Views of the obstetric profession on non-invasive prenatal testing in Aotearoa New Zealand: A national survey

Discussing non-invasive prenatal testing on Reddit: The benefits, the concerns, and the comradery

OBJECTIVE

As the use of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) increases, its benefits and concerns are being examined through surveys, qualitative studies, and bioethical analysis. However, only scant research has examined public discourse on the topic. This research examined NIPT discussions on the social media platform Reddit.

METHOD

Content and qualitative description analysis was performed on 98 NIPT discussions (2682 comments), obtained by inputting "NIPT" into Reddit's search engine.

RESULTS

Detailing of benefits and concerns was found in collaborative and supportive discussions. Overall, NIPT is seen as valuable and desirable. Some concerns focused on cost-related barriers to access, anxiety related to testing, and interpretation of results. NIPT is often portrayed as offering peace of mind and is sometimes described as a means of preparing for possible outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In the discussions analyzed, NIPT is seen, overall, as valuable and greater access to it is desired. Some questions and concerns about NIPT were evident. Reddit stands as a valuable and appreciated tool for individuals wishing to discuss NIPT and to solicit and share information, opinions, and experiences. Health care providers should consider the ways social platforms such as Reddit can be engaged to better inform and educate the public.

Prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a Nationwide cross-sectional survey of obstetrician knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice

Background

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has revolutionized the prenatal screening landscape with its high accuracy and low false positive rate for detecting Trisomy 21, 18 and 13. Good understanding of its benefits and limitations is crucial for obstetricians to provide effective counselling and make informed decisions about its use. This study aimed to evaluate obstetrician knowledge and attitudes regarding NIPT for screening for the common trisomies, explore how obstetricians integrated NIPT into first-line and contingent screening, and determine whether expanded use of NIPT to screen for sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) and microdeletion/microduplication syndromes (CNVs) was widespread.

Methods

A questionnaire was designed and administered with reference to the CHERRIES criteria for online surveys. Doctors on the Obstetrics & Gynaecology trainee and specialist registers were invited to participate. Medians and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for confidence and knowledge scores.

Results

94/306 (30.7%) doctors responded to the survey. First trimester screening (FTS) remained the main method offered to screen for the common trisomies. 45.7% (43/94) offered NIPT as an alternative first-line screen for singletons and 30.9% (29/94) for monochorionic diamniotic twins. A significant proportion offered concurrent NT and NIPT (25/94, 26.6%), or FTS and NIPT (33/94, 35.1%) in singletons. Varying follow up strategies were offered at intermediate, high and very-high FTS risk cut-offs for Trisomy 21. Respondents were likely to offer screening for SCAs and CNVs to give patients autonomy of choice (53/94, 56.4% SCAs, 47/94, 50% CNVs) at no additional cost (52/94, 55.3% SCAs, 39/94, 41.5% CNVs). Median clinical knowledge scores were high (10/12) and did not differ significantly between specialists (95% CI 10–11) and non-specialists (95% CI 9.89–11). Lower scores were observed for scenarios in which NIPT would be more likely to fail.

Conclusions

Our findings show the diversity of clinical practice with regard to the incorporation of NIPT into prenatal screening algorithms, and suggest that the use of NIPT both as a first-line screening tool in the general obstetric population, and to screen for SCAs and CNVs, is becoming increasingly prevalent. Clear guidance and continuing educational support are essential for providers in this rapidly evolving field.

Sex selection and non-invasive prenatal testing: A review of current practices, evidence, and ethical issues

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can determine the sex of the fetus very accurately and very early in gestation. There are concerns that the ease, timing, and accuracy of NIPT sex determination will facilitate sex-selective termination of pregnancy (TOP). Here, we review current practices, the evidence for a link between NIPT and sex-selective TOP, and associated ethical issues. Sex-selective TOP, usually motivated by son preference, has had serious demographic consequences in countries such as India and China. Currently, ultrasound is the primary method by which parents determine the sex of the fetus. The diffusion of ultrasound technology has had a direct impact on the rates of sex-selective TOP. Although NIPT is currently more costly, it is feasible that increased uptake of this technology could have a similar effect. Partly because NIPT is a relatively recent development in prenatal screening, there is little data on the impact of NIPT on sex selection practices. Evidence that NIPT is playing a role in sex-selective TOP remains largely anecdotal. Further research is required to assess and quantify TOP resulting from NIPT sex determination. The use of these technologies for sex selection raises a number of ethical issues, in addition to practical demographic consequences.

Understanding attitudes and behaviors towards cell-free DNA-based noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT): A survey of European health-care providers

Cell-free DNA-based noninvasive prenatal testing (cfDNA) is a relatively new screening tool that analyzes cfDNA circulating in maternal plasma to screen for aneuploidies. Since its introduction, cfDNA has been rapidly adopted by health care providers (HCPs). This rapid adoption, as well as progressive developments in the technology, requires professional societies to continuously update their guidelines to indicate the broadening scope both in terms of test indications and patient populations for whom it has become the appropriate primary test. CfDNA testing, initially applied to high-risk patients, is now largely considered an option for all patients. For HCPs, the rapid introduction of cfDNA into clinical practice has come with the requirement to stay up-to-date and accurately informed. We performed a survey to understand the current practices and views of European HCPs on the use of cfDNA. European HCPs were surveyed on several topics such as familiarity with cfDNA-based noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), current usage, patient counseling, test menu expansion, and future perspectives. The results of this survey demonstrate increasing usage and awareness of cfDNA-based NIPT in five European countries (UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy). Major barriers to implementation include cost and a lack of physician education on NIPT.

Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing into publicly funded antenatal screening services for Down syndrome and other conditions in Aotearoa New Zealand

Background

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a relatively new screen for congenital conditions – specifically, common fetal aneuploidies including Down Syndrome. The test is based on isolating freely circulating fragments of fetal-placental DNA that is present in the mother’s blood. NIPT has a superior clinical performance compared to current screening, and has been available privately in Aotearoa New Zealand for the last 4 years.

Main issue

The proposed implementation of NIPT as a publicly funded service may widen the inequity in access to optional antenatal screening that already exists in this country.

Conclusion

This paper discusses precautions that can be taken at the health system, organisation, and personnel levels to ensure that access to NIPT is equitable, that services are culturally responsive, and women’s informed choice is promoted and protected. The adoption of NIPT into publicly funded services is an example of how genetic screening is becoming mainstreamed into health services; as such our approach may also have relevance around the introduction of other genetic and genomic screening initiatives.