Dataset Information

Economic impact of using maternal plasma cell-free DNA testing to guide further workup in recurrent pregnancy loss.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We have previously demonstrated that maternal-plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-testing can detect chromosomal anomalies in recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) with 81.8% sensitivity and 90.3% specificity. Here we assess whether this is cost effective in guiding further workup in RPLs.

Method

A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the cost of various RPL management pathways: (1) current American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) RPL workup; (2) microarray or karyotyping analysis of products of conception (POCs) and RPL workup only for euploid cases; and (3) cfDNA testing and RPL workup only for euploid cases. Sample accessibility, failure rates, and sensitivity were specified for each test. Costs of sample collection, genetic tests, and RPL workup were considered. Analysis outcomes included detection rate of chromosomal anomaly and cost per patient tested.

Results

In comparison to existing cytogenetic testing on POCs, cfDNA testing pathway allowed for better sample accessibility with a lower cost per patient. In addition, using cfDNA to guide further workup significantly increases the number of causative fetal chromosome anomalies detected, reducing the number of patients undergoing unnecessary workup resulting in an overall cost savings.

Conclusion

Our study showed that inclusion of cfDNA testing is a cost-effective approach to guide RPL workup.

SUBMITTER: Peng S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8518071 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Economic impact of using maternal plasma cell-free DNA testing to guide further workup in recurrent pregnancy loss.

Peng Siyang S Bhatt Sucheta S Borrell Antoni A Yaron Yuval Y

Prenatal diagnosis 20210524 10

<h4>Objective</h4>We have previously demonstrated that maternal-plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-testing can detect chromosomal anomalies in recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) with 81.8% sensitivity and 90.3% specificity. Here we assess whether this is cost effective in guiding further workup in RPLs.<h4>Method</h4>A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the cost of various RPL management pathways: (1) current American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) RPL workup; (2) microarray or kar ...[more]

PMID: 34002411

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionCan maternal plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) detect chromosomal anomalies in early pregnancy loss (EPL) and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL)?Summary answerGenome-wide cfDNA testing can serve as an alternative to cytogenetic analysis in products of conception (POCs) in RPLs and can guide further management.What is known alreadyRandom chromosomal anomalies are the single most common cause for EPL and RPL. Cytogenetic analysis in POCs may be used to direct management in RPL because the detection of random chromosomal anomalies can eliminate further unwarranted testing.Study design, size, durationThis was a prospective diagnostic test study from March 2018 to January 2019 of 109 patients experiencing pregnancy loss before 14 weeks gestation at a tertiary-care academic medical center.Participants/materials, setting, methodsBlood samples were drawn for genome-wide cfDNA testing prior to chorionic villous sampling for cytogenetic analysis of POCs with both short-term cultures (STCs) and long-term cultures (LTCs). Final analysis included 86 patients with non-mosaic cytogenetic results in POCs and available cfDNA results. Aneuploidy detection rates by cfDNA testing and POC cytogenetic analysis were compared. The first 50 samples served as the Training Set to establish pregnancy loss-specific log-likelihood ratio (LLR) thresholds using receiver-operator characteristic (ROC)-like analyses. These were then used for the entire cohort.Main results and the role of chanceSeventy-eight samples (71.5%) had results available from both STC and LTC; 12 samples (11%) had a result from STC only, and 7 samples (6.4%) had a result from LTC only. A chromosomal anomaly was detected in 55/86 (64%). The rates of chromosomal anomalies were 61, 72, 73 and 44% in patients undergoing their first, second, third and ≥4th pregnancy losses, respectively. The median cfDNA fetal fraction was 5%. With standard LLR thresholds used for noninvasive prenatal screening, the sensitivity of cfDNA in detecting aneuploidy was 55% (30/55) and with a specificity of 100% (31/31). Using pregnancy loss-specific LLR thresholds, the sensitivity of cfDNA in detecting aneuploidy was 82% (45/55), with a specificity of 90% (28/31). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 8.46 and 0.20, respectively. Fetal sex was correctly assigned in all cases.Limitations, reasons for cautionCases with a false-positive result by cfDNA analysis would not receive the indicated RPL workup. Specificity could be improved by using a fetal fraction (FF) cutoff of 4%, but this would result in exclusion of more than a quarter of cases.Wider implications of the findingscfDNA-based testing can serve as an alternative to POC cytogenetic analysis and can guide further RPL management: if cfDNA demonstrates aneuploidy, no further action is taken and if no abnormality is detected, the recommended RPL workup is performed.Study funding/competing interest(s)Cell-free DNA testing was funded by Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA. Y.Y. is a member of Illumina's Clinical Expert Panel and has received travel grants. A.B. has received travel grants from Illumina. All authors have no competing interest to declare.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the prevalence of abnormal endocrine dysfunction for recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) amongst patients with two versus three or more pregnancy losses.MethodsThis cross-sectional study retrospectively collected pre-pregnancy data of 537 women diagnosed with RPL in Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University from 2017 to 2022, including the baseline data of patients and the test results of endocrine factors. Several endocrine dysfunction included in this study were: thyroid dysfunction, obesity, hyperprolactinemia, polycystic ovary syndrome and blood glucose abnormality. Furthermore, vitamin D level were collected to study its relationship with endocrine dysfunction. Finally, we subdivided the patients according to the number of previous pregnancy loss and compared the prevalence of endocrine dysfunction between subgroups.ResultsAmong 537 RPL patients, 278 (51.8%) patients had abnormal endocrine test results. The highest incidence of endocrine dysfunction was thyroid dysfunction (24.39%, 131/537), followed by hyperprolactinemia (17.34%, 85/490), obesity (10.8%, 58/537), polycystic ovary syndrome (10.50%, 56/533), and abnormal blood glucose (5.29%, 27/510). Only 2.47%(13/527) of patients have vitamin D level that reach the standard. After subdividing the population according to the number of pregnancy loss, we did not find that the incidence of endocrine dysfunction (P=0.813), thyroid dysfunction (P=0.905), hyperprolactinemia (P=0.265), polycystic ovary syndrome (P=0.638), blood glucose abnormality (P=0.616) and vitamin D deficiency (P=0.908) were different among patients with two versus three or more pregnancy losses. However, obesity (P=0.003) was found more frequently observed in patients with more times of pregnancy loss.ConclusionThe prevalence of endocrine dysfunction in RPL population is high. There is no difference in the prevalence of endocrine dysfunction, except for obesity, among patients with two or more pregnancy losses, which may suggest investigations of endocrine dysfunction when patients have two pregnancy losses.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) occurs in 1-3% of all couples trying to conceive. No consensus exists regarding when to perform testing for risk factors in couples with RPL. Some guidelines recommend testing if a patient has had two pregnancy losses whereas others advise to test after three losses. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE:The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence on the prevalence of abnormal test results for RPL amongst patients with two versus three or more pregnancy losses. We also aimed to contribute to the debate regarding whether the investigations for RPL should take place after two or three or more pregnancy losses. SEARCH METHODS:Relevant studies were identified by a systematic search in OVID Medline and EMBASE from inception to March 2019. A search for RPL was combined with a broad search for terms indicative of number of pregnancy losses, screening/testing for pregnancy loss or the prevalence of known risk factors. Meta-analyses were performed in case of adequate clinical and statistical homogeneity. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. OUTCOMES:From a total of 1985 identified publications, 21 were included in this systematic review and 19 were suitable for meta-analyses. For uterine abnormalities (seven studies, odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.79-1.27, I2 = 0%) and for antiphospholipid syndrome (three studies, OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.25, I2 = 0%) we found low quality evidence for a lack of a difference in prevalence of abnormal test results between couples with two versus three or more pregnancy losses. We found insufficient evidence of a difference in prevalence of abnormal test results between couples with two versus three or more pregnancy losses for chromosomal abnormalities (10 studies, OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55-1.10), inherited thrombophilia (five studies) and thyroid disorders (two studies, OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.06-4.56). WIDER IMPLICATIONS:A difference in prevalence in uterine abnormalities and antiphospholipid syndrome is unlikely in women with two versus three pregnancy losses. We cannot exclude a difference in prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities, inherited thrombophilia and thyroid disorders following testing after two versus three pregnancy losses. The results of this systematic review may support investigations after two pregnancy losses in couples with RPL, but it should be stressed that additional studies of the prognostic value of test results used in the RPL population are urgently needed. An evidenced-based treatment is not currently available in the majority of cases when abnormal test results are present.

Project description:Study questionWhat is the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature?Summary answerThe guideline development group formulated 77 recommendations answering 18 key questions on investigations and treatments for RPL, and on how care should be organized.What is known alreadyA previous guideline for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage was published in 2006 and is in need of an update.Study design size durationThe guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 31 March 2017 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes.Participants/materials setting methodsBased on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee.Main results and the role of chanceThe guideline provides 38 recommendations on risk factors, prevention and investigations in couples with RPL, and 39 recommendations on treatments. These include 60 evidence-based recommendations - of which 31 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional - and 17 good practice points. The evidence supporting investigations and treatment of couples with RPL is limited and of moderate quality. Of the evidence-based recommendations, only 10 (16.3%) were supported by moderate quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (35 recommendations: 57.4%), or very low quality evidence (16 recommendations: 26.2%). There were no recommendations based on high quality evidence. Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL.Limitations reasons for cautionSeveral investigations and treatments are offered to couples with RPL, but most of them are not well studied. For most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised.Wider implications of the findingsThe guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. One of the most important consequences of the limited evidence is the absence of evidence for a definition of RPL.Study funding/competing interestsThe guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. J.E. reports position funding from CARE Fertility. S.L. reports position funding from SpermComet Ltd. S.M. reports research grants, consulting and speaker's fees from GSK, BMS/Pfizer, Sanquin, Aspen, Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo. S.Q. reports speaker's fees from Ferring. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Project description:ObjectiveOxidative stress biomarkers (OSBs) may be strongly associated with disease progression and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). However, the research on associations of most OSBs (e.g., 8-nitroguanine [8-NO2Gua] and 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal-mercapturic acid [HNE-MA]) with RPL is limited. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the effect of OSBs exposure on RPL risk by performing a case-control study.Material and methodsWe use our established dataset, Taiwan Recurrent Pregnancy Loss and Environmental Study (TREPLES), which included 514 Taiwanese reproductive age women (aged 20-50 years; 397 cases and 117 controls) from National Cheng Kung University Hospital. RPL is clinically defined by a history of two or more consecutive miscarriages, where a miscarriage is defined as the termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks of gestation. The urinary levels of several OSBs (e.g., 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine [8-OHdG], 8-NO2Gua, 8-isoprostaglandin F2α [8-isoPGF2α], and HNE-MA) and malondialdehyde (MDA) were measured using isotope dilution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances, respectively.ResultsThe median levels of 8-NO2Gua (6.15 vs. 3.76 ng/mL) and HNE-MA (30.12 and 21.54 ng/mL) were significantly higher in the RPL group than in the control group. By categorizing the OSBs data into tertiles, after we adjusted for age and urine creatinine levels discovered that the RPL risk associated with 8-NO2Gua and HNE-MA levels in the third tertile were approximately 2 times higher than those in the first tertile (8-NO2Gua, adjusted OR = 3.27, 95 % CI = 1.66-6.43; HNE-MA, adjusted OR = 1.96, 95 % CI = 1.05-3.64; p < 0.05). These findings suggest that the oxidative stress biomarkers of 8-NO2Gua and HNE-MA are risk factors for RPL.ConclusionOur findings indicate that specific OSBs are associated with an increased RPL risk, suggesting that reducing OSB levels can improve RPL risk. Nevertheless, more studies on preventive medicine are required to understand the exposure sources and adverse outcome pathways of OSBs associated with RPL.

Dataset Information

Economic impact of using maternal plasma cell-free DNA testing to guide further workup in recurrent pregnancy loss.

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Economic impact of using maternal plasma cell-free DNA testing to guide further workup in recurrent pregnancy loss.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets