Search

Objective: To determine risk of Down syndrome (DS) in multiple relative to singleton pregnancies, and compare prenatal diagnosis rates and pregnancy outcome., Design: Population-based prevalence study based on EUROCAT congenital anomaly registries., Setting: Eight European countries., Population: 14.8 million births 1990-2009; 2.89% multiple births., Methods: DS cases included livebirths, fetal deaths from 20 weeks, and terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (TOPFA). Zygosity is inferred from like/unlike sex for birth denominators, and from concordance for DS cases., Main Outcome Measures: Relative risk (RR) of DS per fetus/baby from multiple versus singleton pregnancies and per pregnancy in monozygotic/dizygotic versus singleton pregnancies. Proportion of prenatally diagnosed and pregnancy outcome., Statistical Analysis: Poisson and logistic regression stratified for maternal age, country and time., Results: Overall, the adjusted (adj) RR of DS for fetus/babies from multiple versus singleton pregnancies was 0.58 (95% CI 0.53-0.62), similar for all maternal ages except for mothers over 44, for whom it was considerably lower. In 8.7% of twin pairs affected by DS, both co-twins were diagnosed with the condition. The adjRR of DS for monozygotic versus singleton pregnancies was 0.34 (95% CI 0.25-0.44) and for dizygotic versus singleton pregnancies 1.34 (95% CI 1.23-1.46). DS fetuses from multiple births were less likely to be prenatally diagnosed than singletons (adjOR 0.62 [95% CI 0.50-0.78]) and following diagnosis less likely to be TOPFA (adjOR 0.40 [95% CI 0.27-0.59])., Conclusions: The risk of DS per fetus/baby is lower in multiple than singleton pregnancies. These estimates can be used for genetic counselling and prenatal screening., (© 2014 The Authors. BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: To illustrate regional changes that occurred in screening for Down's syndrome (trisomy 21) in England and Wales from 1989 to 2008., Methods: The National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register has collected data on all ante- and postnatal diagnoses of Down's syndrome in England and Wales since 1989 (n = 27,954). The percentages of (i) diagnoses made antenatally, (ii) antenatal diagnoses that had nuchal translucency (NT) measured, and (iii) antenatal diagnoses in mothers aged 37 and over with advanced maternal age as the sole recorded indication for diagnosis are presented according to where the mother lived (Government Office Region), year of diagnosis (1989-1994, 1995-2000, 2001-2006, 2007-2008), and maternal age (<37 years, ≥37 years)., Results: The percentage of cases diagnosed antenatally has increased in younger women but varies between regions. It remained relatively constant at approximately 70% in older women. The use of NT measurement in antenatal screening has expanded rapidly but varies regionally, being most common in London and the South East where, in 2007-2008, over 75% of antenatal diagnoses in older women had NT measured. The sole indication of advanced maternal age has substantially reduced, and was less than 10% in older mothers in all regions in 2007-2008., Conclusions: There are regional and maternal age variations in Down's syndrome screening and diagnosis. Some regions used NT measurements, and eliminated advanced maternal age as sole reason for antenatal diagnostic testing more quickly than others. The reasons for variations need to be identified and addressed to ensure that when new screening techniques become available, regional differences are minimized.

Objective: Congenital anomaly registers allow the rates of anomalies to be monitored and are essential for understanding their epidemiology. We estimate the ascertainment and accuracy of records of Down syndrome (DS) on national and regional registers in England and Wales., Methods: Probabilistic record linkage was used to match records of DS from three sources: the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register (NDSCR), seven regional members of the British Isles Network of Congenital Anomaly Registers (BINOCAR) and the National Congenital Anomaly System (NCAS). Capture-recapture methods were then used to estimate the ascertainment of each register., Results: The NDSCR and BINOCAR registers ascertain around 95% of both pre-natally and post-natally diagnosed cases of DS. NCAS collects data only on births and ascertains 55% of cases of DS births, which is currently around 25% of all DS diagnoses. NCAS ascertainment varies according to whether a BINOCAR register covering the same area contributes information to NCAS, varying from 80% in areas where regional registers contribute to 50% where regional registers do not., Conclusions: Active case finding through regional registers is essential for monitoring congenital anomalies. The ascertainment of the NDSCR and BINOCAR is sufficient to provide reliable epidemiology and surveillance of congenital anomalies, whereas that of NCAS is not.

Objectives: Antenatal screening for Down's syndrome relies on the use of multiple markers in combination. Markers that are highly correlated can cause statistical instability. We used the maximum variance inflation factor (VIF(max)) to determine whether a screening test using multiple markers was robust to imprecision in the estimation of the marker distribution parameters., Methods: The VIF(max) for a specified screening test was calculated from the correlations between markers in Down's syndrome pregnancies for six tests: integrated and serum integrated tests without repeat measurements, both tests with repeat measurements across trimesters analysed in the standard way, and both tests with repeat measurements analysed as cross-trimester (CT) marker ratios. The screening performance of each test using published parameter values, in terms of the false-negative rates for a 3% false-positive rate (FN(3)), were calculated for simulated populations with medians 0.2 standard deviations (SD) higher or lower than the published values (to reflect imprecision in parameter estimation) for pregnancy-associated plasma protein A and unconjugated oestriol in affected pregnancies. For each test, the VIF(max) value was compared with the coefficient of variation of the FN(3) (FN(3) CV). An independent set of 27 Down's syndrome pregnancies was used to determine how many had meaningless low risks (<1 in 10,000) with each test., Results: Tests with VIF(max) values greater than 5 had FN(3)CV values over 50%, but those with VIF(max) values less than 5 had FN(3) CV values less than 21%. The numbers of Down's syndrome pregnancies with meaningless low risk estimates in the independent set were 18 (64%) in tests with VIF(max) values > or =5 and none for those with values <5., Conclusion: VIF(max) values of 5 or more suggest instability. The tests using CT marker ratios were stable (VIF(max) < 3), but the tests using repeat measurements in the standard manner were not (VIF(max) > 5).

Two equations are given to estimate the risk of a woman having a Down's syndrome pregnancy according to maternal age: one for use in estimating antenatal screening performance and the other for use in estimating an individual woman's risk of having an affected pregnancy. Because Down's syndrome pregnancies have an increased tendency to result in a spontaneous fetal loss, the estimation of a woman's risk of having an affected pregnancy will be dependent on gestational age. The best estimates of the prevalence of Down's syndrome are obtained from information relating to births and can reliably be adjusted to prevalence in early second trimester. The most reliable estimates of risk of a Down's syndrome pregnancy using all the currently used markers apply to early in the second trimester. These risks cannot accurately be adjusted to apply to term, because the first trimester markers have not in general been studied in pregnancies that continue to term. Therefore the early second trimester of pregnancy is the gestational age at which all screening performances should be given for the different antenatal screening programmes for Down's syndrome.

Objective: To validate empirically the accuracy of antenatal Down's syndrome screening using the Integrated test, to compare this with other screening tests (including the Integrated test with the addition of cross trimester [CT] marker ratios) and to suggest how such validation analyses should be presented and interpreted., Methods: Using data from 7809 unaffected and 27 Down's syndrome pregnancies that had had an Integrated test, risk estimates for various screening tests (maternal age, Double, Triple, Quadruple, Combined, Integrated and serum Integrated tests) that use Integrated test markers were categorized according to quintile categories of risk estimates of the 27 affected pregnancies. For each screening test, the median risk estimate for each category was plotted against the observed prevalence within each category. Such validation plots were also produced for the Integrated test with CT marker ratios by measuring the level of the serum markers in the trimester of pregnancy not already measured in stored samples of all affected and a one-in-five sample of unaffected pregnancies. The robustness of the method was assessed by repeating the analysis for the Integrated test after re-classifying affected pregnancies with low risk estimates as unaffected, simulating the underascertainment of cases., Results: The validation plots (i) confirmed the accuracy of risk estimation for the different tests (by how close the points lay to the line of identity between predicted risk and observed prevalence), (ii) demonstrated the differences in screening performance of the different tests (by the range of risk spanned by the points and, in particular, the separation between the points representing the lowest risk and the next point), and (iii) are robust to underascertainment of affected pregnancies (by having little influence on the closeness of the points to the line of identity)., Conclusion: The validation plot is a useful, simple and robust way to assess the validity of new screening methods, to assess the accuracy of risk estimation and to audit the performance of screening programmes.

Objectives: The proportion of Down's syndrome pregnancies detected prenatally in England and Wales is lower in younger mothers than in older mothers. This paper examines the reasons for this apparent age inequality., Methods: We used data from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register (NDSCR) to examine the time trend of the proportion of Down's syndrome pregnancies diagnosed prenatally according to maternal age over the years 1989-2004 in England and Wales., Results: A lower proportion of younger mothers had their Down's syndrome pregnancy detected prenatally than older mothers; however, this gap has been closing over time. For example, for mothers under 25 years of age only 13% of Down's syndrome pregnancies were detected prenatally from 1989 to 1992, with this figure rising to 34% in 2001-2004, compared with proportions of 74% in both periods for mothers over 44 years of age. A lower uptake of screening among younger women could not explain these differences. The differences in detection rates of the screening methods according to maternal age, particularly of the older screening tests, could account for these differences., Conclusions: The closing gap between the proportions of younger and older women having their affected pregnancy prenatally diagnosed is a confirmation of the improvement of screening methods over time.

Objectives: To determine the recurrence risk of a free trisomy 21 pregnancy., Methods: Data from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register (NDSCR), which contains information on nearly all cases of Down syndrome between 1989 and 2001 in England and Wales were used. Among 11 281 women with a Down syndrome pregnancy who had had at least one previous pregnancy there were 95 women who had had a previous Down syndrome pregnancy., Results: Women who have had a previous Down syndrome pregnancy have a constant absolute excess risk above their maternal age-related risk of having a subsequent affected pregnancy. This absolute excess risk is determined by the age at which the affected pregnancy occurred and is higher for younger than for older women. For example, after a Down syndrome pregnancy at age 20, this excess is 0.62% (95% CI: 0.24 to 1.15%) at early second trimester, and, after one at age 40, it is 0.04% (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.07%)., Conclusion: More precise risk estimates by single year of maternal age for use in genetic counselling are provided, but they need validation from other studies before they are incorporated in the risk estimation routines used in Down syndrome screening programmes., (Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)

Objectives: To determine the risk of a Down syndrome (DS) live birth for women 45 years of age and over., Methods: A meta-analysis of data from five published articles, 13 EUROCAT congenital anomaly population registers and two unpublished sources., Results: Information was available on the number of DS live births occurring amongst 13,745 live births to women 45 years of age and over. Information was also available on DS pregnancies diagnosed prenatally that were subsequently terminated. These pregnancies were adjusted for expected fetal loss to estimate the number of live births that would have occurred in the absence of prenatal diagnoses, when a total of 471 DS live births were estimated to have occurred. The risk of a DS birth did not increase for women 45 years of age and over. The average risk was 34 per 1000 births (95% CI: 31-37)., Conclusion: The risk of a DS live birth for women 45 years of age and over is considerably lower than has often been previously assumed. The most likely explanation is that women of this age are more likely to miscarry DS pregnancies than younger mothers.

Objectives: To display and compare the different published formulae that specify the association between maternal age and the risk of a Down syndrome live birth., Methods: Papers published since 1987 on the prevalence of Down syndrome live births in relation to maternal age were located using MEDLINE and the references given in other papers. The data series and the models fitted to them were plotted to obtain a visual idea of their similarities and differences., Results: The observed and modelled age-specific rates for Down syndrome births were remarkably similar in all published series of data for women up to the age of 35, were reasonably similar for women aged 35 to 45, but differed for women older than 45., Conclusion: In practice, the overall small differences in age-related risk between the different studies did not materially affect the performance of antenatal screening for Down syndrome. If a choice is to be made, the analysis based on the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register (NDSCR) has marginal advantages since it is based on the largest data set and the corresponding model fits the data well. More data is needed to clarify the pattern of risk with maternal age among women over 45 years of age., (Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: To revise the estimates of maternal age specific live birth prevalence of Down's syndrome in the absence of antenatal screening and selective termination using newly available data., Setting and Design: Data were used from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register (NDSCR), which contains information on nearly all antenatally or postnatally diagnosed cases of Down's syndrome in which a karyotype was confirmed between 1989 and 1998 in England and Wales. It is the largest single series of data on the prevalence of Down's syndrome., Results and Conclusion: The prevalence does not continue increasing at an increasing rate with age above age 45 as has been previously assumed. Above this age the rate of increase declines with increasing age. The overall age pattern is sigmoidal. A new logit logistic model is proposed which fits the data well. The risk of a Down's syndrome live birth is given by: risk=1/(1+exp(7.330-4.211/(1+exp(-0.282x(age-37.23))))).

To examine the Down's syndrome screening positive rate among in vitro fertilisation (IVF) pregnancies, we measured second trimester serum marker levels in singleton IVF pregnancies (cases) and in five non-IVF pregnancies (controls) matched to each case for gestational age, age of mother, and duration of storage of the serum sample. There were 151 IVF pregnancies in which alpha fetoprotein, unconjugated oestriol (uE3), free beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) and total hCG were measured, 104 IVF pregnancies in which free alpha-hCG was measured, and 39 IVF pregnancies in which inhibin A was measured. Median uE3 levels were 6% lower (P = 0.003), median free beta-hCG 9% higher (P = 0.024), and median total hCG 14% higher (P = 0.026) in IVF pregnancies compared with controls. The screen positive rate in the IVF pregnancies (28%) was about twice as high as that in controls (17%). High hCG levels may be explained by progesterone remaining high in IVF pregnancies. The low uE3 levels remain unexplained. In Down's syndrome screening in IVF pregnancies hCG and uE3 values should be adjusted to avoid the high screen positive rate.

It is recognized that pregnancies with Down syndrome are liable to end in spontaneous fetal loss. It is important to determine the magnitude of this effect so that it can be taken into account when assessing the results of antenatal screening programmes for Down syndrome. Failure to do so will tend to overestimate the detection rate in intervention studies in which the screening results are used to identify women for a diagnostic test and the offer of a termination of pregnancy if indicated. We present new data on the spontaneous fetal loss in Down syndrome pregnancies from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register (1989-1996). We compare our results with published results of other studies on the subject to obtain a summary estimate. We exclude one study from the meta analysis due to incorrect methodology resulting in an overestimate of fetal loss. Based on the combined data (i) between the time of chorionic villus sampling and term an estimated 43 per cent (95 per cent CI: 31-54 per cent) of pregnancies ended in a miscarriage or still birth, (ii) between the time of amniocentesis and term an estimated 23 per cent (95 per cent CI: 19 28 per cent) of pregnancies ended in a miscarriage or still birth, and (iii) 12 per cent (95 per cent CI: 2-23 per cent) of births were stillborn or resulted in a neonatal death.

Background: Associations between environmental hazards and the occurrence of congenital anomalies may be detectable by seeking evidence of non-random occurrence of cases (clusters). There have been a number of anecdotal reports of occurrences of clusters of Down syndrome (DS)., Methods: Data from a national register of cytogenetic diagnoses of Down syndrome births and legal terminations occurring between 1989 and 1995 were used to examine the possibility of clustering. Space-time clustering at Regional Health Authority (RHA) level was examined by comparing the expected monthly number of DS pregnancies given the maternal age distribution, with the observed numbers. Knox's method was used to determine if any clustering of RHA of unexpectedly high prevalence had occurred. Seasonality was also investigated by comparing monthly expected and observed numbers of DS pregnancies. Time clustering was examined by using the scan statistic to determine whether a statistically significant excess of pregnancies in any 3-month period occurred in any individual or adjacent groups of District Health Authority (DHA)., Results: The numbers of DS pregnancies were no higher than expected (P < 0.05) in the same RHA over consecutive months. There was no evidence of any seasonality of DS pregnancies (P > 0.5). Only two individual DHA and three pairs of adjacent DHA had significantly high scan statistics (P < 0.03), but as over 400 statistical tests had been completed 12 clusters would be expected to have occurred due to chance alone., Conclusion: There was no evidence of any space-time clustering in DS at DHA level.

Objectives: To evaluate the completeness of notifications of Down's syndrome live births and terminations to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) using data from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register (NDSCR). To examine the agreement of observed birth prevalence of Down's syndrome with the expected birth prevalence derived from published maternal age specific rates., Methods: The number of live births (adjusted to allow for the estimated underascertainment) and the number of terminations due to fetal Down's syndrome from NDSCR were compared with those figures reported to the ONS. Subsequently, using the NDSCR figures, the live birth prevalence of Down's syndrome that would have occurred in the absence of antenatal diagnosis and selective termination was calculated in England and Wales in the years 1990-1993. These figures were compared with those derived by applying published age specific prevalences to the maternal age distribution in England and Wales., Results: It is estimated that only 48% and 46% respectively of Down's syndrome live births and terminations of pregnancy were notified to ONS between 1990 and 1993. The annual expected birth prevalences of Down's syndrome obtained by applying maternal age specific prevalences to the maternal age distribution were in close agreement with observed rates from NDSCR., Conclusions: There is considerable underreporting of Down's syndrome births and terminations to ONS. The NDSCR data are more complete and therefore the effects of screening should be monitored using data from this source, or using estimates derived from the age specific rates of Down's syndrome.

The national register of chromosomal anomalies that lead to Down's syndrome has enabled the monitoring of change in prenatal diagnosis for this condition, and the factors which affect the change. The proportion of cases of cytogenetically diagnosed Down's syndrome in England and Wales detected prenatally rose to 46% in 1991-2 from 31% in 1988-9, a 1.5-fold increase (95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.7). The increase was confined to mothers under 40 years and was due to the introduction of screening by maternal serum analysis and ultrasound. Over a quarter of affected pregnancies in women aged 25-29 were detected prenatally in 1991-2 compared with less than 10% in 1988-9. Analysis of the data showed regional differences in prenatal diagnosis rates, and in the length of time elapsing between the diagnostic test and termination of an affected pregnancy. An inexplicable finding was that this period varied with the sex of the fetus, being on average a day longer for females than for males.

Objectives: It is widely thought that correlations between screening markers will tend to degrade screening performance. We performed a computer simulation study to investigate the quantitative effect of correlations between two markers on screening performance, using prenatal screening for Down's syndrome as an example, although the results apply generally. Methods: Monte Carlo simulation was used to generate values of two hypothetical markers, A and B, in 1000 affected and 1000 unaffected pregnancies. The means, standard deviations and correlations of A and B were varied in five different examples. Results: If markers A and B are, on average, higher in affected than unaffected pregnancies and each marker, individually, has the same detection rate for a given false-positive rate (i.e. the same screening performance), then the screening performance of A and B together tends to decrease as A and B become more positively correlated with each other (within affected or unaffected categories) and tends to increase as A and B become more negatively correlated. If A is, on average, higher in affected pregnancies and B is, on average, lower in affected pregnancies (but again each marker has the same screening performance), the opposite pattern is observed; screening performance increases as A and B become more positively correlated and screening performance decreases as they become more negatively correlated. If A and B have unequal screening performances, modest correlations between A and B have little effect on the screening performance of A and B together, but when the correlations are strong whether positive or negative (with r values greater than about 0.45 or less than -0.45) screening performance progressively increases. Conclusion: Correlations between screening markers considered separately in affected and unaffected pregnancies can either decrease or increase screening performance. In practice, these effects are usually modest, because most screening markers are not highly correlated with each other and the effects become important only with strong correlations, whether positive or negative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]