Search

Background: We developed a decision aid (DA) to help pregnant women and their partners make informed decisions about prenatal screening for trisomy. We aimed to determine its usefulness for preparing for decision-making and its acceptability among end-users.Methods: In this mixed-methods pilot study, we recruited participants in three prenatal care settings in Quebec City. Eligible women were over 18 and more than 16 weeks pregnant or had given birth recently. We asked them about the usefulness of the DA using an interview grid based on the Technology Acceptance Model. We performed descriptive statistics and deductive analysis.Results: Thirty-nine dyads or individuals participated in the study. Mean usefulness score was 86.2 ± 13. Most participants found the amount of information in the DA just right (79.5%), balanced (89.7%), and very useful (61.5%). They were less satisfied with the presentation and the values worksheet and suggested different values clarification methods.Conclusion: Rigorous pilot tests of DAs with patients are an important stage in their development before the more formal assessments that precede scaling up the DA in clinical practice.Practice Implications: The next version of the DA will integrate the suggestions of end-users for better decision-making processes about prenatal screening for trisomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Down syndrome screening has been available within clinical practice for over 50 years within which time significant innovation and exciting new advances have improved the accuracy, safety, and choice for women who are considering antenatal screening for Down syndrome. The UK National Screening Committee is responsible for setting the national standards regarding screening and it has steadily and consistently directed and facilitated an increase in the detection rate whilst minimising the screen positive rate. This has reduced the number of false positive results and consequently the number of invasive diagnostic procedures and their related miscarriages. Non-invasive pre-natal testing (NIPT) using cell free DNA is a rapidly evolving field and it will soon be incorporated into the existing NHS antenatal screening programme for aneuploidy. It will be offered to women who receive a 'high risk' result following current screening methods (combined test or quadruple test), and will further reduce the number of invasive tests performed, whilst maintaining current detection rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine the costs and outcomes of different screening strategies for Down Syndrome (DS) in singleton pregnancies.Study Design: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the costs and the outcomes of different prenatal screening strategies. Five strategies were compared for women under 35-year of age: 1A) triple test (TT), 2A); combined test (CT), 3A) Non-invasive Prenatal Screening Test by using cell free fetal DNA (NIPT), 4A) and 5A) NIPT as a second-step screening for high-risk patients detected by either TT, or CT respectively. For women ≥35-year of age, 1B) implementing invasive test (amniocentesis -AC) and 2B) NIPT for all women were compared. Data was analyzed to obtain the outcomes, total costs, the cost per women and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for screening strategies.Results: Among the current strategies for women under 35 years old, CT is clearly dominated to TT, as it is more effective and less costly. Although, the current routine practice (2A) is the least-costly strategy, implementing NIPT as a second step screening to high-risk women identified by CT (5A) would be more effective than 2A; leading to a 10.2% increase in the number of detected DS cases and a 96.3% reduction in procedural related losses (PRL). However, its cost to the Social Security Institution that is a public entity would be 17 times higher and increase screening costs by 1.5 times. Strategy 5A would result in an incremental cost effectiveness of 6,873,082 (PPP) US$ when compared to the current one (2A). Strategy 1B-for offering AC to all women ≥35-year of age is dominated over NIPT (2B), as it would detect more DS cases and would be less costly. On the other hand, there would be 206 PRL associated with AC, but NIPT provides clear clinical benefits as there would be no PRL with NIPT.Conclusions: NIPT leads to very high costs despite its high effectiveness in terms of detecting DS cases and avoiding PRL. The cost of NIPT should be decreased, otherwise, only individuals who can afford to pay from out-of-pocket could benefit. We believe that reliable cost-effective prenatal screening policies are essential in countries with low and smiddle income and high birth rates as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Down screening has been available within clinical practice for over 50 years during which time significant innovation and exciting new advances have improved the accuracy and safety of screening, and improved choice for women who are considering antenatal screening for Down syndrome. The UK National Screening Committee is responsible for setting the national standards regarding screening and it has steadily and consistently directed and facilitated an increase in the detection rate whilst minimising the screen positive rate of Down syndrome screening. This has reduced the number of false positive results and consequently the number of invasive diagnostic procedures and their related miscarriages. Non-invasive pre-natal testing (NIPT) using cell free DNA is a rapidly evolving field and it will soon be incorporated into the existing NHS antenatal screening programme for aneuploidy. It will be offered to women who receive a ‘high risk’ result following current screening methods (combined test or quadruple test), and will further reduce the number of invasive tests performed, whilst maintaining current detection rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe any trends in the uptake of antenatal screening for Down's syndrome since the addition of the earlier first trimester combined test. Study Design: All antenatal screening tests for Down's syndrome were carried out and their results were recorded by the Clinical Biochemistry Department at the Hull Royal Infirmary (HRI) and reviewed against the antenatal booking data held at the Women and Children's Hospital at HRI. The uptake of antenatal Down's syndrome screening for 5 different age groups of women across a four-year-period from 2007 to 2010 was analysed. Results: There was a significant increase in uptake of antenatal screening for Down's syndrome from 43.9% to 56.5% after the introduction of the combined test in 2010. This increase was apparent in all age groups. There was no change in the proportion of women opting for an invasive test following a positive screening test. Conclusion: Addition of the earlier first trimester combined test has increased uptake of antenatal screening for Down's syndrome in women of all ages. This is most likely due to the advantages this test gives women such as earlier decision making, earlier further invasive diagnostic testing and earlier termination, if necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In the past two decades second-trimester maternal serum screening for Down syndrome has been the most common strategy for prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal aneuploidies. More recently, screening for and diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities have increasingly been performed in the first trimester. With improvements and technological advances in ultrasound, it is now possible to identify many fetal anomalies at 11–13weeks of gestation. During the same period biochemical markers in maternal serum (PAPP-A and hCGβ) combined with sonographic measurement of nuchal translucency achieve a Down syndrome detection rate of 85% with a 5% false-positive rate. We describe here the potential of first-trimester markers to screen for Down syndrome as well as other adverse outcomes such as fetal loss, pre-eclampsia, intrauterine growth retardation, and preterm delivery. This early consultation may be the opportunity to help counsel patients and to screen for other adverse complications during pregnancy, such as pre-eclampsia, and to manage potential adverse pregnancy outcomes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: We analyzed the cost-effectiveness (CE) and performances of commonly used prenatal Down syndrome (DS) screening strategies. Study Design: We performed computer simulations to compare 8 screening options by applying empirical data from Serum, Urine, and Ultrasound Screening Study trials on the population of 110,948 pregnancies. Screening strategies outcomes, CE ratios, and incremental CE ratios were measured. Results: The most CE DS screening strategy was the contingent screening method (CE ratio of Can$26,833 per DS case). Its incremental CE ratio compared to the second-most CE strategy (serum integrated screening) was Can$3815 per DS birth detected. Among the procedures respecting guidelines, our results identified the combined test as the screening strategy with the highest CE ratio (Can$47,358) and the highest number of procedure-related euploid miscarriages (n = 71). Conclusion: In regard to CE, contingent screening is the best choice. The combined test, which is the most popular screening strategy, shows many limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study assessed obstetrics and gynecology and pediatrics residents'' knowledge about Down syndrome (DS) and their comfort in delivering a prenatal or postnatal diagnosis of DS before and after interaction with a web-based tutorial. Study Design: A team of physicians, parents, and educational specialists developed an interactive tutorial that asked resident physicians to provide their own responses to “virtual patient” cases related to DS diagnoses in utero and at birth. We tested resident knowledge and comfort-level changes and their satisfaction with the web-based tool. Results: The study yielded significant improvement in knowledge and level of comfort changes with both obstetrics and gynecology and pediatric resident physicians at 16 programs nationally. There were no significant differences between the 2 specialties. Conclusion: This interactive tutorial is effective in improving physicians'' knowledge of and comfort level with imparting accurate, balanced information about DS pre- and postnatally. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]