Celine Lewis

Genetic education and the challenge of genomic medicine: development of core competences to support preparation of health professionals in Europe

The use of genetics and genomics within a wide range of health-care settings requires health professionals to develop expertise to practise appropriately. There is a need for a common minimum standard of competence in genetics for health professionals in Europe but because of differences in professional education and regulation between European countries, setting curricula may not be practical. Core competences are used as a basis for health professional education in many fields and settings. An Expert Group working under the auspices of the EuroGentest project and European Society of Human Genetics Education Committee agreed that a pragmatic solution to the need to establish common standards for education and practice in genetic health care was to agree to a set of core competences that could apply across Europe. These were agreed through an exhaustive process of consultation with relevant health professionals and patient groups. Sets of competences for practitioners working in primary, secondary and tertiary care have been agreed and were approved by the European Society of Human Genetics. The competences provide an appropriate framework for genetics education of health professionals across national boundaries, and the suggested learning outcomes are available to guide development of curricula that are appropriate to the national context, educational system and health-care setting of the professional involved. Collaboration between individuals from many European countries and professions has resulted in an adaptable framework for both pre-registration and continuing professional education. This competence framework has the potential to improve the quality of genetic health care for patients globally.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Down's Syndrome: Pregnant Women's Views and Likely Uptake

Background: The introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Downs syndrome into routine state-funded antenatal care in the UK is approaching. Methods: We conducted qualitative one-to-one interviews with 40 pregnant women to ascertain their views on using NIPT for Downs syndrome. Results: The overwhelming majority of women viewed NIPT as a positive advancement in prenatal care, highlighting numerous practical and psychological advantages of a safe test that was highly accurate and could be conducted early in pregnancy. Concerns raised were that testing could become routinised, and that pressure to test might occur with women feeling less justified in declining a blood test that is available and offered by trusted health professionals; the impact on the disabled community and stigma for women who decline testing was also noted. Nevertheless, the vast majority of women said they would be likely to use NIPT, including half of the women who currently decline screening. Womens preference was for pre- and post-test counselling to be delivered by a midwife. Conclusion: The successful introduction of NIPT into routine prenatal care will require guidelines and counselling strategies which ensure women are offered this test in a way which safeguards informed consent.

Evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy in an NHS setting: a reliable accurate prenatal non-invasive diagnosis (RAPID) protocol

BackgroundNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidies is now available through commercial companies in many countries, including through private practice in the United Kingdom (UK). Thorough evaluation of service delivery requirements are needed to facilitate NIPT being offered more widely within state funded healthcare systems such as the UK’s National Health Service (NHS). Successful implementation will require the development of laboratory standards, consideration of stakeholder views, an analysis of costs and development of patient and health professional educational materials.Methods/DesignNIPT will be offered in an NHS setting as a contingent screening test. Pregnant woman will be recruited through six maternity units in England and Scotland. Women eligible for Down’s syndrome screening (DSS) will be informed about the study at the time of booking. Women that choose routine DSS will be offered NIPT if they have a screening risk ≥1:1000. NIPT results for trisomy 21, 18, 13 will be reported within 7–10 working days. Data on DSS, NIPT and invasive testing uptake, pregnancy outcomes and test efficacy will be collected. Additional data will be gathered though questionnaires to a) determine acceptability to patients and health professionals, b) evaluate patient and health professional education, c) assess informed choice in women accepting or declining testing and d) gauge family expenses. Qualitative interviews will also be conducted with a sub-set of participating women and health professionals.DiscussionThe results of this study will make a significant contribution to policy decisions around the implementation of NIPT for aneuploidies within the UK NHS. The laboratory standards for testing and reporting, education materials and counselling strategies developed as part of the study are likely to underpin the introduction of NIPT into NHS practice.NIHR Portfolio Number13865

Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for fetal sex determination: benefits and disadvantages from the service users' perspective

Prenatal fetal sex determination is clinically indicated for women who are at risk of having a child with a serious genetic disorder affecting a particular sex. Ultrasound has been the traditional method used, but early fetal sex determination using non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) can now be performed using cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma. The study aim was to assess the views and experiences of service users who had used NIPD for fetal sex determination. In this paper, we report on the perceived benefits and disadvantages. A qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews was used. A total of 44 participants (38 women and 6 partners of participating women) were recruited. Participants’ views and experiences of NIPD were overwhelmingly positive. Concerning benefits over traditional methods, three themes emerged: (1) technical aspects of technology; (2) timing; and (3) enhanced decision-making. Practical advantages of NIPD included avoiding miscarriage, and there were a number of psychological advantages associated with timing such as perceived control, early re-engagement, normalization of pregnancy and peace of mind. Participants also valued NIPD as it enabled a stepwise approach to decision-making. A number of disadvantages were discussed including concerns about social sexing and increased bonding at a time in pregnancy when miscarriage risk is high. However, participants felt these were fairly minor in comparison with the advantages of NIPD. Until definitive genetic diagnosis using NIPD is available, NIPD for fetal sex determination is perceived as a good interim measure with a number of notable advantages over traditional methods.

Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 21: a cross-sectional survey of service users' views and likely uptake

To assess the views and likely uptake of non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for trisomy 21 among potential service users in the UK.

Uptake, outcomes, and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome into NHS maternity care: prospective cohort study in eight diverse maternity units.

Objective To investigate the benefits and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down’s syndrome into the NHS maternity care pathway. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Eight maternity units across the United Kingdom between 1 November 2013 and 28 February 2015. Participants All pregnant women with a current Down’s syndrome risk on screening of at least 1/1000. Main outcome measures Outcomes were uptake of NIPT, number of cases of Down’s syndrome detected, invasive tests performed, and miscarriages avoided. Pregnancy outcomes and costs associated with implementation of NIPT, compared with current screening, were determined using study data on NIPT uptake and invasive testing in combination with national datasets. Results NIPT was prospectively offered to 3175 pregnant women. In 934 women with a Down’s syndrome risk greater than 1/150, 695 (74.4%) chose NIPT, 166 (17.8%) chose invasive testing, and 73 (7.8%) declined further testing. Of 2241 women with risks between 1/151 and 1/1000, 1799 (80.3%) chose NIPT. Of 71 pregnancies with a confirmed diagnosis of Down’s syndrome, 13/42 (31%) with the diagnosis after NIPT and 2/29 (7%) after direct invasive testing continued, resulting in 12 live births. In an annual screening population of 698 500, offering NIPT as a contingent test to women with a Down’s syndrome screening risk of at least 1/150 would increase detection by 195 (95% uncertainty interval −34 to 480) cases with 3368 (2279 to 4027) fewer invasive tests and 17 (7 to 30) fewer procedure related miscarriages, for a non-significant difference in total costs (£−46 000, £−1 802 000 to £2 661 000). The marginal cost of NIPT testing strategies versus current screening is very sensitive to NIPT costs; at a screening threshold of 1/150, NIPT would be cheaper than current screening if it cost less than £256. Lowering the risk threshold increases the number of Down’s syndrome cases detected and overall costs, while maintaining the reduction in invasive tests and procedure related miscarriages. Conclusions Implementation of NIPT as a contingent test within a public sector Down’s syndrome screening programme can improve quality of care, choices for women, and overall performance within the current budget. As some women use NIPT for information only, the Down’s syndrome live birth rate may not change significantly. Future research should consider NIPT uptake and informed decision making outside of a research setting.

Global perspectives on clinical adoption of NIPT

The goals of this study were to assess global trends in clinical implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), as commercial tests are marketed increasingly worldwide, and to identify potential challenges for current or future use.

Views and preferences for the implementation of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for single gene disorders from health professionals in the United Kingdom.

Non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) will offer new options in prenatal diagnosis for carriers of single gene disorders. This will affect carrier couples and health professionals involved in prenatal care. The aim of this study was to determine health professional opinions on NIPD for single gene disorders to guide development of infrastructure required for implementation. A qualitative approach was adopted using focus groups (N = 17) and one‐to‐one interviews (N = 30) with health professionals from a range of backgrounds involved in caring for carriers of single gene disorders. Data were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants were very positive about the introduction of NIPD, describing benefits arising from no risk of miscarriage, earlier testing and a simple procedure. A number of concerns for implementation were raised. Participants emphasized the need for the new test to be highly accurate and thoroughly validated. There was concern that people may not give as much thought to having a blood test compared to an invasive test or that it may be viewed as routine and as such NIPD may negatively impact on informed consent. In addition there was concern that the simplicity of a blood test may lead to increased pressure to test and terminate. However, participants felt these concerns could be overcome with thorough pre‐ and post‐test counseling. To ensure high quality care, offering NIPD through genetics or other specialist services is essential. Ongoing education and training of health professionals will be important, and guidelines and regulation are needed for effective implementation.

Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for single gene disorders: experience of patients

The aim of this study is to explore womens experiences of using newly developed non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders. Methods used in this study include qualitative one‐to‐one interviews with eight women with pregnancies at risk of achondroplasia, Apert syndrome, thanatophoric dysplasia or a neuromuscular condition. The results of the study show that the women were positive about an accurate, safe, and early test. Where the foetus was at increased risk of inheriting a genetic condition, the benefits of NIPD over invasive testing were that it reduced the period of uncertainty and worry by being conducted within the first trimester. For those women for whom there was a low recurrence risk, the period of uncertainty could be reduced and pregnancy ‘normalized’ earlier. For women who would not have risked invasive testing, NIPD enabled them to have an early diagnostic test that was more accurate than ultrasound. Where ultrasound abnormalities were detected, NIPD ended the ‘diagnostic odyssey’, enabling women to make practical and psychological preparations for the birth. NIPD conducted through specialist services was considered most appropriate. NIPD for these particular single gene disorders was appreciated by women and appears to be satisfactory. Further exploration of stakeholder views may be required to inform more widespread implementation of NIPD for a broader range of genetic conditions.

Non invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders: Exploring the ethics

Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders is now clearly on the horizon. This new technology offers obvious clinical benefits such as safe testing early in pregnancy. Before widespread implementation, it is important to consider the possible ethical implications. Four hypothetical scenarios are presented that highlight how ethical ideals of respect for autonomy, privacy and fairness may come into play when offering non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders. The first scenario illustrates the moral case for using these tests for ‘information only’, identifying a potential conflict between larger numbers of women seeking the benefits of the test and the wider social impact of funding tests that do not offer immediate clinical benefit. The second scenario shows how the simplicity and safety of non-invasive prenatal testing could lead to more autonomous decision-making and, conversely, how this could also lead to increased pressure on women to take up testing. In the third scenario we show how, unless strong safeguards are put in place, offering non-invasive prenatal testing could be subject to routinisation with informed consent undermined and that woman who are newly diagnosed as carriers may be particularly vulnerable. The final scenario introduces the possibility of a conflict of the moral rights of a woman and her partner through testing for single gene disorders. This analysis informs our understanding of the potential impacts of non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders on clinical practice and has implications for future policy and guidelines for prenatal care.