PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Miriam Kuppermann

Publications and source records attributed to Miriam Kuppermann.

20 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Nuchal translucency and first trimester biochemical markers for down syndrome screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis that compared the first- and second- trimester screening tools for Down syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: A decision tree was designed that compared four possible screens for Down syndrome: (1) current second- trimester expanded maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein test (AFP), (2) first-trimester nuchal translucency screen, (3) first-trimester serum screen, and (4) combined first-trimester screen with both nuchal translucency screen and a serum screen. Incremental cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated that compared the first-trimester screens with expanded alpha-fetoprotein. RESULTS: The combined screen (nuchal translucency screen + first-trimester serum screen) identified 3,833 Down syndrome fetuses, the nuchal translucency alone identified 3,413 Down syndrome fetuses, and the first- trimester serum screen identified 2,993 Down syndrome fetuses. Each of these screens was an improvement over the current expanded AFP screen, which diagnosed 2,446 Down syndrome fetuses. It would cost $98,381 for each additional Down syndrome case that would be identified by nuchal translucency alone, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.85. The addition of the first-trimester serum screen is still cost-effective compared with expanded AFP; the cost would be $319,934 for each additional Down syndrome fetus who was identified, which would be a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.57. CONCLUSION: First-trimester screening for Down syndrome with nuchal translucency screening alone or with serum markers is more clinically effective and cost-effective than the current expanded AFP screen that is being used.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

Management of the low-grade abnormal Pap smear: What are women's preferences?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate preferences among ethnically diverse women for the management of a low-grade abnormal Pap smear result: early colposcopy or observation with repeat Pap smears. STUDY DESIGN: Structured interviews were conducted with 170 women of diverse ethnic backgrounds to assess their preferences. Trained personnel conducted standardized interviews. A standard description of all tests and procedures was read to participants. The participants were presented with scenarios of contrasting management approaches for a hypothetical low-grade abnormal Pap smear result-observation with repeat Pap smear vs. immediate colposcopy. POPULATION: Study participants were recruited from the waiting rooms of 5 family planning clinics in Northern Californiaamprsquos Central Valley. OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome measures for each scenario were utilities (quantified preferences for specific health states) measured by the Standard Gamble. RESULTS: The range in utilities was large for all scenarios. Mean utilities (SD) for observation: 0.96 ( 0.13) followed by resolution; 0.93 ( 0.17) followed by cryotherapy; 0.91 ( 0.21) followed by cone biopsy. Mean utilities for early colposcopy: 0.93 ( 0.20) followed by resolution; 0.95 ( 0.14) followed by cryotherapy; and 0.92 ( 0.16) followed by cone biopsy. Subject characteristics explained less than 20% of the variance in utilities. Decision analysis gave a slightly higher overall utility for early colposcopy (0.940 vs 0.932 for observation), but was sensitive to small changes in branch utilities. CONCLUSIONS: Womenamprsquos preferences for management of a low-grade abnormal Pap result vary widely. Clinicians should adopt a flexible approach to the management of low-grade abnormal Pap smears to incorporate individual preferences.

Adolescent↗