Screening for Fragile X Syndrome (Murray et al.) - NIHR Journals ...

Human and financial costs of screening46offered antenatal screening will need tounderstand in advance the possible dilemmaover termination of pregnancy that might ariseif the mother is found to be an FM or PM carrier,and prenatal diagnosis demonstrates a femalefoetus with an FM. To date there are no publishedstudies on the psychological aspects of prenataldiagnosis in fragile X syndrome.Genetic counsellingIn carrier females with a normal IQ, any emotionaland cognitive problems may affect their ability tounderstand some of the information given duringgenetic counselling sessions. This may be moreapparent in FM females; in PM females the problemsmay be very slight or even absent. Specificadvice has been published on how to undertakegenetic counselling for fragile X syndrome(McConkie-Rosell et al, 1995b). Also, the NHSResearch & Development Programme on Motherand Child Health has now commissioned thisresearch group to carry out an empirical studyon counselling and patient variables in geneticdiseases including fragile X syndrome. Thisstudy will examine, among other things, theways in which the cause of the condition isdiscussed by counsellor and patient, andthe ways in which the counsellor checks thatinformation has been understood.Genetic counselling should encourage individualsto discuss fragile X syndrome with other familymembers. Those at risk of having affected offspringcould then request testing. It is possiblethat feelings of guilt and stigmatisation mayhinder the transmission of information betweenfamily members; however, the Fragile X Societyhave reported that none of their members haveexperienced stigmatisation (Nuffield Councilon Bioethics, 1993).CostsMeasures of costThe cost-effectiveness of a screening programmeis usually expressed as the average cost of detectingone affected individual. This can be readilyestimated from the separate unit costs for eachcomponent of the screening process. For example,with antenatal screening there is informationgiving, DNA testing, genetic counselling andprenatal diagnosis (some would also include thecost of therapeutic abortion). The average costis computed from the estimated detection andfalse-positive rates, prevalence and uptake rates.Sensitivity analysis can then be used to vary oneor more of the component costs and determinewhat aspect of the programme is mostprice sensitive.A more complex approach is to carry out a cost–benefit analysis in which the benefits are alsomeasured and valued. In the example of antenatalscreening, the avoidance of treatment costsincurred by an affected individual may be seen asa large benefit. The welfare or utility experiencedby a person with the disorder and their family,in not having to care for the affected person,or that gained by an early diagnosis, even whenit is decided to continue the pregnancy, aremore difficult to quantify and are usually ignored.Another possibility is to value the benefit tothose being screened by performing a willingnessto-payanalysis, that is, by asking people howmuch they would be prepared to pay forthe service.Estimated financial costs and benefitsThe costs of two of the reported cascade screeningprogrammes have been estimated. In New SouthWales, it was estimated that screening costs were$14,200 (Australian, at 1986 prices) to preventone affected birth through prenatal diagnosis(Turner et al, 1986). In Murcia, Spain, the estimatedcost was $12,740 (US, at 1992 prices) peraffected birth prevented (Gabarron et al, 1992).At that time cytogenetic testing was used so that,even allowing for inflation, a modern screeningprotocol (see page 31) would be more costeffective.Neither of the studies estimated ortook into account the savings that might resultfrom births averted by means other than prenataldiagnosis. If these were included, the averagecost of preventing an affected birth would be evenlower. The corresponding lifetime costs of carefor an affected individual have been estimatedto be in the region of $1–2 million (Lauria et al,1992) and may be as high as $4 million (Nolinet al, 1991).There are no published costs for strategies otherthan cascade screening. Antenatal screening canbe simply costed using Figure 8 and the unit costsof testing given in chapter 8; the unit costs ofinformation giving, genetic counselling and prenataldiagnostic procedures are taken fromCuckle and colleagues (1996). These are shownin Table 15. First, we make a baseline assumptionthat no-one refuses the offer of screening, orprenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy,as appropriate, and that everyone has two pregnancies.Then the average cost of preventing eachaffected birth is £93,000. Reduced uptake does not