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]

This is the fourth in a series of papers. The previous papers inform midwifery practice by providing insight into whether, to what extent and how cognitive status influences understanding of Down syndrome screening information, the importance of tailoring information, and highlighting areas of communication that are effective in facilitating understanding. These findings led to the development of recommendations to inform a 'best practice' model for midwifery communication of screening information within a conceptual framework that recognises the importance of accurate facts, empathic communication and support for decision-making in a woman-centred approach. These recommendations may have wider relevance beyond midwife communication of Down syndrome screening and may impact upon the communication of other screening information provided within antenatal and neonatal screening. It is important that screening information is communicated effectively in light of changes to screening programmes, such as the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To report on the routine clinical implementation of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis of maternal blood for trisomies 21, 18 and 13, contingent on the results of the first-trimester combined test in twin pregnancy.Methods: Screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 was carried out in 959 twin pregnancies by assessment of a combination of maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, and serum free β-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A at 11-13 weeks' gestation in two UK NHS hospitals. Women in the high-risk group (risk ≥ 1 in 100) were offered the option of invasive testing, cfDNA testing or no further testing, and those in the intermediate-risk group (risk 1 in 101 to 1 in 2500 in the first phase of the study and 1 in 101 to 1 in 500 in the second phase) were offered cfDNA or no further testing. The trisomic status of the pregnancies was determined by prenatal or postnatal karyotyping or examination of the neonates.Results: In 42 (4.4%) of the 959 pregnancies, there was termination, miscarriage or stillbirth with no known karyotype or there was loss to follow-up. The 917 pregnancies with known trisomic status of both twins included six that were discordant for trisomy 21, four that were discordant for trisomy 18 and 907 with no trisomy 21, 18 or 13. Following combined screening, 47 (5.1%), 203 (22.1%) and 667 (72.7%) of the pregnancies were classified as high risk, intermediate risk and low risk, respectively. The high-risk group included five (83.3%) cases of trisomy 21 and three (75.0%) of trisomy 18. The cfDNA test was carried out in 224 pregnancies and results were provided in 214 (95.5%); this group included six pregnancies with trisomy 21, three with trisomy 18 and 206 with no trisomy 21, 18 or 13. The cfDNA test classified correctly as screen positive all six cases of trisomy 21 and two of the three with trisomy 18, and as screen negative for each of the trisomies all 206 unaffected pregnancies. Contingent screening led to prenatal detection of all cases of trisomy 21 and three of four with trisomy 18.Conclusion: This study has demonstrated the feasibility of introducing cfDNA testing, contingent on the results of the first-trimester combined test for major trisomies, in a routine population of twin pregnancies. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this study is to identify the optimal cut-off points of contingent serum screening excluding nuchal translucency (NT) measurement, to categorize the risk level in the first trimester.Methods: A prospective database of women undergoing contingent serum screening, without NT measurement, was reviewed. In conventional categorization, the results of first-trimester screening were categorized into high risk (>1:30) (invasive diagnosis was offered); intermediate risk (1:30-1:1500) (second-trimester screening was needed); and low risk (<1:1500) (no further test). We recategorized the risk levels using various upper and lower cut-offs and compared detection rates, false-positive rates, and rates of intermediate risk.Results: Among 24,874 women, the prevalence of Down syndrome was 1:691. The previously agreed cut-offs had a detection rate of 88.9% and a false-positive rate of 8.5% with high rate of intermediate risk (38.2%). Re-categorization provided the optimal lower and upper cut-offs 1/900 and 1/50, respectively, giving a detection rate of 86.1%, a false-positive rate of 8.1%, and a rate of intermediate risk of 24.8%.Conclusions: This is the first study on contingent serum screening without NT measurement which shows a high detection rate with an acceptable false-positive rate. The optimal cut-offs to categorize the risk levels of the upper and the lower cut-off was 1:30-1:50 and 1:900, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the performance of high-resolution chromosomal microarray (CMA) as the standard diagnostic approach for genomic imbalances in pregnancies with increased risk based on combined first-trimester screening (cFTS).Methods: This was a retrospective study of genomic findings in a cohort of 575 consecutive pregnancies undergoing invasive testing because of a cFTS risk ≥ 1:300 on a publicly funded population-based screening program in the Central and Northern Regions of Denmark, between September 2015 and September 2016. Women with fetal nuchal translucency thickness ≥ 3.5 mm or opting for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) were excluded. Comparative genomic hybridization was performed using a 180-K oligonucleotide array on DNA extracted directly from chorionic villus/amniocentesis samples. Genomic outcomes were reported in relation to cFTS findings.Results: Of the 575 pregnancies that underwent invasive testing, CMA detected 22 (3.8% (95% CI, 2.5-5.7%)) cases of trisomies 21, 18 and 13, 14 (2.4% (95% CI, 1.4-4.0%)) cases of other types of aneuploidy and 15 (2.6% (95% CI, 1.5-4.3%)) cases with a pathogenic or probably pathogenic copy number variant (CNV). Of the 15 CNVs, three were > 10 Mb and would probably have been detected by chromosomal analysis, but the other 12 would most probably not have been detected using conventional cytogenetic techniques; therefore, the overall detection rate of CMA (8.9% (95% CI, 6.8-11.5%)) was significantly higher than that estimated for conventional cytogenetic analysis (6.8% (95% CI, 5.0-9.1%)) (P = 0.0049). Reducing the cFTS risk threshold for invasive diagnostic testing to 1 in 100 or 1 in 50 would have led, respectively, to 60% or 100% of the pathogenic CNVs being missed.Conclusions: CMA is a valuable diagnostic technique that can identify an increased number of genomic aberrations in pregnancies at increased risk on cFTS. Limiting diagnostic testing to pregnancies with a risk above 1 in 100 or 1 in 50, as proposed in contingent NIPT/invasive testing models, would lead to a significant proportion of pathogenic CNVs being missed at first-trimester screening. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [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: Prenatal screening with cell-free DNA (cfDNA) offers improved detection of Down syndrome (T21) compared to conventional screening. These tests are expensive and have fewer detectable anomalies. Our objective was to investigate potential costs and test performance of screening algorithms when accounting for detectable aneuploidies.Methods: This is a cost analysis for a large military treatment facility. Using a theoretical delivery cohort and published performance data, universal screening with cfDNA was compared to sequential screening, comparing T21 to all detectable aneuploidies. Predicted test performance and costs were calculated.Results: A cohort of 3000 deliveries was used. For T21, universal cfDNA is more expensive ($1,346,064) than sequential screening ($244,885), but has a lower false positive rate and avoids 101 invasive diagnostic tests. An additional case of T21 is detected with a marginal cost of $1,101,179. For all detectable aneuploidies, cfDNA is more expensive ($1,353,660) than sequential screening ($239,189), and 59 invasive diagnostic tests are avoided. Sequential screening detects an additional case of aneuploidy, with a cost savings of $1,114,471.Conclusions: Although cfDNA is superior in detecting T21 cases, sequential screening is superior when considering all aneuploidies detectable. The cost increase with universal cfDNA is significant, and is not justified with small improvements in the performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate first-trimester screening protocols for detecting trisomy 21 in an Indian population.Methods: The present prospective study collected data from women with singleton pregnancies and a crown-to-rump length of 45-84 mm who presented at the fetal medicine unit of a tertiary care center in North India between June 1, 2006, and December 31, 2015, for combined first-trimester screening. Maternal age, nuchal translucency, nasal bone, and maternal serum levels of free beta human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein A were assessed for calculating the risk of trisomy 21. Tricuspid regurgitation and qualitative analysis of ductus venosus data were available from June 2010, and were included where available. Trisomy-21 detection rates were calculated for various screening protocols and were compared.Results: There were 4523 women screened and 24 records of trisomy 21. Combined screening with maternal age, nuchal translucency, nasal bone, tricuspid regurgitation, and ductus venosus demonstrated optimal detection and false-positive rates of 93.8% and 1.9%, respectively. Screening using only maternal age yielded a detection rate of 37.5%; using fixed nuchal translucency cut-off values of 2.5 and 3 mm resulted in detection rates of 66.7% and 37.5%, respectively.Conclusion: Combined first-trimester screening performed well in an Indian population; combining maternal age, nuchal translucency, nasal bone, ductus venosus, and tricuspid regurgitation yielded the most accurate screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health professionals are expected to engage pregnant women in shared decision making to help them make informed values-based decisions about prenatal screening. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) foster shared decision-making, but are rarely used in this context. Our objective was to identify factors that could influence health professionals to use a PtDA for decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome during a clinical pregnancy follow-up.Methods: We planned to recruit a purposive sample of 45 health professionals (obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians and midwives) involved in the care of pregnant women in three clinical sites (15 per site). Participating health professionals first watched a video showing two simulated consecutive prenatal follow-up consultations during which a pregnant woman, her partner and a health professional used a PtDA about Down syndrome prenatal screening. Participants were then interviewed about factors that would influence their use of the PtDA. Questions were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. We performed content analyses of transcribed verbatim interviews.Results: Out of 42 eligible health professionals approached, 36 agreed to be interviewed (86 % response rate). Of these, 27 were female (75 %), nine were obstetrician-gynecologists (25 %), 15 were family physicians (42 %), and 12 were midwives (33 %), with a mean age of 42.1 ± 11.6 years old. We identified 35 distinct factors reported by 20 % or more participants that were mapped onto 10 of the 12 of the Theoretical Domains Framework domains. The six most frequently mentioned factors influencing use of the PtDA were: 1) a positive appraisal (n = 29, 81 %, beliefs about consequences domain); 2) its availability in the office (n = 27, 75 %, environmental context and resources domain); 3) colleagues' approval (n = 27, 75 %, social influences domain); 4) time constraints (n = 26, 72 %, environmental context and resources domain); 5) finding it a relevant source of information (n = 24, 67 %, motivation and goals domain); and 6) not knowing any PtDAs (n = 23, 64 %, knowledge domain).Conclusions: Appraisal, PtDA availability, peer approval, time concerns, evidence and PtDA awareness all affect whether health professionals are likely to use a PtDA to help pregnant women make informed decision about Down syndrome screening. Implementation strategies will need to address these factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyse population-based trends over the entire history of prenatal testing for aneuploidy.Design: Retrospective analysis of state-wide data sets.Setting: Australian state of Victoria with ~70 000 annual births.Population: All pregnant women undergoing invasive prenatal testing at <25 weeks' gestation from 1976 to 2013.Methods: Analysis of three state-wide data sets: (1) Prenatal diagnosis data set of 119 404 amniocenteses and chorionic villus samplings from 1976 to 2013; (2) central serum screening laboratory data set from 1996 to 2013; (3) government birth statistics from 1976 to 2013.Main Outcome Measures: Annual numbers and uptake rates of invasive prenatal tests and serum screening, indications for invasive prenatal testing, prenatal diagnoses of aneuploidy, diagnostic yield of invasive tests.Results: Annual numbers of invasive prenatal tests climbed steadily from 1976, then declined from 2000. In 2013, the number of invasive prenatal tests was the lowest in 25 years, while the number of trisomy 21 diagnoses was the highest ever recorded. Annual uptake of serum screening climbed from 1.6 to 83% over 1996-2013. Results from 2013 showed a high diagnostic yield (15.8%) for a low rate of invasive testing (3.4% of births). Over four decades, the number of invasive procedures performed for each diagnosis of major chromosome abnormality declined from 100 to six.Conclusions: This study demonstrates historic reductions in the proportion of women undergoing invasive testing and dramatic improvements in diagnostic yield. Monitoring the impact of new prenatal technologies on this progress remains an important research priority.Tweetable Abstract: Invasive prenatal testing has reached historic lows due to dramatic improvements in Down syndrome screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis of maternal blood for detection of trisomies 21, 18 and 13 is superior to other methods of screening but is expensive. One strategy to maximize performance at reduced cost is to offer cfDNA testing contingent on the results of the first-trimester combined test that is used currently. The objectives of this study were to report the feasibility of implementing such screening, to examine the factors affecting patient decisions concerning their options for screening and decisions on the management of affected pregnancies and to report the prenatal diagnosis of fetal trisomies and outcome of affected pregnancies following the introduction of contingent screening.Methods: We examined routine clinical implementation of contingent screening in 11,692 singleton pregnancies in two National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in the UK. Women with a risk ≥ 1 in 100 (high-risk group) were offered options of invasive testing, cfDNA testing or no further testing, and those with a risk between 1 in 101 and 1 in 2500 (intermediate-risk group) were offered cfDNA testing or no further testing. The trisomic status of the pregnancies was determined by prenatal or postnatal karyotyping or by examination of the neonates.Results: In the study population of 11,692 pregnancies, there were 47 cases of trisomy 21 and 28 of trisomies 18 or 13. Screening with the combined test followed by invasive testing for all patients in the high-risk group potentially could have detected 87% of trisomy 21 and 93% of trisomies 18 or 13, at a false-positive rate of 3.4%; the respective values for cfDNA testing in the high- and intermediate-risk groups were 98%, 82% and 0.25%. However, in the high-risk group, 38% of women chose invasive testing and 60% chose cfDNA testing; in the intermediate-risk group 92% opted for cfDNA testing. A prenatal diagnosis was made in 43 (91.5%) pregnancies with trisomy 21 and all pregnancies with trisomies 18 or 13. In many affected pregnancies the parents chose to avoid testing or termination and 32% of pregnancies with trisomy 21 resulted in live births.Conclusions: Screening for fetal trisomies by cfDNA analysis of maternal blood, contingent on the results of the combined test, can be implemented easily in routine clinical practice. In the high-risk group from the combined test, most but not all women chose cfDNA testing rather than invasive testing. Performance of screening for trisomy 21 was superior by the cfDNA test than by the combined test. However, prenatal detection of trisomies and pregnancy outcome depend not only on performance of screening tests but also on parental choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess how prenatal screening and diagnostic testing have impacted the diagnosis, termination and birth prevalence of Down syndrome in Western Australia (1980-2013).Method: We analysed trends in termination rates and birth prevalence of Down syndrome using aggregated data (1980-2013). We modelled the expected live-birth rate and prevalence of Down syndrome and compared different eras of screening and diagnosis with respect to the impact on live-birth rate and prevalence of Down syndrome.Results: Between 1980 and 2013, the rate of Down syndrome pregnancies increased, corresponding to a greater proportion of babies born to older women. Following the introduction of screening in 1994, the rate of live-born infants with Down syndrome reduced significantly (p = 0.001). The rate of terminations of pregnancy for Down syndrome remained stable over this period. In the absence of termination, the Down syndrome live-birth rate would have risen from 1.1 per 1000 to 2.17 per 1000 between 1980 and 2013.Conclusion: Prenatal testing in Western Australia has reduced the birth prevalence of Down syndrome despite an increased rate of Down syndrome pregnancies. Most women for whom a prenatal diagnosis of fetal Down syndrome is made, chose to terminate the pregnancy (93%), and this proportion has not changed over the study period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: How does a national prenatal screening program for Down syndrome (DS) perform in detecting sex chromosome abnormalities (SCAs)-Turner syndrome (TS), Klinefelter syndrome, 47,XXX and 47,XYY syndromes.Summary Answer: The SCA detection rate resulting from DS screening was below 50% for all four groups of SCAs.What Is Known Already: The detection rates of SCAs are higher in countries with DS screening. TS is associated with greater nuchal translucency (NT) and lower pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A). However, specific detection rates of SCAs using prenatal DS screening have not been determined. No clear trend in PAPP-A, free beta human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) and NT has been found in the remaining SCAs. Several lines of inquiry suggest that it would be advantageous for individuals with SCA to be detected early in life, leading to prevention or treatment of accompanying conditions. There is limited information about pre- and perinatal status that distinguishes SCA embryogenesis from normal fetal development.Study Design, Size, Duration: A register-based case-control study from the Danish Central Cytogenetic Register (DCCR), cross-linked with the Danish Fetal Medicine Database (DFMD), was performed from 2008 to 2012. Groups of SCAs were compared with DS and then matched with non-SCA controls to assess differences between these groups in prenatal markers and birth outcomes.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We included cases with prenatal and post-natal SCA karyotypes (n = 213), DS (n = 802) and 168 056 controls. We screened 275 037 individuals examined prenatally. We retrieved information regarding maternal age, NT, β-hCG and PAPP-A, as well as details regarding maternal and newborn characteristics.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The DS screening procedure detected 87 per 100 000 TS (42% of expected), 19 per 100 000 Klinefelter syndrome (13% of expected), 16 per 100 000 47,XXX (16% of cases) and 5 per 100 000 47,XYY (5% of expected) SCAs, with an overall detection rate of 27%. Compared with controls, all four SCA groups showed significantly higher NT and lower PAPP-A compared with controls (all P < 0.01) and similar to DS. The legal abortion rate was high for all four syndromes (47,XXX: 24%; 47,XYY: 29%; Klinefelter syndrome: 48%, TS: 84%). For SCA fetuses carried to term, only TS fetuses had consistently lower birthweights and placenta weights than non-SCA controls (both P = 0.0001). A few SCA cases localized in DCCR could not be found in DFMD (n = 16).Limitations, Reason For Caution: Controls were matched on sex of the fetus of cases, meaning that all electively aborted fetuses (before week 12) were excluded, possibly reducing the diversity in the control group. We were not able to localize all diagnosed cases of SCA and DS in DFMD. Although these cases were present in DCCR, we were not able to account for the discrepancy. In addition, we suspect that several SCA children have not been diagnosed yet and future post-natal diagnosis of these cases would reduce the diagnostic yield reported here even further.Wider Implications Of the Findings: The prenatal detection rate is below 50% for all SCAs. The approach used for detecting DS cannot be extended to also include SCAs. In addition, all SCAs have low PAPP-A and increased NT, thus probably reflecting an abnormal embryogenesis. Growth retardation of TS fetuses is if anything more pronounced than previously reported, both when evaluating fetus and placenta.Study Funding/competing Interests: This study received support from Aarhus University and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors have no competing interests that may be relevant to the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down’s syndrome (DS) using cell free fetal DNA in maternal blood has the potential to dramatically alter the way prenatal screening and diagnosis is delivered. Before NIPT can be implemented into routine practice, information is required on its costs and benefits. We investigated the costs and outcomes of NIPT for DS as contingent testing and as first-line testing compared with the current DS screening programme in the UK National Health Service. Methods: We used a pre-existing model to evaluate the costs and outcomes associated with NIPT compared with the current DS screening programme. The analysis was based on a hypothetical screening population of 10,000 pregnant women. Model inputs were taken from published sources. The main outcome measures were number of DS cases detected, number of procedure-related miscarriages and total cost. Results: At a screening risk cut-off of 1∶150 NIPT as contingent testing detects slightly fewer DS cases, has fewer procedure-related miscarriages, and costs the same as current DS screening (around UK£280,000) at a cost of £500 per NIPT. As first-line testing NIPT detects more DS cases, has fewer procedure-related miscarriages, and is more expensive than current screening at a cost of £50 per NIPT. When NIPT uptake increases, NIPT detects more DS cases with a small increase in procedure-related miscarriages and costs. Conclusions: NIPT is currently available in the private sector in the UK at a price of £400-£900. If the NHS cost was at the lower end of this range then at a screening risk cut-off of 1∶150 NIPT as contingent testing would be cost neutral or cost saving compared with current DS screening. As first-line testing NIPT is likely to produce more favourable outcomes but at greater cost. Further research is needed to evaluate NIPT under real world conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Netherlands, both the LifeCycle Elipse (LC) and the Astraia software package are used to calculate the risk of having a child with Down syndrome. Therefore, pregnant women can be presented with dissimilar risks. In this study the conformity between these risks before and after harmonization of the screening program and its influence on the performance indicators of the first trimester screening were evaluated. The agreement between combined risks (based on the biochemical parameters PAPP-A and fβ-hCG and a nuchal translucency measurement) was expressed as intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.99. Conformity between combined risks was better after harmonization (Cohen's κ=0.75) than before harmonization (Cohen's κ=0.63). For both risk calculation software packages the area under the ROC-curve was 0.84. The database contained 42 Down syndrome cases; based on the odds of being affected given a positive result (OAPR), LC performed slightly better than Astraia before harmonization (17.9 vs. 21.5, respectively). It has been acknowledged that using different software packages could lead to dissimilar risk calculations. In this study the screening performance indicators of two software packages were quite similar. The agreement of the screening performance after harmonization remains to be seen, but is expected to be even higher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to give an overview of current status of worldwide discussion of effectivness of Down's syndrome screeening programs. This article explaines structure of basic screening strategies and review of their published evidence. In this article screening tests of the first trimester (combined test with or without new sonographic markers), the second trimester (quadruple, triple and double test) and tests which combine markes of the first trimester with markers of the second trimester (integrated test, sequential test and contingent tests) are discussed. Arguments supporting current trend to perform screening in the first trimester with combination ultrasound and biochemical markers of the first trimester are discussed. [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]

Objective: To report the strategy of first-trimester aneuploidy screening in pregnancies at risk for homozygous α(0)-thalassemian.Methods: Women at risk of homozygous α(0)-thalassemia were given an ultrasound examination at 11-14 weeks' gestation to exclude an affected pregnancy. Fetal cardiothoracic ratio (CTR) and nuchal translucence (NT) were measured. If cardiomegaly was found, chorionic villus sampling (CVS) was offered for α-thalassemia; otherwise the first-trimester combined screening test was performed on the pregnancy. The invasive testing for karyotyping was only followed in those cases with a positive aneuploidy screening test.Results: In total, 69 of 288 pregnancies were found to be affected by homozygous α(0)-thalassemia using ultrasound, and the findings were confirmed by invasive testing. In the remaining 219 pregnancies, invasive testing was not performed for α-thalassemia because of a normal fetal CTR, and the women received the first-trimester combined screening. Nine CVS procedures were performed for karyotyping because of a positive aneuploidy screening. Totally three pregnancies with aneuploidy were diagnosed and terminated.Conclusions: Our strategy can selectively detect aneuploidy pregnancies not affected by homozygous α-thalassemia, and, meanwhile, save on the cost of unnecessary aneuploidy screening or karyotyping in pregnancies with an affected fetus of homozygous α(0)-thalassemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the usefulness of triple-marker screening for Down syndrome in Venezuela.Method: Maternal serum concentrations of alpha fetoprotein (AFP), beta human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG), and unconjugated estriol (uE3) were measured weekly in 3895 women from the 15th to the 20th week of pregnancy. Population-specific likelihood ratios were determined and used to calculate the risk of fetal Down syndrome for each pregnancy.Results: The median multiple of the median values for AFP, beta-hCG, and uE3 concentrations were 0.69, 2.10, and 0.67 for the affected pregnancies. The likelihood ratio for a positive result was 1:19. The detection and false-positive rates were 69.23% and 5.8%.Conclusion: These findings were consistent with reported data and therefore confirmed triple-marker serum screening as effective and suitable for prenatal care in Venezuela. Latin American governments and Health Agencies should recommend offering this screening method to all pregnant women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses various prenatal screening options for Down syndrome and other fetal abnormalities. Down syndrome is the most common genetic cause of mental retardation. Screening options include second trimester quad, first trimester combined, serum integrated, full integrated and sequential integrated.

Pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) is a maternal serum marker of fetal chromosomal disease and a risk marker for adverse outcome. PAPP-A in the circulation exists both as a 2:2 complex (PAPP-A/proMBP) with the proform of eosinophil major basic protein (proMBP) and as dimeric PAPP-A. Non-PAPP-A containing proMBP complexes constitute the bulk of proMBP in maternal serum. We developed and characterized a sandwich enzyme immunoassay for PAPP-A using a polyclonal rabbit anti-PAPP-A/proMBP antibody (SSI 6823) and a monoclonal murine anti-PAPP-A/proMBP antibody (HYB 234-3), reactive with the PAPP-A part of PAPP-A/proMBP. The assay range was 2 mIU/L-500 mIU/L, intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation <10%. The immunoreactivity eluted ahead of thyroglobulin, Mr 669 kDa, in gel filtration and bound to a heparin column. Serum concentrations of PAPP-A were determined in gestational weeks 5-13 in 167 pregnant women with normal fetuses and 39 women with Down's syndrome (DS) fetuses. The median PAPP-A MoM (multiples of the median in normal controls) in DS pregnancies was 0.30 (quartile range: 0.17-0.54). The PAPP-A logMoMs in DS pregnancies were normally distributed with a mean of -0.5927 and SD of 0.3639. When simulating the performance of PAPP-A and age as markers for DS in population screening a detection rate (DR) of 62% was found for a screen positive rate (SPR) of 5%. Together with beta-HCG and nuchal translucency, two other first trimester markers for fetal DS, a DR 90% could be obtained for an SPR of 5%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives We evaluated the performance of first trimester screening for Down syndrome in women less than 35 years of age (study group) and in women aged 35 years or more (control group) in an unselected low-risk population. Methods The study group comprised a total of 63 945 women who participated in the first trimester combined screening in public health care in Finland during the study period of 1 May 2002 to 31 December 2008. Women at the age of 35 or more ( n = 13 004) were controls. Prevalence of Down syndrome, detection rate, false positive rate and number of invasive procedures needed to detect a single case of Down syndrome were analyzed in both groups. Results The overall prevalence of Down syndrome ( n = 73) in the study group was 1:876. The number of detected cases was 54. The detection rate was 74.0% with a false positive rate of 2.8%. Number of invasive procedures needed to detect a single case of Down syndrome was 33. In the control group, the detection rate was 87.0% with a false positive rate of 11.9%. The number of invasive procedures needed to detect a single case of Down syndrome was 15. The differences in detection rate and false positive rate were significant, P < 0.012, P < 0.001, respectively. Conclusion The overall detection rate given for the entire population is an overestimate for a woman younger than the age of 35, which should be taken into consideration when counselling women of that age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author comments on the method of test interpretation for suboptimal Down's syndrome screening. He wrote a paper urging the combination of biochemical and ultrasound screening for Down's syndrome into a single late first-trimester test. At that time, the method of test interpretation hinders rapprochement. He suggests three principles of screening needed in evaluating the optimal way to allow for gestation and calculate risks.

The article offers information on the cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) screening and its increasing use in Australia. Topics discussed include a study in Denmark which reported a 50% reduction in live-born prevalence of Down syndrome and 50% reduction in invasive testing following the introduction of combined first tri-mester screening, and another study in Victoria which found a high positive predictive value for cffDNA.

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]