Melissa Hill

Non‐invasive prenatal determination of fetal sex: translating research into clinical practice

Hill M, Finning K, Martin P, Hogg J, Meaney C, Norbury G, Daniels G, Chitty LS. Non‐invasive prenatal determination of fetal sex: translating research into clinical practice.

Women’s and health professionals’ preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: a discrete choice experiment to contrast noninvasive prenatal diagnosis with current invasive tests

Purpose:To compare the preferences of women and health professionals for key attributes of noninvasive prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome relative to current invasive tests.Methods:A questionnaire incorporating a discrete choice experiment was used to obtain participants’ stated preference for diagnostic tests that varied according to four attributes: accuracy, time of test, risk of miscarriage, and provision of information about Down syndrome only or Down syndrome and other conditions. Women and health professionals were recruited from five maternity services in England and a patient support group.Results:Questionnaires from 335 women and 181 health professionals were analyzed. Safe tests, conducted early in pregnancy, with high accuracy and information about Down syndrome and other conditions were preferred. The key attribute affecting women’s preferences for testing was no risk of miscarriage, whereas for health professionals it was accuracy.Conclusions:Policies for implementing noninvasive prenatal diagnosis must consider the differences between women’s and health professionals’ preferences to ensure the needs of all stakeholders are met. Women’s strong preference for tests with no risk of miscarriage demonstrates that consideration for safety of the fetus is paramount in decision making. Effective pretest counseling is therefore essential to ensure women understand the possible implications of results.Genet Med 2012:14(11):905–913

The clinical implementation of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for single-gene disorders: challenges and progress made.

Recently, we have witnessed the rapid translation into clinical practice of non‐invasive prenatal testing for the common aneuploidies, most notably within the United States and China. This represents a lucrative market with testing being driven by companies developing and offering their services. These tests are currently aimed at women with high/medium‐risk pregnancies identified by serum screening and/or ultrasound scanning. Uptake has been impressive, albeit limited to the commercial sector. However, non‐invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single‐gene disorders has attracted less interest, no doubt because this represents a much smaller market opportunity and in the majority of cases has to be provided on a bespoke, patient or disease‐specific basis. The methods and workflows are labour‐intensive and not readily scalable. Nonetheless, there exists a significant need for NIPD of single‐gene disorders, and the continuing advances in technology and data analysis should facilitate the expansion of the NIPD test repertoire. Here, we review the progress that has been made to date, the different methods and platform technologies, the technical challenges, and assess how new developments may be applied to extend testing to a wider range of genetic disorders.

A systematic review of population screening for fragile X syndrome.

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review of literature regarding population-based screening for fragile X syndrome in newborns and women of reproductive age, either before or during pregnancy.Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched for English language studies published between January 1991 and November 2009. Data extraction was performed for all included studies. Results were synthesized using a narrative approach.Results: One article that examined offering newborn screening for fragile X syndrome and 10 that examined the offer of fragile X syndrome screening to women of reproductive age were identified. Two of these articles also addressed psychosocial aspects of population screening for fragile X syndrome such as attitudes to screening and experiences of screening, and a further nine addressed these issues alone. Studies exploring psychosocial issues demonstrated challenges for counseling arising from a lack of awareness or personal experience with fragile X syndrome in the general population.Conclusions: Targeted counseling and educational strategies will be essential to support women from the general population. It is crucial that future studies offering screening for fragile X syndrome explore a range of psychosocial aspects in addition to looking at uptake of testing and mutation frequency.

Model-Based Analysis of Costs and Outcomes of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Down's Syndrome Using Cell Free Fetal DNA in the UK National Health Service

Background Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down’s syndrome (DS) using cell free fetal DNA in maternal blood has the potential to dramatically alter the way prenatal screening and diagnosis is delivered. Before NIPT can be implemented into routine practice, information is required on its costs and benefits. We investigated the costs and outcomes of NIPT for DS as contingent testing and as first-line testing compared with the current DS screening programme in the UK National Health Service. Methods We used a pre-existing model to evaluate the costs and outcomes associated with NIPT compared with the current DS screening programme. The analysis was based on a hypothetical screening population of 10,000 pregnant women. Model inputs were taken from published sources. The main outcome measures were number of DS cases detected, number of procedure-related miscarriages and total cost. Results At a screening risk cut-off of 1∶150 NIPT as contingent testing detects slightly fewer DS cases, has fewer procedure-related miscarriages, and costs the same as current DS screening (around UK£280,000) at a cost of £500 per NIPT. As first-line testing NIPT detects more DS cases, has fewer procedure-related miscarriages, and is more expensive than current screening at a cost of £50 per NIPT. When NIPT uptake increases, NIPT detects more DS cases with a small increase in procedure-related miscarriages and costs. Conclusions NIPT is currently available in the private sector in the UK at a price of £400-£900. If the NHS cost was at the lower end of this range then at a screening risk cut-off of 1∶150 NIPT as contingent testing would be cost neutral or cost saving compared with current DS screening. As first-line testing NIPT is likely to produce more favourable outcomes but at greater cost. Further research is needed to evaluate NIPT under real world conditions.

Noninvasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy–ready for prime time?

Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis using cell-free fetal DNA in the maternal plasma is moving into routine clinical practice for some indications. Here the authors discuss exciting developments in noninvasive prenatal diagnosis for aneuploidy afforded by recent publications, including 2 papers published in this journal, and highlight some of the issues that need to be considered before these tests can be implemented as part of routine antenatal care.

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.