Subhashini Chandrasekharan

Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges

Noninvasive prenatal genetic testing (NIPT) is an advance in the detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidies that analyzes cell-free fetal DNA in the blood of a pregnant woman. Since its introduction to clinical practice in Hong Kong in 2011, NIPT has quickly spread across the globe. While many professional societies currently recommend that NIPT be used as a screening method, not a diagnostic test, its high sensitivity (true positive rate) and specificity (true negative rate) make it an attractive alternative to the serum screens and invasive tests currently in use. Professional societies also recommend that NIPT be accompanied by genetic counseling so that families can make informed reproductive choices. If NIPT becomes more widely adopted, States will have to implement regulation and oversight to ensure it fits into existing legal frameworks, with particular attention to returning fetal sex information in areas where sex-based abortions are prevalent. Although there are additional challenges for NIPT uptake in the developing world, including the lack of health care professionals and infrastructure, the use of NIPT in low-resource settings could potentially reduce the need for skilled clinicians who perform invasive testing. Future advances in NIPT technology promise to expand the range of conditions that can be detected, including single gene disorders. With these advances come questions of how to handle incidental findings and variants of unknown significance. Moving forward, it is essential that all stakeholders have a voice in crafting policies to ensure the ethical and equitable use of NIPT across the world.

Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States

Cell‐free fetal DNA‐based noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) could significantly change the paradigm of prenatal testing and screening. Intellectual property (IP) and commercialization promise to be important components of the emerging debate about clinical implementation of these technologies. We have assembled information about types of testing, prices, turnaround times, and reimbursement of recently launched commercial tests in the United States from the trade press, news articles, and scientific, legal, and business publications. We also describe the patenting and licensing landscape of technologies underlying these tests and ongoing patent litigation in the United States. Finally, we discuss how IP issues may affect clinical translation of NIPT and their potential implications for stakeholders. Fetal medicine professionals (clinicians and researchers), genetic counselors, insurers, regulators, test developers, and patients may be able to use this information to make informed decisions about clinical implementation of current and emerging noninvasive prenatal tests.

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Goes Global

Noninvasive prenatal genetic testing is becoming available worldwide, but many practical and ethical challenges in the developing world should be considered. Noninvasive prenatal genetic testing is becoming available worldwide—particularly in low- and middle-income countries—but practical and ethical challenges must be overcome.

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.

Impact of gene patents and licensing practices on access to genetic testing for inherited susceptibility to cancer: comparing breast and ovarian cancers with colon cancers.

Genetic testing for inherited susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer can be compared with similar testing for colorectal cancer as a “natural experiment.” Inherited susceptibility accounts for a similar fraction of both cancers and genetic testing results guide decisions about options for prophylactic surgery in both sets of conditions. One major difference is that in the United States, Myriad Genetics is the sole provider of genetic testing, because it has sole control of relevant patents for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, whereas genetic testing for familial colorectal cancer is available from multiple laboratories. Colorectal cancer-associated genes are also patented, but they have been nonexclusively licensed. Prices for BRCA1 and 2 testing do not reflect an obvious price premium attributable to exclusive patent rights compared with colorectal cancer testing, and indeed, Myriads per unit costs are somewhat lower for BRCA1/2 testing than testing for colorectal cancer susceptibility. Myriad has not enforced patents against basic research and negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Cancer Institute in 1999 for institutional BRCA testing in clinical research. The main impact of patenting and licensing in BRCA compared with colorectal cancer is the business model of genetic testing, with a sole provider for BRCA and multiple laboratories for colorectal cancer genetic testing. Myriads sole-provider model has not worked in jurisdictions outside the United States, largely because of differences in breadth of patent protection, responses of government health services, and difficulty in patent enforcement.

Intellectual property, technology transfer and manufacture of low-cost HPV vaccines in India

An empirical study of the impact of patenting and licensing on regional manufacturing of human papilloma virus vaccines to help improve vaccine affordability and access.

The dangers of diagnostic monopolies.

In the first of two commentaries on intellectual property, Robert Cook-Deegan, Subhashini Chandrasekharan and Misha Angrist show how the United States can address glitches with exclusive licences.

Proprietary science, open science and the role of patent disclosure: the case of zinc-finger proteins

A closer look at the large patent estate now covering both the engineering and use of zinc-finger proteins.

Impact of gene patents and licensing practices on access to genetic testing and carrier screening for Tay-Sachs and Canavan disease

Genetic testing for Tay-Sachs and Canavan disease is particularly important for Ashkenazi Jews, because both conditions are more frequent in that population. This comparative case study was possible because of different patenting and licensing practices. The role of DNA testing differs between Tay-Sachs and Canavan diseases. The first-line screening test for Tay-Sachs remains an enzyme activity test rather than genotyping. Genotyping is used for preimplantation diagnosis and confirmatory testing. In contrast, DNA-based testing is the basis for Canavan screening and diagnosis. The HEXA gene for Tay-Sachs was cloned at the National Institutes of Health, and the gene was patented but has not been licensed. The ASPA gene for Canavan disease was cloned and patented by Miami Childrens Hospital. Miami Childrens Hospital did not inform family members and patient groups that had contributed to the gene discovery that it was applying for a patent, and pursued restrictive licensing practices when a patent issued in 1997. This led to intense controversy, litigation, and a sealed, nonpublic 2003 settlement that apparently allowed for nonexclusive licensing. A survey of laboratories revealed a possible price premium for ASPA testing, with per-unit costs higher than for other genetic tests in the Secretarys Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society case studies. The main conclusion from comparing genetic testing for Tay-Sachs and Canavan diseases, however, is that patenting and licensing conducted without communication with patients and advocates cause mistrust and can lead to controversy and litigation, a negative model to contrast with the positive model of patenting and licensing for genetic testing of cystic fibrosis.

Harm, hype and evidence: ELSI research and policy guidance

There has been much investment in research on the ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) associated with genetic and genomic research. This research should inform the development of the relevant policy. So far, much of the relevant policy - such as in the areas of patents, genetic testing and genetic discrimination - seems to be informed more by speculation of harm and anecdote than by available evidence. Although a quest for evidence cannot always be allowed to delay policy choice, it seems axiomatic to us that policy options are improved by the incorporation of evidence.