Home Differential utilization of expanded genetic screening tests in patients of reproductive ages from private and academic practices
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Differential utilization of expanded genetic screening tests in patients of reproductive ages from private and academic practices

  • Corina Schoen , Joaquin Santolaya-Forgas EMAIL logo , Mehmet Genc and Elena Ashkinadze
Published/Copyright: October 8, 2014

Abstract

Objective: We sought to evaluate the types of genetic screening tests that are performed in women of childbearing ages in New Jersey.

Method: Data from patients who had a reproductive genetics consultation between January 1, 2012, and July 31, 2012, were stratified according to the referring providers, i.e., those from academic or private practices, and descriptive analyses performed. Unconventional genetic screening was defined as any test ordered by the referring health care provider outside the recommendations from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Results: Overall, 30% of 371 patients referred for a genetic consultation underwent unconventional screening. As compared to patients from academic practices, the relative rate of unconventional screening was 10-fold higher among patients from private practices, resulting in a relative 34-fold increase in the estimated cost in genetic screening (P<0.01).

Conclusion: This set of preliminary observations highlight the need for further state, nationwide, and international studies to understand the financial, personal, and societal impact that this discrepancy health care system in the use of genetic carrier screening portends.


Corresponding author: Joaquin Santolaya-Forgas, MD, PhD, Section Head of Reproductive Genetics, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Adjunct Professor of Genetics, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, the State University of New Jersey, 125 Paterson Street, Room 2151, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA, Phone: +1-732-235-6632, Fax: +1-732-235-6627, E-mail: ; and Perinatal Institute, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Neptune, NJ, USA

References

[1] ACMG 2013. Position statement regarding expanded carrier screening. Available at: https://www.acmg.net/docs/Prenatal_Preconception_Expanded_Carrier_Screening_Statement_GiM_June_2013.pdf. Accessed on November 2013.Search in Google Scholar

[2] ACOG Committee Opinion No. 78: Hemoglobinopathies in pregnancy. Obstets Gynecol. 2007;109:229–37.10.1097/00006250-200701000-00055Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[3] ACOG Committee Opinion No. 432: Spinal muscular atrophy. Obstets Gynecol. 2009;113:1194–6.10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181a6d03aSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] ACOG Committee Opinion No. 442: Preconception and prenatal carrier screening for genetic diseases in individuals of Eastern European Jewish descent. Obstets Gynecol. 2009;114:950–3.10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181bd12f4Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] ACOG Committee Opinion No. 469: Carrier screening for fragile X syndrome. Obstets Gynecol. 2010;116:1008–10.10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181fae884Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] ACOG Committee Opinion No. 486: Update on carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Obstets Gynecol. 2011;117:1028–31.10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821922c2Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for perinatal care. 7th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2012.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Gitlin JM, Fischbeck K, Crawford TO, Cwik V, Fleischman A, Gonye K, et al. Carrier testing for spinal muscular atrophy. Genet Med. 2010;12:621–2.10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181ef6079Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[9] Gross SJ, Pletcher BA, Monaghan KG. ACMG Practice Guidelines. Carrier screening in individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. Genet Med. 2008;10:54–6. https://www.acmg.net/docs/published_Carrier_Screening_PG.pdf.10.1097/GIM.0b013e31815f247cSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] LabCorp Test Menu. Available at: https://www.labcorp.com/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9C P0os_hACzO_QCM_IwMLXyM3AyNjMycDU2dXQwN3M6B8J G55AwMCuv088nNT9SP1o8zjQ11Ngg09LY0N_N2DjQw8g439T fyM_MzMLAz0Q_QjXYCKIvEqKsiNKDfUDVQEAAzyjqE!/dl2/d1/L2dNQSEvUUd3Qy9ZQnB4bHchIS82X1E4Nk5RMk4yMDhNM kYwMjM2QjA1Q0UxMDAzLzZfUTg2TlEyTjIwOE0yRjAyMzZCMD VDRTEwRzY!/. Retrieved April 28, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Leib JR, Gollust SE, Hull SC, Wilfond BS. Carrier screening panels for Ashkenazi Jews: is more better? Genet Med. 2005;7:185–90.10.1097/01.GIM.0000156527.87525.8FSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Levenson D. New test could make carrier screening more accessible. Am J Med Genet. 2010;152A:vii–viii.10.1002/ajmg.a.33290Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Little SE, Janakiraman V, Kaimal A, Musci T, Ecker J, Caughey AB. The cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening for spinal muscular atrophy. Am J Obstets Gynecol. 2010;202:253e1–7.10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.032Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[14] Musci TJ, Caughey AB. Cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal population-based fragile X carrier screening. Am J Obstets Gynecol. 2005;192:1905–12.10.1016/j.ajog.2005.02.052Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[15] Prior TW. Carrier screening for spinal muscular atrophy. Genet Med 2008;10:840–2.10.1097/GIM.0b013e318188d069Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[16] Sherman S, Pletcher BA, Driscoll DA. Fragile X syndrome: diagnostic and carrier testing. Genet Med. 2005;7:584–7.10.1097/01.GIM.0000182468.22666.ddSearch in Google Scholar

The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Received: 2014-5-12
Accepted: 2014-9-15
Published Online: 2014-10-8
Published in Print: 2015-11-1

©2015 by De Gruyter

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Maternal risk: assessment and management
  4. Original articles – Obstetrics
  5. Ebola virus screening during pregnancy in West Africa: unintended consequences
  6. Strain at the internal cervical os assessed with quasi-static elastography is associated with the risk of spontaneous preterm delivery at ≤34 weeks of gestation
  7. Can routine laboratory parameters predict adverse pregnancy outcomes in intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy?
  8. Pulmonary edema in pregnancy and the puerperium: a cohort study of 53 cases
  9. Incidence and outcomes of women with Hodgkin’s lymphoma in pregnancy: a population-based study on 7.9 million births
  10. Differential utilization of expanded genetic screening tests in patients of reproductive ages from private and academic practices
  11. Association of maternal blood pressure in pregnancy with blood pressure of their offspring through adolescence
  12. Oxytocin utilization for labor induction in obese and lean women
  13. Breech delivery in the all fours position: a prospective observational comparative study with classic assistance
  14. Position at birth as an important factor for the occurrence of anal sphincter tears: a retrospective cohort study
  15. Emergency peripartum hysterectomy and risk factors by mode of delivery and obstetric history: a 10-year review from Helsinki University Central Hospital
  16. Delivery outcomes after day and night onset of labour
  17. Original articles – Fetus
  18. Perinatal outcome of congenital heart disease in a population with high consanguinity
  19. Complex and irregular heart rate dynamics in fetuses compromised by maternal anemia as a high-risk pregnancy
  20. Clinical application of fetal left modified myocardial performance index in the evaluation of fetal growth restriction
  21. First-trimester fetal growth discordance and development of preeclampsia in dichorionic twin pregnancies
  22. Original articles – Newborn
  23. Neonatal outcome in pregnant patients with antiphospholipid syndrome
  24. A longitudinal study of brainstem auditory response from birth to late term in late preterm babies and abnormal findings in high-risk babies
  25. Suctioning habits in the delivery room and the influence on postnatal adaptation – a video analysis
  26. Short communications
  27. Management of vasa previa during pregnancy
  28. Uterine rupture after the uterine fundal pressure maneuver
  29. Congress Calendar
  30. Congress Calendar
Downloaded on 29.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2014-0160/html
Scroll to top button