Western Australian women's expectations for expanded NIPT-An online survey regarding NIPT for single gene, recessive and chromosomal conditions

Disparities in integrating non-invasive prenatal testing into antenatal healthcare in Australia: a survey of healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been clinically available in Australia on a user-pays basis since 2012. There are numerous providers, with available tests ranging from targeted NIPT (only trisomies 21, 18, and 13 +/- sex chromosome aneuploidy) to genome-wide NIPT. While NIPT is being implemented in the public health care systems of other countries, in Australia, the implementation of NIPT has proceeded without public funding. The aim of this study was to investigate how NIPT has been integrated into antenatal care across Australia and reveal the successes and challenges in its implementation in this context.

METHODS

An anonymous online survey was conducted from September to October 2022. Invitations to participate were sent to healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the provision of NIPT in Australia through professional society mailing lists and networks. Participants were asked questions on their knowledge of NIPT, delivery of NIPT, and post-test management of results.

RESULTS

A total of 475 HCPs responded, comprising 232 (48.8%) obstetricians, 167 (35.2%) general practitioners, 32 (6.7%) midwives, and 44 (9.3%) genetic specialists. NIPT was most commonly offered as a first-tier test, with most HCPs (n = 279; 60.3%) offering it to patients as a choice between NIPT and combined first-trimester screening. Fifty-three percent (n = 245) of respondents always offered patients a choice between NIPT for the common autosomal trisomies and expanded (including genome-wide) NIPT. This choice was understood as supporting patient autonomy and informed consent. Cost was seen as a major barrier to access to NIPT, for both targeted and expanded tests. Equitable access, increasing time demands on HCPs, and staying up to date with advances were frequently reported as major challenges in delivering NIPT.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate substantial variation in the clinical implementation of NIPT in Australia, including in the offers of expanded screening options. After a decade of clinical use, Australian clinicians still report ongoing challenges in the clinical and equitable provision of NIPT.

Current controversy in prenatal diagnosis: The use of cfDNA to screen for monogenic conditions in low risk populations is ready for clinical use

Noninvasive cfDNA testing for monogenic disorders (sgNIPT) has become integrated into the care of pregnant women at increased risk based on carrier status, known family history, or ultrasound anomalies. The availability of commercial tests for common autosomal recessive and de novo autosomal dominant conditions has led to the use of these tests in low-risk pregnancies. However, is the technology ready for use in this low-risk population? This report is a summary of the debate on this topic at the 27th International Conference on Prenatal Diagnosis and Therapy. Both expert debaters provided strong arguments in favor and against the use of sgNIPT in low-risk pregnancies. The argument in favor of sgNIPT for autosomal recessive conditions is that it allows the identification of affected pregnancies without the need for involving the partner in testing. Arguments for sgNIPT for autosomal dominant conditions include identification of affected fetuses that would have either presented later in pregnancy with fetal anomalies or not been detected prenatally given normal ultrasounds, respect for patient autonomy and patient desire for information. Strong arguments were made against offering sgNIPT screening. Given that traditional carrier screening for recessive conditions can be carried out in many jurisdictions, the added value of sgNIPT has not been clearly demonstrated. Arguments against sgNIPT for autosomal dominant conditions included the total lack of clinical validation studies and the risk of false reassurance in cases of negative results and unnecessary invasive procedures in cases of false positive results. Although there is a desire to take advantage of new technologies to improve the detection of monogenic disorders in low-risk populations, based on the discussion and the audience vote, it appears premature to offer sgNIPT to all low risk pregnant women. Further clinical validation studies are needed prior to broad implementation.