An economic evaluation of second-trimester genetic ultrasonography for prenatal detection of Down syndrome, , ,

Objective: The objective of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of second-trimester genetic ultrasonography for prenatal detection of Down syndrome. More specifically, we sought to determine the following: (1) the diagnostic accuracy requirements (from the cost-benefit point of view) of genetic ultrasonography versus genetic amniocentesis for women at increased risk for fetal Down syndrome and (2) the possible economic impact of second-trimester genetic ultrasonography for the US population on the basis of the ultrasonographic accuracies reported in previously published studies. Study Design: A cost-benefit equation was developed from the hypothesis that the cost of universal genetic amniocentesis of patients at increased risk for carrying a fetus with Down syndrome should be at least equal to the cost of universal genetic ultrasonography with amniocentesis used only for those with abnormal ultrasonographic results. The main components of the equation included the diagnostic accuracy of genetic ultrasonography (sensitivity and specificity for detecting Down syndrome), the costs of the amniocentesis package and genetic ultrasonography, and the lifetime cost of Down syndrome cases not detected by the genetic ultrasonography. After appropriate manipulation of the equation a graph was constructed, representing the balance between sensitivity and false-positive rate of genetic ultrasonography; this was used to examine the accuracy of previously published studies from the cost-benefit point of view. Sensitivity analyses included individual risks for Down syndrome ranging from 1:261 (risk of a 35-year-old at 18 weeks’ gestation) to 1:44 (risk of a 44-year-old at 18 weeks’ gestation). This economic evaluation was conducted from the societal perspective. Results: Genetic ultrasonography was found to be economically beneficial only if the overall sensitivity for detecting Down syndrome was >74%. Even then, the cost-benefit ratio depended on the corresponding false-positive rate. Of the 7 published studies that used multiple ultrasonographic markers for genetic ultrasonography, 6 had accuracies compatible with benefits. The required ultrasonographic accuracy (sensitivity and false-positive rate) varied according to the prevalence of Down syndrome in the population tested. Conclusions: The cost-benefit ratio of second-trimester genetic ultrasonography depends on its diagnostic accuracy, and it is beneficial only when its overall sensitivity for Down syndrome is >74%. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:1214-9.)