The Challenges of Down Syndrome Screening in Primary Healthcare for Pregnant Women in Iran in 2018

Authors

Mona Zeinaloo, Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1416753955, IranFollow
Mohammad Shariati, Environmental Health Engineering Department, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1416753955, IranFollow
Masoud Younesian, Department of Medical Education and Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences 1416753955, IranFollow
Azita Kheiltash, Department of Medical Education and Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences 1416753955, IranFollow

ORCID ID

Mona Zeinaloo: 0000-0003-1638-0477

Masoud Younesian: 0000-0002-2870-7433

Azita Kheiltash: 0000-0003-1890-6989

Mohammad Shariati: 0000-0002-0389-4498

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the various aspects of the implementation phase, including an economic evaluation, of Iran’s Down syndrome (DS) screening program.

Methods: Data were collected via phone interviews involving three random sample groups, with each group consisting of 1000 mothers who completed their pregnancies in 2018. To analyze the DS screening program from an economic aspect, we compared the costs related to the care of a DS individual in the country with that of finding and aborting a DS fetus based on the current screening program. In addition, to examine the financial expenses, we assessed the false positive rate (FPR) obtained from the tests and the status of pregnancy outcomes in terms of DS birth and the incidences of abortion complications in the interviewed samples.

Results: A total of 94.5% of pregnant mothers participated in the DS screening program. The calculated FPRs in the screening tests were in the range of 15.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 12.7%–18.1%) to 16.5% (95% CI: 13.7%–19.5%) for mothers registered in Iran’s Health Network and 12.5% (95% CI: 10.2%–15.2%) for all mothers. The results suggest the inefficiency of the current implementation of the DS screening program in Iran from an economic perspective and given the respective side effects, especially fetal loss.

Conclusions: The DS screening program in Iran necessitates urgent review and modification.

References

1. Gupta NA, Kabra M. Diagnosis and management of Down syndrome. Indian J Pediatr. 2014;81:560–7.
2. Al-Biltagi M. Down syndrome children-An update. U.A.E: Bentham Science Publishers, 2015.
3. Routhu M, Koneru SSV. Prenatal screening of aneuploidies. In: Dey SK. Ed. Down syndrome and other chromosome abnormalities. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2022. p.115.
4. Martín I, Gibert MJ, Aulesa C, Alsina M, Casals E, Bauça JM. Comparing outcomes and costs between contingent and combined first-trimester screening strategies for Down's syndrome. Eur J Obstet Gyn R B. 2015;189:13–8.
5. Hasegawa J, Wada S, Kasamatsu A, Nakamura M, Hamanoue H, Iwata E, et al. Distribution of PAPP-A and total hCG between 11 and 13 weeks of gestation in Japanese pregnant women. J Matern-Fetal Neo M. 2020;33:2017–22.
6. Kagan KO, Sonek J, Sroka A, Abele H, Wagner P, Prodan N, et al. False-positive rates in screening for trisomies 18 and 13: A comparison between first-trimester combined screening and a cfDNA-based approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;299:431–7.
7. de Graaf G, Buckley F, Skotko BG. Estimates of the live births, natural losses, and elective terminations with Down syndrome in the United States. Am J Med Genet A. 2015;167A:756–67.
8. Reynolds T. The triple test as a screening technique for Down syndrome: Reliability and relevance. Int J Womens Health. 2010;2:83–8.
9. Copel JA, Kohari K, Merriam AA. Prenatal testing. In: García-Velasco JA, Seli E. Eds. Human reproductive genetics: Emerging technologies and clinical applications. London, UK: Academic Press; 2020. p.201–21.
10. Cuckle H, Pergament E, Benn P. Maternal serum screening for chromosomal abnormalities and neural tube defects. In: Milunsky A, Milunsky JM. Eds. Genetic disorders and the fetus. 7th ed. NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2015. p. 483–540.
11. Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B, Plana MN, Nicolaides KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: Updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obst Gyn. 2017;50:302–14.
12. Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, Laurent LC, Ranzini AC, Brar H, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1589–97.
13. Miltoft CB, Rode L, Bundgaard JR, Johansen P, Tabor A. Cell-free fetal DNA in the early and late first trimester. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2020;47:228–36.
14. Audibert F, De Bie I, Johnson JA, Okun N, Wilson RD, Armour C, et al. No. 348-Joint SOGC-CCMG Guideline: Update on prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, fetal anomalies, and adverse pregnancy outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39:805–17.
15. Petersson K, Lindkvist M, Persson M, Conner P, Åhman A, Mogren I. Prenatal diagnosis in Sweden 2011 to 2013-A register-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:365.
16. Department of Health, Ministry of Health and Medical Education of Iran. National guidelines for the prevention of fetal chromosomal disorders: Down syndrome. Iran: Department of Health, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, 2014.
17. Detels R, Gulliford M, Abdool Karim Q, Chuan Tan C. Oxford textbook of global public health. 6th ed. UK: Oxford University Press; 2015.
18. NHS England. Managing safety incidents in NHS screening programmes. England: NHS England, 2015.
19. Mirabedini SA, Fazl Hashemi SME, Sarabi Asiabar A, Rezapour A, Azami-Aghdash S, Hosseini Amnab H. Out-of-pocket and informal payments in Iran's health care system: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017;31:70.
20. Crombag NM, Boeije H, Iedema-Kuiper R, Schielen PC, Visser GH, Bensing JM. Reasons for accepting or declining Down syndrome screening in Dutch prospective mothers within the context of national policy and healthcare system characteristics: A qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:121.
21. Metcalfe A, Currie G, Johnson JA, Bernier F, Lix LM, Lyon AW, et al. Impact of observed versus hypothesized service utilization on the incremental cost of first trimester screening and prenatal diagnosis for trisomy 21 in a Canadian province. Prenatal Diag. 2013;33:429–35.
22. Knight A, Miller J. Prenatal genetic screening, epistemic justice, and reproductive autonomy. Hypatia. 2021;36:1–21.
23. Gadsbøll K, Petersen OB, Gatinois V, Strange H, Jacobsson B, Wapner R, et al. Current use of noninvasive prenatal testing in Europe, Australia and the USA: A graphical presentation. Acta Obstet Gyn Scan. 2020;99:722–30.
24. Hoogendoorn M, Evers SM, Schielen PC, van Genugten ML, de Wit GA, Ament AJ. Costs and effects of prenatal screening methods for Down syndrome and neural tube defects. Community Genet. 2008;11:359–67.
25. Ball RH, Caughey AB, Malone FD, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, Saade GR, et al. First- and second-trimester evaluation of risk for Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:10–7.
26. NHS England. Fetal anomaly screening programme handbook. England: NHS England, 2015.
27. Biggio JR Jr, Morris TC, Owen J, Stringer JS. An outcomes analysis of five prenatal screening strategies for trisomy 21 in women younger than 35 years. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:721–9.
28. Bolt J, van Zanden JL. GDP per capita–Maddison Project Database–Historical data [dataset]. Our World in Data. Available from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gd p-per-capita-maddison.
29. Statistics Times. World GDP per capita Ranking [dataset]. Statistics Times. Available from: https://stat isticstimes.com/economy/world-gdp-capita-ranking.ph p#google_vignette.
30. Ritchie K, Bradbury I, Slattery J, Wright D, Iqbal K, Penney G. Economic modelling of antenatal screening and ultrasound scanning programmes for identification of fetal abnormalities. BJOG. 2005;112:866–74.
31. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, et al. Williams Obstetrics 24/E. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2014.
32. Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, National Clinical Programme in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Clinical practice guideline: Bacterial infections specific to pregnancy. Dublin: Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, 2015.
33. World Bank. GNI per capita, PPP (current international $). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Recommended Citation

Zeinaloo M, Shariati M, Younesian M, Kheiltash A. The Challenges of Down Syndrome Screening in Primary Healthcare for Pregnant Women in Iran in 2018. Makara J Health Res. 2024;28.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.