Mollie A Minear1, Celine Lewis2, Subarna Pradhan3, Subhashini Chandrasekharan3. 1. Duke Science & Society, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Genomic and Genetic Medicine, UCL Institute of Child Health and Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 3. Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: We surveyed clinicians from 46 countries about the availability of NIPT, their experiences with using NIPT, and their views on clinical, ethical, and legal issues affecting implementation in their countries. RESULTS: Forty-nine respondents from 28 countries completed the survey. The majority reported that NIPT is available in their country (n = 43) and that they offer NIPT in their current practice (n = 38). Eighteen respondents from 14 countries reported that there are plans to introduce NIPT into routine prenatal care in their country. Test prices varied widely, ranging from $350 to $2900, and several respondents observed that high test prices limited or restricted widespread use of NIPT. Responses varied both across and within countries regarding who is offered NIPT and what the overall screening protocol should be. CONCLUSION: This study provides a snapshot of current use and experiences with NIPT globally. It also highlights differences in service provision that exists both across and within countries, emphasizing the need for developing national and international implementation guidelines for NIPT.
OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: We surveyed clinicians from 46 countries about the availability of NIPT, their experiences with using NIPT, and their views on clinical, ethical, and legal issues affecting implementation in their countries. RESULTS: Forty-nine respondents from 28 countries completed the survey. The majority reported that NIPT is available in their country (n = 43) and that they offer NIPT in their current practice (n = 38). Eighteen respondents from 14 countries reported that there are plans to introduce NIPT into routine prenatal care in their country. Test prices varied widely, ranging from $350 to $2900, and several respondents observed that high test prices limited or restricted widespread use of NIPT. Responses varied both across and within countries regarding who is offered NIPT and what the overall screening protocol should be. CONCLUSION: This study provides a snapshot of current use and experiences with NIPT globally. It also highlights differences in service provision that exists both across and within countries, emphasizing the need for developing national and international implementation guidelines for NIPT.
Authors: Peter Benn; Antoni Borrell; Rossa W K Chiu; Howard Cuckle; Lorraine Dugoff; Brigitte Faas; Susan Gross; Tianhua Huang; Joann Johnson; Ron Maymon; Mary Norton; Anthony Odibo; Peter Schielen; Kevin Spencer; Dave Wright; Yuval Yaron Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2015-06-04 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Rachèl V van Schendel; Johanna H Kleinveld; Wybo J Dondorp; Eva Pajkrt; Danielle R M Timmermans; Kim C A Holtkamp; Margreet Karsten; Anne L Vlietstra; Augusta M A Lachmeijer; Lidewij Henneman Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Melissa Hill; David Wright; Rebecca Daley; Celine Lewis; Fiona McKay; Sarah Mason; Nicholas Lench; Abigail Howarth; Christopher Boustred; Kitty Lo; Vincent Plagnol; Kevin Spencer; Jane Fisher; Mark Kroese; Stephen Morris; Lyn S Chitty Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Kitty K Lo; Evangelia Karampetsou; Christopher Boustred; Fiona McKay; Sarah Mason; Melissa Hill; Vincent Plagnol; Lyn S Chitty Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Melissa Hill; Jo-Ann Johnson; Sylvie Langlois; Hyun Lee; Stephanie Winsor; Brigid Dineley; Marisa Horniachek; Faustina Lalatta; Luisa Ronzoni; Angela N Barrett; Henna V Advani; Mahesh Choolani; Ron Rabinowitz; Eva Pajkrt; Rachèl V van Schendel; Lidewij Henneman; Wieke Rommers; Caterina M Bilardo; Paula Rendeiro; Maria João Ribeiro; José Rocha; Ida Charlotte Bay Lund; Olav B Petersen; Naja Becher; Ida Vogel; Vigdis Stefánsdottir; Sigrun Ingvarsdottir; Helga Gottfredsdottir; Stephen Morris; Lyn S Chitty Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Lyn S Chitty; David Wright; Melissa Hill; Talitha I Verhoef; Rebecca Daley; Celine Lewis; Sarah Mason; Fiona McKay; Lucy Jenkins; Abigail Howarth; Louise Cameron; Alec McEwan; Jane Fisher; Mark Kroese; Stephen Morris Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-07-04