Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy in a national healthcare system: global challenges and national solutions.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in 2011, mainly by commercial companies, a growing demand for NIPT from the public and healthcare professionals has been putting pressure on the healthcare systems of various countries. This study identifies the challenges of establishing a responsible implementation of NIPT for aneuploidy in prenatal healthcare, by looking at the Netherlands. METHODS: A mixed methods approach involving 13 stakeholder interviews, document analysis and (participatory) observations of the Dutch NIPT Consortium meetings were used. The Diffusion of Innovation Theory and a Network of Actors model were used to interpret the findings. RESULTS: Implementation of NIPT was facilitated by several factors. The set-up of a national NIPT Consortium enabled discussion and collaboration between stakeholders. Moreover, it led to the plan to offer NIPT through a nationwide research setting (TRIDENT studies), which created a learning phase for careful implementation. The Dutch legal context was perceived as a delaying factor, but eventually gave room for the parties involved to organise themselves and their practices. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that implementing advanced technologies with profound effects on prenatal care benefit from a learning phase that allows time to carefully evaluate the technical performance and women's experiences and to enable public debate. Such a coordinated learning phase, involving all stakeholders, will stimulate the process of responsible and sustainable implementation.

What Do Parents of Children with Down Syndrome Think about Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT)?

This study explores the attitudes of parents of children with Down syndrome towards non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and widening the scope of prenatal screening. Three focus groups (n = 16) and eleven individual interviews with Dutch parents (and two relatives) of children with Down syndrome were conducted. Safety, accuracy and earlier testing were seen as the advantages of NIPT. Some participants were critical about the practice of screening for Down syndrome, but acknowledged that NIPT enables people to know whether the fetus is affected and to prepare without risking miscarriage. Many feared uncritical use of NIPT and more abortions for Down syndrome. Concerns included the consequences for the acceptance of and facilities for children with Down syndrome, resulting in more people deciding to screen. Participants stressed the importance of good counseling and balanced, accurate information about Down syndrome. Testing for more disorders might divert the focus away from Down syndrome, but participants worried about "where to draw the line". They also feared a loss of diversity in society. Findings show that, while parents acknowledge that NIPT offers a better and safer option to know whether the fetus is affected, they also have concerns about NIPT's impact on the acceptance and care of children with Down syndrome.

Women's Experience with Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing and Emotional Well-being and Satisfaction after Test-Results.

Increasingly, high-risk pregnant women opt for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) instead of invasive diagnostic testing. Since NIPT is less accurate than invasive testing, a normal NIPT result might leave women less reassured. A questionnaire study was performed among pregnant women with elevated risk for fetal aneuploidy based on first-trimester combined test (risk ≥1:200) or medical history, who were offered NIPT in the nationwide Dutch TRIDENT study. Pre- and post-test questionnaires (n = 682) included measures on: experiences with NIPT procedure, feelings of reassurance, anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI), child-related anxiety (PRAQ-R), and satisfaction. The majority (96.1%) were glad to have been offered NIPT. Most (68.5%) perceived the waiting time for NIPT results (mean: 15 days, range 5-32) as (much) too long. Most women with a normal NIPT result felt reassured (80.9%) or somewhat reassured (15.7%). Levels of anxiety and child-related anxiety were significantly lower after receiving a normal NIPT result as compared to the moment of intake (p < 0.001). Women with inadequate health literacy or a medical history (e.g. previous child with trisomy) experienced significantly higher post-test-result anxiety (Mean (M) STAI = 31.6 and 30.0, respectively) compared to those with adequate health literacy (M = 28.6) and no medical history (M = 28.6), indicating these women might benefit from extra information and/or guidance when communicating NIPT test-results. Introducing NIPT as an alternative to invasive testing, led to an offer that satisfied and largely reassured high-risk pregnant women.

Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part II-women's perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate preferences and decision-making among high-risk pregnant women offered a choice between Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), invasive testing or no further testing. METHODS: Nationwide implementation study (TRIDENT) offering NIPT as contingent screening test for women at increased risk for fetal aneuploidy based on first-trimester combined testing (>1:200) or medical history. A questionnaire was completed after counseling assessing knowledge, attitudes and participation following the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice. RESULTS: A total of 1091/1253 (87%) women completed the questionnaire. Of these, 1053 (96.5%) underwent NIPT, 37 (3.4%) invasive testing and 1 (0.1%) declined testing. 91.7% preferred NIPT because of test safety. Overall, 77.9% made an informed choice, 89.8% had sufficient knowledge and 90.5% had positive attitudes towards NIPT. Women with intermediate (odds ratio (OR) = 3.51[1.70-7.22], p < 0.001) or high educational level (OR = 4.36[2.22-8.54], p < 0.001) and women with adequate health literacy (OR = 2.60[1.36-4.95], p = 0.004) were more likely to make an informed choice. Informed choice was associated with less decisional conflict and less anxiety (p < 0.001). Intention to terminate the pregnancy for Down syndrome was higher among women undergoing invasive testing (86.5%) compared to those undergoing NIPT (58.4%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of women had sufficient knowledge and made an informed choice. Continuous attention for counseling is required, especially for low-educated and less health-literate women. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Changing to NIPT as a first-tier screening test and future perspectives: opinions of health professionals.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate health professionals' opinions toward offering noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as first-tier screening test regardless of pregnant women's risk, and toward a potential broader range of disorders. METHODS: A questionnaire completed by obstetric health professionals (n = 240) after an in-service NIPT training in the West and North of the Netherlands. RESULTS: The majority (72%) of respondents favored replacing first-trimester combined test (FCT) by NIPT, although 43% preferred to maintain nuchal translucency measurement. Many respondents believed that replacing FCT by NIPT would only have advantages (57%), would lead to more pregnant women opting for prenatal testing (69%), and would simplify counseling (47%). Differences in attitudes toward counseling between health professionals were observed. When considering NIPT to screen for broader range of disorders, the majority (92%) thought that this should include disorders characterized by neonatal death, whereas 52% of the respondents favored testing for fetomaternal risk factors. Overall, 46% thought screening should be offered as a fixed list of disorders. CONCLUSION: Most health professionals favor NIPT instead of FCT but prefer to maintain nuchal translucency measurement. If NIPT becomes available as a first-tier screening test, attention remains necessary to ensure that pregnant women make well-informed decisions in line with the aim of prenatal screening.

NIPT-based screening for Down syndrome and beyond: what do pregnant women think?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to study pregnant women's views on noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down syndrome and the potential to test for a broader range of conditions. METHODS: An online questionnaire available on the Dutch pregnancy fair website was completed by 381 pregnant women. RESULTS: Of the women, 51% expressed interest in having NIPT, including 33% of women who had declined first-trimester screening. The majority (73%) thought that the uptake of screening would increase with NIPT. Most women agreed that testing for life-threatening (89%), severe physical (79%), or severe mental (76%) disorders should be offered. A minority (29%) felt that prenatal screening should also be offered for late-onset disorders. Most (41%) preferred to have a free choice from a list of disorders, 31% preferred a 'closed offer', and 26% preferred choosing between packages of disorders. Although most women (76%) thought that screening for a broad range of conditions would avoid much suffering, 39% feared that it would confront couples with choices, the implications of which would be difficult to grasp. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the uptake of screening will increase with NIPT. If NIPT will be offered for a broad range of conditions, it is crucial to find a way that facilitates rather than undermines well-informed decision-making.

Preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: an international comparison of the views of pregnant women and health professionals.

Non-invasive prenatal testing is increasingly available worldwide and stakeholder viewpoints are essential to guide implementation. Here we compare the preferences of women and health professionals from nine different countries towards attributes of non-invasive and invasive prenatal tests for Down syndrome. A discrete choice experiment was used to obtain participants' stated preference for prenatal tests that varied according to four attributes: accuracy, time of test, risk of miscarriage, and type of information. Pregnant women and health professionals were recruited from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. A total of 2666 women's and 1245 health professionals' questionnaires were included in the analysis. Differences in preferences were seen between women and health professionals within and between countries. Overall, women placed greater emphasis on test safety and comprehensive information than health professionals, who emphasised accuracy and early testing. Differences between women's and health professionals' preferences are marked between countries. Varied approaches to implementation and service delivery are therefore needed and individual countries should develop guidelines appropriate for their own social and screening contexts.

Attitudes of pregnant women and male partners towards non-invasive prenatal testing and widening the scope of prenatal screening.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and its potential to test for multiple disorders has received much attention. This study explores attitudes of women and men towards NIPT, and their views on widening the scope of prenatal testing in a country with a low uptake of prenatal screening (The Netherlands). Five focus groups with low-risk pregnant women (n=28), three focus groups with men (n=19) and 13 interviews with high- and low-risk pregnant women were conducted. Participants felt that current prenatal screening has great disadvantages such as uncertain results and risk of miscarriage from follow-up diagnostics. Characteristics of NIPT (accurate, safe and early testing) could therefore diminish these disadvantages of prenatal screening and help lower the barrier for participation. This suggests that NIPT might allow couples to decide about prenatal testing based mostly on their will to test or not, rather than largely based on fear of miscarriage risk or the uncertainty of results. The lower barrier for participation was also seen as a downside that could lead to uncritical use or pressure to test. Widening the scope of prenatal testing was seen as beneficial for severe disorders, although it was perceived difficult to determine where to draw the line. Participants argued that there should be a limit to the scope of NIPT, avoiding testing for minor abnormalities. The findings suggest that NIPT could enable more meaningful decision-making for prenatal screening. However, to ensure voluntary participation, especially when testing for multiple disorders, safeguards on the basis of informed decision-making will be of utmost importance.