Cost-Effectiveness of down syndrome screening paradigms

Clinics in Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 629-642

  Caughey, Aaron B ^a,b   Kaimal, Anjali J ^b,c   Odibo, Anthony O ^b,d  

^a Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology ^*  (United States)

^b Decision and Economic Analysis in Reproduction and Women's Health Group   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost benefit analysis; Cost effectiveness analysis; Down syndrome; Economics; Prenatal diagnosis

Indexed keywords

ALPHA FETOPROTEIN;

AMNIOCENTESIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DOWN SYNDROME; FETUS KARYOTYPING; FIRST TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE AVAILABILITY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIFE EXPECTANCY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PREGNANCY TERMINATION; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BLOOD LEVEL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; MASS SCREENING; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PROCEDURES;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 77954778669     PISSN: 02722712     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cll.2010.04.007     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Chernew M.E., Hirth R.A., Cutler D.M. Increased spending on health care: how much can we afford?. Health Aff 2003, 22:15-25.
2. US Bureau of the Census Statistical abstract of the United States 2009, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
3. Heffler S., Smith S. Health spending projections for 2001-2011: the latest outlook. Health Aff 2002, 21:207-218.
4. Kaplan E., Rodgers M.A. The costs and benefits of a public option in health care reform: an economic analysis. Policy brief 2009, Berkeley Center on Health, Economics, and Security, Berkeley (CA).
5. Weinstein M.C., Stason W.B. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1979, 296:716-721.
6. Eisenberg J.M. Clinical economics: a guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 1989, 262:2879-2886.
7. Cutler D.M., McClellan M. Is technological change in medicine worth it?. Health Aff 2001, 20:11-29.
8. Shackley P. Economic evaluation of prenatal diagnosis: a methodological review. Prenat Diagn 1996, 16:389-395.
9. Caughey A.B. Cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening and diagnosis: methodologic issues. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2005, 60:11-18.
10. Gold M.R., Siegal J.E., Russell L.B., et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine 1996, Oxford University Press, New York.
11. Torrance G.W. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986, 5:1-30.
12. Torrance G.W., Thomas W.H., Sacket D.L. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 1972, 7:118-133.
13. Weinstein M.C., Siegel J.E., Gold M.R., et al. Russell LB for the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996, 276(15):1253-1258.
14. Detsky A.S., Naglie I.G. A clinician's guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 1990, 113:147-154.
15. Drummond M.F., Jefferson T.O. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ 1996, 313:275-283.
16. Subak L.L., Caughey A.B., Washington A.E. Cost-effectiveness analyses in obstetrics & gynecology. Evaluation of methodologic quality and trends. J Reprod Med 2002, 47(8):631-639.
17. Smith W.J., Blackmore C.C. Economic analyses in obstetrics and gynecology: a methodologic evaluation of the literature. Obstet Gynecol 1998, 91(3):472-478.
18. Layde P.M., von Allmen S.D., Oakley G.P. Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening: a cost-benefit analysis. Am J Public Health 1979, 69:566-573.
19. Harris R.A., Washington A.E., Nease R.F., et al. Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold. Lancet 2004, 363:276-282.
20. Steele M.W., Breg W.R. Chromosome analysis of human amniotic fluid cells. Lancet 1966, 1(7434):383-385.
21. Kuppermann M., Goldberg J.D., Nease R.F., et al. Who should be offered prenatal diagnosis? The 35-year-old question. Am J Public Health 1999, 89:160-163.
22. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Antenatal diagnosis: report of a consensus development conference 1979, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda (MD).
23. Hagard S., Carter F.A. Preventing the birth of infants with Down's syndrome: a cost-benefit analysis. Br Med J 1976, 1(6012):753-756.
24. Wapner R., Thom E., Simpson J.L., et al. First-trimester screening for trisomies 21 and 18. N Engl J Med 2003, 349:1405-1413.
25. Biggio J.R., Morris T.C., Owen J., et al. An outcomes analysis of five prenatal screening strategies for trisomy 21 in women younger than 35 years. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004, 190:721-729.
26. Caughey A.B., Kuppermann M., Norton M.E., et al. Nuchal translucency and first trimester biochemical markers for Down syndrome screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002, 187:1239-1245.
27. Caughey A.B., Lyell D.J., Filly R., et al. The impact of the use of echogenic intracardiac focus as a screen for Down syndrome in women under the age of 35. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001, 85:1021-1027.
28. Odibo A.O., Stamilio D.M., Nelson D.B., et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening strategies for Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 2005, 106:562-568.
29. Ball R.H., Caughey A.B., Malone F.D., et al. First- and second-trimester evaluation of risk for Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 110:10-17.
30. Malone F.D., Canick J.A., Ball R.H., et al. A comparison of first trimester screening, second trimester screening, and the combination of both for evaluation of risk for Down syndrome. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:2001-2011.
31. Gekas J., Gagné G., Bujold E., et al. Comparison of different strategies in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: cost effectiveness analysis of computer simulation. BMJ 2009, 338:b138.
32. Kuppermann M., Feeny D., Gates E., et al. Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnostic choice: long-term outcomes matter most. Prenat Diagn 1999, 19:711-716.
33. Kuppermann M., Nease R.F., Learman L.A., et al. Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol 2000, 96:511-516.
34. Vintzileos A.M., Ananth C.V., Fisher A.J., et al. Economic evaluation of prenatal carrier screening for fragile X syndrome. J Matern Fetal Med 1999, 8:168-172.
35. Musci T.J., Caughey A.B. Cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal population-based fragile X carrier screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004, 189:S117.