. Lessons from cost-effectiveness research for United States public health policy. Annu Rev Pub Health 28 (2007) 365-391