'Small cost to pay for peace of mind': Women's experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing

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.

Women's preferences for NIPT as a first-line test in England and France: Challenges for genetic counseling practices

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is provided in the private and public sectors worldwide as a first- or second-tier test. In England and France, NIPT is fully funded and offered as a contingent strategy with different probability cut-offs (1:150 and 1:1000). These different approaches to define the target population for NIPT have implications for how women experience their antenatal care. The paper explores and compares the perceptions and difficulties of women in England and France who took NIPT as a second-tier screening test. It is based on a semi-structured qualitative interview study with 17 women in England and France conducted between September 2021 and May 2022. The interviews were cross-analyzed using thematic analysis. Our findings show that most women express a preference for the offer of NIPT as a first-line screening test. Some issues with the contingent model, related to the access to information and termination of pregnancy (TOP), the disparities of NIPT uptake, and risks of generating anxiety with combined first-trimester screening (cFTS), could be addressed by a universal strategy for T21, T13, and T18. Nevertheless, this strategy could present some challenges for genetic counseling due to: women's understanding and expectations of NIPT; adequate information and counseling about the scope and limits of NIPT; concerns about the routinization of NIPT in the first-line offer; limitations and uncertainties associated with the provision of expanded NIPT in France; the remaining importance of other screening tests; and associated costs.

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

Prenatal screening has evolved rapidly following the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), with screening now available for an increasing number of conditions. We explored the attitudes and expectations of women within the context of using NIPT to detect multiple different single gene and chromosome conditions during pregnancy. An online survey was used to assess these issues with a sample of 219 women from Western Australia. In our study, the majority of women (96%) support of the concept of expanded NIPT for single gene and chromosome conditions provided the test involves no risk to the pregnancy and can provide the parents with relevant medical information about the fetus at any stage of pregnancy. 80% believed that expanded NIPT for single gene and chromosome conditions should be available at any stage during pregnancy and 68% of women indicated that test cost would be a factor in determining their participation in testing. Under half (43%) of the women favored an option to terminate a pregnancy at any stage if the fetus had a medical condition that would interfere with day to day functioning. The majority (78%) of women believed that testing for multiple genetic conditions would provide reassurance and lead to the delivery of a healthy child.

Providing recurrence risk counselling for parents after diagnosis of a serious genetic condition caused by an apparently de novo mutation in their child: a qualitative investigation of the PREGCARE strategy with UK clinical genetics practitioners

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of a child with a genetic condition leads to parents asking whether there is a risk the condition could occur again with future pregnancies. If the cause is identified as an apparent de novo mutation (DNM), couples are currently given a generic, population average, recurrence risk of ~1%-2%, depending on the condition. Although DNMs usually arise as one-off events, they can also originate through the process of mosaicism in either parent; in this instance, the DNM is present in multiple germ cells and the actual recurrence risk could theoretically be as high as 50%.

METHODS

Our qualitative interview study examined the views and reflections on current practice provided by UK practitioners working in clinical genetics (n=20) regarding the potential impact of PREcision Genetic Counselling And REproduction (PREGCARE)-a new preconception personalised recurrence risk assessment strategy.

RESULTS

Those interviewed regarded PREGCARE as a very useful addition to risk management, especially for cases where it revised the risk downwards or clarified that a couple's personalised recurrence risk meets National Health Service thresholds for non-invasive prenatal testing, otherwise inaccessible based on the generic DNM recurrence risk.

CONCLUSION

Participants said it could release some couples requiring reassurance from undergoing unnecessary invasive testing in future pregnancies. However, they regarded mosaicism and PREGCARE as complex concepts to communicate, requiring further training and additional appointment time for pre-test genetic counselling to prepare couples for all the possible outcomes of a personalised risk assessment, including potentially identifying the parental origin of the DNM, and to ensure informed consent.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Reliability, Challenges, and Future Directions

Non-invasive prenatal testing was first discovered in 1988; it was primarily thought to be able to detect common aneuploidies, such as Patau syndrome (T13), Edward Syndrome (T18), and Down syndrome (T21). It comprises a simple technique involving the analysis of cell-free foetal DNA (cffDNA) obtained through maternal serum, using advances in next-generation sequencing. NIPT has shown promise as a simple and low-risk screening test, leading various governments and private organizations worldwide to dedicate significant resources towards its integration into national healthcare initiatives as well as the formation of consortia and research studies aimed at standardizing its implementation. This article aims to review the reliability of NIPT while discussing the current challenges prevalent among different communities worldwide.

Financial contribution as reason to opt out of non-invasive prenatal testing

OBJECTIVE

First trimester non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) provides pregnant women with a reliable, non-invasive method to screen for fetal aneuploidies. In the Netherlands, there is a nationwide prenatal screening program in which pregnant women and their partners are counseled about their options around 10 weeks of pregnancy. The first trimester and second trimester scan are fully reimbursed but the NIPT has an own financial contribution of €175 per participant, irrespective of type of insurance. The arguments for this own contribution are fear of uncritical use of NIPT or routinization. NIPT has a relatively stable uptake of 51%, against over 95% for second trimester anomaly scan. We aimed to explore the effect of this financial contribution on the decision to opt out of NIPT.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a survey among 350 pregnant women undergoing a second trimester anomaly scan in our center, Amsterdam UMC, between January 2021 and April 2022. All pregnant women who declined NIPT in the first trimester, were asked to participate and answered 11-13 questions about the decision-making process, the reasons to opt out and the financial contribution.

RESULTS

Information about NIPT was desired in 92% of women and 96% felt sufficiently informed. Most women took the decision not to perform NIPT with their partner and did not experience difficulties in taking this decision. The most important reason to decline NIPT was: "Every child is welcome" (69%). "The test was too expensive" was answered in 12% and was significantly correlated with lower maternal age. Additionally, one in five women (19%) said they would have done NIPT if it had been for free, which was significantly higher in younger women.

CONCLUSIONS

The own financial contribution plays a role in the decision-making to decline NIPT and partly explains the low uptake in the Netherlands. This suggests that there is no equal access to fetal aneuploidy screening. To overcome this inequality, this own contribution should be abandoned. We speculate that this will have a positive effect on the uptake, which will increase to at least 70% and potentially 94%.

Patient attitudes and preferences about expanded noninvasive prenatal testing

Introduction: Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is typically carried out to screen for common fetal chromosomal anomalies, with the option to screen for a wider range of chromosomal changes (expanded NIPT) becoming increasingly available. However, little is known about pregnant patients' attitudes and preferences regarding expanded NIPT. Methods: To address this gap, we surveyed general-risk patients having first-tier cfDNA screening at a private prenatal clinic on their expectations for expanded NIPT. Patients were asked questions regarding their current pregnancy and previous pregnancy history, their opinions on fetal DNA screenings during pregnancy and incidental findings, information and opinions on financial resources for NIPT, as well as socio-cultural questions to determine patient demographics. Results: Of the 200 survey participants, the majority were educated, self-reported as white, had a higher than average income, and reported no aneuploidy risk factors. When asked what information they would like to receive from cfDNA screening, the vast majority of participants wanted all information available that could have an immediate impact on fetal health (88%) or an immediate impact on infant health from birth (82%). Many participants also wanted information that could have a future impact on the child's health or an immediate or future impact on the pregnant woman's own health. Most participants wanted information about the sex of fetus (86%) and common trisomies (71%), with almost half of participants desiring information about rare autosomal aneuploidies and/or all genetic information that may affect the baby. In addition, participants were found to be comfortable screening for conditions that are well-known, influence care during pregnancy, and are treatable. Finally, while most respondents either had insurance coverage for NIPT or were able to afford NIPT out of pocket, the majority of our participants felt that expanded NIPT should be either free for everyone or for those considered high risk. Discussion: Our findings suggest that with appropriate pre-test counseling, pregnant patients may choose NIPT for an expanding list of conditions.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for "Non-Medical" Traits: Ensuring Consistency in Ethical Decision-Making

The scope of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) could expand in the future to include detailed analysis of the fetal genome. This will allow for the testing for virtually any trait with a genetic contribution, including "non-medical" traits. Here we discuss the potential use of NIPT for these traits. We outline a scenario which highlights possible inconsistencies with ethical decision-making. We then discuss the case against permitting these uses. The objections include practical problems; increasing inequities; increasing the burden of choice; negative impacts on the child, family, and society; and issues with implementation. We then outline the case for permitting the use of NIPT for these traits. These include arguments for reproductive liberty and autonomy; questioning the labeling of traits as "non-medical"; and the principle of procreative beneficence. This summary of the case for and against can serve as a basis for the development of a consistent and coherent ethical framework.

Experiences of receiving an increased chance of sex chromosome aneuploidy result from non-invasive prenatal testing in Australia: "A more complicated scenario than what I had ever realized"

Many non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) platforms screen for sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA) and SCA analysis is generally included in Australia where NIPT is available as a self-funded test. Little is known about the experience of receiving an NIPT result indicating an increased chance of SCA. This study aimed to explore the experiences of people who received this result and their perspectives on the information, care, and support they received from healthcare practitioners (HCPs). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people who received an NIPT result indicating an increased chance of SCA and continued their pregnancy. Most participants only had contact with a genetic counselor after receiving their result. Transcribed data were analyzed using rigorous thematic analysis to identify important patterns and themes. Participants (18 women, 2 male partners) described embarking on NIPT, primarily based on advice from their HCP and without much consideration. Consequently, participants expressed feeling unprepared for the unanticipated complexity of their NIPT result and were faced with making a time-sensitive decision about a condition they had not previously considered. While more pre-test information was desired, timely access to genetic counseling post-test assisted with adjustment to the result. These findings suggest that routinization of NIPT may be compromising informed decision-making, resulting in unpreparedness for an increased chance result. Given the increasing uptake and expanding scope of NIPT, resources should be dedicated to educating HCPs offering NIPT and ensuring timely access to genetic counseling post-result. With appropriate funding, genetics services may be able to play a central role in offering information and support to both people who undertake NIPT and their HCPs ordering the testing. Implementing a publicly funded screening program in Australia could assist with standardizing prenatal screening care pathways and consequently better access to appropriate resources.

Sayed A, Imoto A, Sato M, Dila KAS, Huy NT, Moji K. Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) Implementation in Japan: A Comparison with the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Taiwan

INTRODUCTION

The Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) guideline was issued and applied in 2013 by the Japanese Medical Association. Since being issued, the NIPT practice in Japan still has some problems related to indication, access, cost coverage and uniformity. Therefore, our study aimed to identify the Japanese challenges of adopting NIPT into prenatal diagnosis by comparing the system and process with other countries.

METHOD

The United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Taiwan were purposefully selected for comparison. All the countries, including Japan, introduced NIPT. The literature and information searches were conducted using PubMed, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, CiNii and Google searching engine.

RESULTS

The process of NIPT in Japan was very different from the other countries. Japan is the only country that indicated NIPT for only pregnant women over 35 years old in certificated facilities and did not have a policy regarding providing information on prenatal screening and NIPT to all women. Japan also did not have a policy regarding abortion due to fetal abnormalities. The practice of NIPT guidelines is different between non-certified and certified facilities. NIPT fee was the highest in Japan and was not covered by insurance.

CONCLUSION

Pregnant women in Japan suffered from disparities in information access, economic burden, geographic location, and practice of NIPT guidelines between the certified and the non-certified facilities. Pregnant women-centered prenatal diagnosis policy, including NIPT, should be established in Japan by learning cases from other countries.

Clinician views and experiences of non-invasive prenatal genetic screening tests in Australia

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) is being increasingly used by expectant parents. Much provision of this test in Australia is occurring in clinical settings where specialised genetic counselling is unavailable, such as general practice. Potential psychosocial consequences from this kind of prenatal genetic screening remain largely unexplored.

AIMS

To explore clinicians' experiences with NIPS for aneuploidy, their perspectives of the benefits and harms of NIPS, clinicians' information needs, and their perceptions of the needs of expectant parents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 17 health professionals (clinical geneticists, obstetricians, genetic counsellors and general practitioners) who request and counsel for NIPS in Australian hospital and private practice settings, conducted between June 2019 and February 2020.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified relating to clinicians' perceptions and experiences of NIPS in their practice: perceived benefits of NIPS, perceived harms of NIPS (with two subthemes: clinical harms and psychosocial harms), financial and equity-related concerns, counselling as a protective buffer against perceived harms, and clinicians' unmet education needs. While clinicians view NIPS as a useful and high-quality screening test, especially for detection of common trisomies, many participants had concerns about how NIPS has been implemented in practice, particularly the quality (and often absence) of pre-/post-test counselling and the routinisation of testing for sex chromosome aneuploidies, microdeletion and microduplication syndromes.

CONCLUSION

These findings support the need for targeted clinician training around NIPS, and for a shared decision-making approach to support expectant parents' autonomous decisions about NIPS.

Patient experience with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a primary screen for aneuploidy in the Netherlands

Background

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a screening method for trisomy 21 and other chromosomal abnormalities has been adopted widely across the globe. However, while many clinical validation studies have been performed, less is known regarding the patient experience with NIPT. This study explored how individuals experience NIPT in a pre- and post-test setting, where NIPT is broadly available as a primary screening method with the option of reporting beyond common trisomies.

Methods

Participants were recruited using social media with a strategy designed to select individuals who had the option to have NIPT as part of the TRIDENT-2 study (In the Netherlands, NIPT is only available within the TRIDENT studies executed by the NIPT consortium. This research was done independently from the NIPT consortium.) in the Netherlands. The study used online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Both were developed around a patient experience framework consisting of seven themes: information, patient as active participant, responsiveness of services, lived experience, continuity of care and relationships, communication, and support.

Results

Overall, 4539 questionnaire responses were analyzed and 60% of the respondents had experienced NIPT. Of those, 1.7% received a high-risk result for trisomy or another chromosomal copy number variant (referred to as an “additional finding”). Overall, participants felt they had received sufficient information and had control over their decision regarding whether or not to choose NIPT. The vast majority of respondents who had NIPT were positive about their experience and would use it again. Those with results showing an increased probability for trisomy or additional findings were more likely to report negative feelings such as tension and anxiety, and less likely to feel that they had been sufficiently prepared for the implications of their results.

Conclusions

The patient experience with first-tier NIPT in the Netherlands was largely positive. Areas for improvement included counseling on the implications of screening and the different possible outcomes of NIPT, including additional findings that may be uncovered by expanding NIPT beyond the common trisomies. The experiences reported in this study may be useful for other countries intending to implement NIPT.

False-positives and false-negatives in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): what can we learn from a meta-analyses on > 750,000 tests?

Background

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has had an incomparable triumph in prenatal diagnostics in the last decade. Over 1400 research articles have been published, predominantly praising the advantages of this test.

Methods

The present study identified among the 1400 papers 24 original and one review paper, which were suited to re-evaluate the efficacy of > 750,000 published NIPT-results. Special attention was given to false-positive and false-negative result-rates. Those were discussed under different aspects—mainly from a patient-perspective.

Results

A 27: 1 rate of false-positive compared to false-negative NIPT results was found. Besides, according to all reported, real-positive, chromosomally aberrant NIPT cases, 90% of those would have been aborted spontaneously before birth. These findings are here discussed under aspects like (i) How efficient is NIPT compared to first trimester screening? (ii) What are the differences in expectations towards NIPT from specialists and the public? and (iii) There should also be children born suffering from not by NIPT tested chromosomal aberrations; why are those never reported in all available NIPT studies?

Conclusions

Even though much research has been published on NIPT, unbiased figures concerning NIPT and first trimester screening efficacy are yet not available. While false positive rates of different NIPT tests maybe halfway accurate, reported false-negative rates are most likely too low. The latter is as NIPT-cases with negative results for tested conditions are yet not in detail followed up for cases with other genetic or teratogenic caused disorders. This promotes an image in public, that NIPT is suited to replace all invasive tests, and also to solve the problem of inborn errors in humans, if not now then in near future. Overall, it is worth discussing the usefulness of NIPT in practical clinical application. Particularly, asking for unbiased figures concerning the efficacy of first trimester-screening compared to NIPT, and for really comprehensive data on false-positive and false-negative NIPT results.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening Strategies Involving Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomy 21

Introduction

In accordance with social development, the proportion of advanced maternal age (AMA) increased and the cost of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) decreased.

Objective

We aimed to investigate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of NIPT as primary or contingent strategies limited to the high-risk population of trisomy 21 (T21).

Methods

Referring to parameters from publications or on-site verification, a theoretical model involving 1,000,000 single pregnancies was established. We presented five screening scenarios, primary NIPT (Strategy 1), contingent NIPT after traditional triple serum screening higher than 1/300 or 1/1,000 (Strategy 2-1 or 2-2), and age-based Strategy 3. Strategy 3 was stratified, with the following options: (1) for advanced maternal age (AMA) of 40 years and more, diagnostic testing was offered, (2) for AMA of 35-39 years, NIPT was introduced, (3) if younger than 35 years of age, contingent NIPT with risk higher than 1:300 (Strategy 3-1) or 1:1,000 (Strategy 3-2) will be offered. The primary outcome was an incremental cost analysis on the baseline and alternative assumptions, taking aging society, NIPT price, and compliance into consideration. The strategy was "appropriate" when the incremental cost was less than the cost of raising one T21 child (0.215 million US$). The second outcome included total cost, cost-effect, cost-benefit analysis, and screening efficiency.

Results

Strategy1 was costly, while detecting most T21. Strategy 2-1 reduced unnecessary prenatal diagnosis (PD) and was optimal in total cost, cost-effect, and cost-benefit analysis, nevertheless, T21 detection was the least. Strategy 3 induced most of the PD procedures. Then, setting Strategy2-1 as a baseline for incremental cost analysis, Strategy 3-1 was appropriate. In sensitivity analysis, when the NIPT price was lower than 47 US$, Strategy 1 was the most appropriate. In a society with more than 20% of people older than 35 years of age, the incremental cost of Strategy 3-2 was proper.

Conclusion

Combined strategies involving NIPT reduced unnecessary diagnostic tests. The AMA proportion and NIPT price played critical roles in the strategic decision. The age-based strategy was optimal in incremental cost analysis and was presented to be prominent as AMA proportion and NIPT acceptance increased. The primary NIPT was the most effective, but only at a certain price, it became the most cost-effective strategy.

Effectiveness of alternative prenatal genetic counselling methods in a cohort of pregnant women from a low socio-economic population

BACKGROUND

There are concerns about the capacity of healthcare providers to adequately counsel women on the implications of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS). Studies suggest that more resource-efficient counselling methods are needed for broad adoption.

AIMS

We prospectively examined the effectiveness of alternative methods of prenatal counselling on a patient's knowledge and understanding of prenatal testing choices, with a focus on NIPS. We also evaluated prenatal test choice and emotional well-being after making this decision.

METHODS

Women from a low socio-economic population were offered NIPS at no additional cost along with typical prenatal screening and diagnosis. Study participants underwent prenatal counselling via a web-based video consultation or a telephone consultation with a genetic counsellor. Participants were asked to complete pre-counselling and post-counselling questionnaires.

RESULTS

Of 1000 women enrolled, 600 completed both surveys in full and were included in the analysis. Of these, 354 (59%) underwent counselling via a telephone consultation and 246 (41%) via the web-based video consultation. Both counselling methods led to a significant increase in patient knowledge (P < 0.01). NIPS uptake was equivalent between groups. Patients expressed a high level (90%) of satisfaction with their prenatal screen choice, with no significant difference (P > 0.10) between telephone and web participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Alternative methods of counselling such as a web-based education portal can be highly effective and should be considered to enable informed decision-making prior to undergoing prenatal screening such as NIPS. Further, web-based education tools could be beneficial for those in rural areas with limited access to healthcare providers and non-native speakers.

ISPD 2021 Debate - All IVF cycles should involve pre-implantation genetic testing to improve fetal health and pregnancy outcomes

For three decades, couples at increased risk for a genetic disorder have been offered preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). Simultaneously, PGT for aneuploidy (PGT-A) to improve in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes was introduced, but evidence of value-added remains inconsistent. Recently, lower genetic testing costs and shorter turnaround time have reinvigorated PGT-A. Additionally, a shift from blastomere (day 3) to blastocyst (day 5) transfer and embryo freezing advances support PGT without the time constraints of immediate transfer. PGT-A transformed from a time-constrained analysis of 1-2 cells to an "add on" study for all IVF. But should it be offered to all IVF patients? And if not, under what conditions? Pre-debate polling found 64% opposed to PGT for all IVF cycles with concerns voiced about cost, informed consent, and a "slippery slope". Leaving aside the inconsistent evidence of IVF improvement whether measured as miscarriage or livebirths with PGT-A, the debaters grappled with patient and provider desires versus the ethical concerns for the unborn child. However, the audience was not swayed; two thirds remained opposed to PGT for all IVF cycles. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Fetal information as shared information: using NIPT to test for adult-onset conditions

The possibilities of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) are expanding, and the use of NIPT for adult-onset conditions may become widely available in the near future. If parents use NIPT to test for these conditions, and the pregnancy is continued, they will have information about the child's genetic predisposition from birth. In this paper, we argue that prospective parents should be able to access NIPT for an adult-onset condition, even when they have no intention to terminate the pregnancy. We begin by outlining the arguments against testing in such a situation, which generally apply the same considerations that apply in the predictive testing of a minor to the fetus in utero. We then contend, firstly, that there are important practical considerations that support availability of testing for prospective parents regardless of their stated intentions. Secondly, we object to the ethical equation of a fetus in utero with a minor. We base our analysis on a view of pregnancy that conceptualises the fetus as a part of the gestational parent, as opposed to the more common 'container' model of pregnancy. We suggest that fetal information is best conceptualised as shared information between the gestational parent and future child. Thus, it should be approached in similar ways as other kinds of shared information (such as genetic information with implications for family members), where a person has a claim over their own information, but should be encouraged to consider the interests of other relevant parties.

Experiences of non-invasive prenatal screening: A survey study

BACKGROUND

In Australia, using non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) to screen for fetal abnormalities is becoming more commonplace. However, there is a lack of standardised procedures surrounding pre-test counselling. This holds the potential for variability in pregnant people's experiences when undergoing NIPT, which subsequently may impact their ability to make informed decisions surrounding NIPT results.

AIM

This study sought to characterise the experiences of Australian women undergoing NIPT, including perceptions of informed choice, counselling experiences and decision to undergo NIPT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Australian women who had been recently pregnant (n = 94) completed an online survey which assessed: their knowledge of and attitude toward NIPT; satisfaction with counselling; satisfaction with their decision; and decisional conflict to undergo NIPT. The survey also allowed participants to provide qualitative information about their counselling experience and reasons for undergoing NIPT.

RESULTS

Overall, participants had good knowledge of and positive attitudes toward NIPT, experienced low decisional conflict and were overall satisfied with their counselling experience and decision to undergo NIPT. However, some participants expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of information provided, and biased language, by counselling providers. The desire to be informed was the most frequent reason for undergoing NIPT.

CONCLUSION

The provision of accurate and objective information in pre-test counselling is important to reduce decisional conflict and improve satisfaction with the decision to undergo NIPT. It is recommended counselling providers present pregnant people with neutral, objective, and accurate information at the time of pre-test counselling.

Introducing the non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of Down syndrome in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the health economic value of a non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) strategy against a second-trimester triple screening (STS) strategy for the detection of Down syndrome based on real-world data from China.

DESIGN

A decision-analytical model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of five strategies from a societal perspective. Cost and probability input data were obtained from the real-world surveys and published sources.

SETTING

China.

PARTICIPANTS

Women with a singleton pregnancy.

INTERVENTIONS

The five strategies for screening were: (A) maternal age with STS (no NIPT); (B) STS plus NIPT screening; (C) age-STS plus NIPT screening (the currently referral strategy in China); (D) maternal age with NIPT screening and (E) universal NIPT screening.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per additional Down syndrome case terminated, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were obtained.

RESULTS

Strategy A detected the least number of Down syndrome cases. Compared with the cheapest Strategy B, Strategy D had the lowest ICER (incremental cost, US$98 944.85 per additional Down syndrome case detected). Strategy D had the highest probability of being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay level between US$110 000.00 and US$535 000.00 per additional Down syndrome case averted. Strategy E would not be cost-effective unless the unit cost of the NIPT could be decreased to US$60.50.

CONCLUSION

Introducing NIPT screening strategies was beneficial over the use of STS strategy alone. Evaluating maternal age in combination with the NIPT screening strategy performs better than China's currently referral strategy in terms of cost-effectiveness and safety. Lowering the price of NIPT and optimising payment methods are effective measures to promote universal NIPT strategies in China.

The Emergence and Global Spread of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

Since its introduction in 2011, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has spread rapidly around the world. It carries numerous benefits but also raises challenges, often related to sociocultural, legal, and economic contexts. This article describes the implementation of NIPT in nine countries, each with its own unique characteristics: Australia, Canada, China and Hong Kong, India, Israel, Lebanon, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Themes covered for each country include the structure of the healthcare system, how NIPT is offered, counseling needs and resources, and cultural and legal context regarding disability and pregnancytermination. Some common issues emerge, including cost as a barrier to equitable access, the complexity of decision-making about public funding, and a shortage of appropriate resources that promote informed choice. Conversely, sociocultural values that underlie the use of NIPT vary greatly among countries. The issues described will become even more challenging as NIPT evolves from a second-tier to a first-tier screening test with expanded use.

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.

Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access

The introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in healthcare systems around the world offers an opportunity to reconsider funding policies for prenatal screening. In some countries with universal access healthcare systems, pregnant women and their partners are asked to (co)pay for NIPT. In this paper, we discuss two important rationales for charging women for NIPT: (1) to prevent increased uptake of NIPT and (2) to promote informed choice. First, given the aim of prenatal screening (reproductive autonomy), high or low uptake rates are not intrinsically desirable or undesirable. Using funding policies to negatively affect uptake, however, is at odds with the aim of screening. Furthermore, copayment disproportionally affects those of lower socioeconomic status, which conflicts with justice requirements and impedes equal access to prenatal screening. Second, we argue that although payment models may influence pregnant women's choice behaviours and perceptions of the relevance of NIPT, the copayment requirement does not necessarily lead to better-informed choices. On the contrary, external (ie, financial) influences on women's personal choices for or against prenatal screening should ideally be avoided. To improve informed decision-making, healthcare systems should instead invest in adequate non-directive, value-focused pretest counselling. This paper concludes that requiring (substantial) copayments for NIPT in universal access healthcare systems fails to promote reproductive autonomy and is unfair.