American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 202, Issue 3 , Pages 253.e1-253.e7 , March 2010

The cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening for spinal muscular atrophy

Presented orally at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Chicago, IL, Feb. 1-6, 2010, and received the Dru Carlson Award for the Best Abstract in Genetics/Ultrasound.

  • Sarah E. Little, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
    • ,
  • Vanitha Janakiraman, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
    • ,
  • Anjali Kaimal, MD, MAS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
    • ,
  • Thomas Musci, MD

      Affiliations

    • San Francisco Perinatal Associates, San Francisco, CA
    • ,
  • Jeffrey Ecker, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
    • ,
  • Aaron B. Caughey, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Decision and Economic Analyses in Reproduction and Women's Health Group and the Center for Clinical and Policy Perinatal Research, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA

Received 22 November 2009 ,Revised 8 January 2010 ,Accepted 14 January 2010.

References 

  1. Kostova FV, Williams VC, Keemskerk J, et al. Spinal muscular atrophy: classification, diagnosis, management, pathogenesis, and future research directions. J Child Neurol. 2007;22:926–945
  2. Committee on Genetics. ACOG committee opinion no 432 (Spinal muscular atrophy). Obstet Gynecol. 2009;133:1194–1196
  3. National Institute for Neurologic Disorders and Stroke. NINDS spinal muscular atrophy information page. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/sma/sma.htmAccessed Nov. 11, 2009
  4. Prior T. Carrier screening for spinal muscular atrophy. Genet Med. 2008;10:840–842
  5. Caughey AB, Hopkins LM, Norton ME. Chorionic villus sampling compared with amniocentesis and the difference in the rate of pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:612–616
  6. Odibo AO, Gray DL, Dicke JM, Stamilio DM, Macones GA, Crane JP. Revisiting the fetal loss rate after second-trimester genetic amniocentesis: a single center's 16-year experience. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:589–595
  7. Eddleman KA, Malone FD, Sullivan L, et al. Pregnancy loss rates after midtrimester amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1067–1072
  8. Doyle NM, Gardner MO. Prenatal cystic fibrosis screening in Mexican Americans: an economic analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:769–774
  9. National Center for Health Statistics. National Vital Statistics United States for 2003. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Services; 2003;
  10. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer price indices. Washington, DC: US Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2009;
  11. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell RB, Gold MR. Recommendation for reporting cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA. 1996;276:1339–1341
  12. Seattle Children's Hospital Genetic Laboratories. http://www.seattlechildrens.org/healthcare-professionals/access-services/diagnostic-services/geneticslab/Accessed Nov. 11, 2009
  13. Harris RA, Washington AE, Nease RF, Kuppermann M. Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold. Lancet. 2004;363:276–282
  14. Waitzman NJ, Romano PS, Scheffler RM. Estimates of the economic costs of birth defects. Inquiry. 1994;31:188–205
  15. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Compensation indices. Washington, DC: US Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2009;
  16. Wang CH, Finkel RS, Bertini ES, et al. Consensus statement for standard of care in spinal muscular atrophy. J Child Neurol. 2007;22:1027
  17. Hardart MK, Burns JP, Truog RD. Respiratory support in spinal muscular atrophy type I: a survey of physician practices and attitudes. Pediatrics. 2002;110:e24
  18. Sevick MA, Kamlet MS, Hoffman LA, Rawson I. Economic cost of home-based care for ventilator-assisted individuals. Chest. 1996;109:1597–1606
  19. Kuppermann M, Nease RF, Learman LA, Gates E, Blumberg B, Washington AE. Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96:511–516
  20. Bach JR, Vega J, Majors J, Friedman A. Spinal muscular atrophy type 1 quality of life. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;82:137–142
  21. Owens DK. Interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:716–717
  22. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996;
  23. Dosiou C, Sanders GD, Araki SS, Crapo LM. Screening pregnant women for autoimmune thyroid disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur J Endocrinol. 2008;158:841–851
  24. Vandenbussche FP, De Jong-Potjer LC, Stiggelbout AM, Le Cessie S, Keirse MJ. Differences in the valuation of birth outcomes among pregnant women, mothers, and obstetricians. Birth. 1999;26:178–183
  25. Radhakrishnan M, van Gool K, Hall J, Delatycki M, Massie J. Economic evaluation of cystic fibrosis screening: a review of the literature. Health Policy. 2008;85:133–147
  26. Rowley PT, Loader S, Kaplan RM. Prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis: an economic evaluation. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;63:1160–1174

 Dr Caughey is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation as Physician Faculty Scholar RWJF-61535.

 Drs Ecker and Caughey served as senior authors.

 Cite this article as: Little SE, Janakiraman V, Kaimal A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening for spinal muscular atrophy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;202:253.e1-7.

 Reprints not available from the authors.

 The racing flag logo above indicates that this article was rushed to press for the benefit of the scientific community.

PII: S0002-9378(10)00062-1

doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.032

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 202, Issue 3 , Pages 253.e1-253.e7 , March 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution