The implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caterina M. Bilardo
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Informed Choice ◽  
Great Emphasis ◽  
Reproductive Choices ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Genome Wide ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Cost

Abstract In the Netherlands prenatal screening is offered as a mean to increase reproductive choices of couples. All women are counseled on the existing options by trained midwives. The government puts a great emphasis on informed choice and on womens’ opinions and reactions to screenings options. Since 2017 non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT, cf-DNA) is offered as first tier screening for aneuploidies in the genome-wide (GW) variant at the cost of 175 Euro’s. Uptake is around 50%. This screenings offer is perceived as unconventional for the traditionally cautious Dutch system.

scholarly journals TRIDENT-2: National Implementation of Genome-wide Non-invasive Prenatal Testing as a First-Tier Screening Test in the Netherlands

2019 ◽  
Vol 105 (6) ◽  
pp. 1091-1101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karuna R.M. van der Meij ◽  
Erik A. Sistermans ◽  
Merryn V.E. Macville ◽  
Servi J.C. Stevens ◽  
Caroline J. Bax ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Screening Test ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Genome Wide ◽  
National Implementation

Ethics of routine: a critical analysis of the concept of ‘routinisation’ in prenatal screening

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (9) ◽  
pp. 626-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Kater-Kuipers ◽  
Inez D de Beaufort ◽  
Robert-Jan H Galjaard ◽  
Eline M Bunnik
Keyword(s):  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Informed Choice ◽  
First Trimester ◽  
Literature Analysis ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Reproductive Autonomy ◽  
Disabled People ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Non Invasive

In the debate surrounding the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in prenatal screening programmes, the concept of routinisation is often used to refer to concerns and potential negative consequences of the test. A literature analysis shows that routinisation has many different meanings, which can be distinguished in three major versions of the concept. Each of these versions comprises several inter-related fears and concerns regarding prenatal screening and particularly regarding NIPT in three areas: (1) informed choice, (2) freedom to choose and (3) consequences for people with a disability. Three of the strongest arguments raised under the flag of routinisation are assessed for their validity: the threat that NIPT poses to informed choice, the potential increase in uptake of first-trimester prenatal screening and its consequences for social pressure to participate in screening or terminate affected pregnancies, and the negative consequences for disabled people. These routinisation arguments lack empirical or normative ground. However, the results of this analysis do not imply that no attention should be paid to possible problems surrounding the introduction of NIPT. At least two problems remain and should be addressed: there should be an ongoing debate about the requirements of informed choice, particularly related to an expanded scope of prenatal screening. Also, reproductive autonomy can only be achieved when expecting parents’ options are variegated, real and valuable, so that they can continue to choose whether or not to screen or to terminate a pregnancy.

VP36 Cost-Effectiveness Of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing For Down Syndrome

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 165-166
Author(s):  
Estibalitz Orruño ◽  
Juan Carlos Bayón ◽  
Isabel Portillo ◽  
José Asua
Keyword(s):  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Cell Free Fetal Dna ◽  
Primary Test ◽  
The Cost

INTRODUCTION:The analysis of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood, also called Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), represents an emerging technology and a possible alternative/complement to current prenatal screening based on biochemical and sonographic markers for Down Syndrome (DS) detection.The aim of the study was to compare the application of NIPT with the prenatal diagnosis/screening procedures currently applied in the Basque Country.METHODS:An analytical decision model was developed to assess the costs and consequences, comparing current prenatal screening, NIPT as a contingency test in high-risk cases and NIPT as a first-line screening test. An economic analysis was conducted to determine which strategy was more cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses were performed (1).RESULTS:For a population of 97,074 pregnant women in gestational week 14 and a cut-off point of 1:270, NIPT as a contingent test was not cost-effective, detecting two cases less of DS and causing a lower number of miscarriages related to invasive-testing (4 versus 23) at a slightly lower cost (EUR8,111,351 versus EUR8,901,872).For risk cut-off points of 1:500 or 1:1000 for contingent NIPT, the number of DS cases detected increased, as did the cost. It could be cost-effective compared with current prenatal screening, (EUR61,763 or EUR256,123 per extra DS case detected, respectively).Using the NIPT as a primary test detected more DS cases (296 versus 271) and caused less miscarriages (5 versus 23), at a substantially higher cost (EUR41,395,645 versus EUR8,901,872). Cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that it was more expensive and more effective.Univariant sensitivity-analysis showed that when the price of the NIPT as primary test was EUR76, it was dominant compared with current prenatal screening. It was also cost-effective compared with the NIPT as a contingent test (EUR9,869 per extra DS case detected).CONCLUSIONS:The study shows that NIPT had higher detection rates for DS in different scenarios, but the cost constitutes a limiting factor for implementation in the Basque Health System.

scholarly journals Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 194-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eline M Bunnik ◽  
Adriana Kater-Kuipers ◽  
Robert-Jan H Galjaard ◽  
Inez D de Beaufort
Keyword(s):  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Universal Access ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Informed Choice ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Equal Access ◽  
Reproductive Autonomy ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Funding Policies

The introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in healthcare systems around the world offers an opportunity to reconsider funding policies for prenatal screening. In some countries with universal access healthcare systems, pregnant women and their partners are asked to (co)pay for NIPT. In this paper, we discuss two important rationales for charging women for NIPT: (1) to prevent increased uptake of NIPT and (2) to promote informed choice. First, given the aim of prenatal screening (reproductive autonomy), high or low uptake rates are not intrinsically desirable or undesirable. Using funding policies to negatively affect uptake, however, is at odds with the aim of screening. Furthermore, copayment disproportionally affects those of lower socioeconomic status, which conflicts with justice requirements and impedes equal access to prenatal screening. Second, we argue that although payment models may influence pregnant women’s choice behaviours and perceptions of the relevance of NIPT, the copayment requirement does not necessarily lead to better-informed choices. On the contrary, external (ie, financial) influences on women’s personal choices for or against prenatal screening should ideally be avoided. To improve informed decision-making, healthcare systems should instead invest in adequate non-directive, value-focused pretest counselling. This paper concludes that requiring (substantial) copayments for NIPT in universal access healthcare systems fails to promote reproductive autonomy and is unfair.

scholarly journals Routinization of prenatal screening with the non-invasive prenatal test: pregnant women’s perspectives

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karuna R. M. van der Meij ◽  
Annabel Njio ◽  
Linda Martin ◽  
Janneke T. Gitsels-van der Wal ◽  
Mireille N. Bekker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Informed Choice ◽  
Aneuploidy Screening ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Fetal Aneuploidy ◽  
Societal Pressure ◽  
Prenatal Test

AbstractDue to the favorable test characteristics of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) in the screening of fetal aneuploidy, there has been a strong and growing demand for implementation. In the Netherlands, NIPT is offered within a governmentally supported screening program as a first-tier screening test for all pregnant women (TRIDENT-2 study). However, concerns have been raised that the test’s favorable characteristics might lead to uncritical use, also referred to as routinization. This study addresses women’s perspectives on prenatal screening with NIPT by evaluating three aspects related to routinization: informed choice, freedom to choose and (personal and societal) perspectives on Down syndrome. Nationwide, a questionnaire was completed by 751 pregnant women after receiving counseling for prenatal screening. Of the respondents, the majority (75.5%) made an informed choice for prenatal screening as measured by the multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC). Education level and religious affiliation were significant predictors of informed choice. The main reason to accept screening was “seeking reassurance” (25.5%), and the main reason to decline was “every child is welcome” (30.6%). The majority of respondents (87.7%) did not perceive societal pressure to test. Differences between test-acceptors and test-decliners in personal and societal perspectives on Down syndrome were found. Our study revealed high rates of informed decision-making and perceived freedom to choose regarding fetal aneuploidy screening, suggesting that there is little reason for concern about routinization of NIPT based on the perspectives of Dutch pregnant women. Our findings highlight the importance of responsible implementation of NIPT within a national screening program.

scholarly journals Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing: Current Perspectives and Future Challenges

Genes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 15
Author(s):  
Luigi Carbone ◽  
Federica Cariati ◽  
Laura Sarno ◽  
Alessandro Conforti ◽  
Francesca Bagnulo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Fetal Dna ◽  
Cell Free Fetal Dna ◽  
Common Causes ◽  
Future Challenges ◽  
Neurodevelopmental Impairment ◽  
Fetal Aneuploidies ◽  
Made In

Fetal aneuploidies are among the most common causes of miscarriages, perinatal mortality and neurodevelopmental impairment. During the last 70 years, many efforts have been made in order to improve prenatal diagnosis and prenatal screening of these conditions. Recently, the use of cell-free fetal DNA (cff-DNA) testing has been increasingly used in different countries, representing an opportunity for non-invasive prenatal screening of pregnant women. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the state of the art and the main strengths and limitations of this test for prenatal screening of fetal aneuploidies.

scholarly journals Non-invasive prenatal testing: what an obstetrician needs to know

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 5200
Author(s):  
Mishu Mangla
Keyword(s):  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Primary Health Care Providers ◽  
First Choice

No field in obstetrics has seen such fast advancement, as the field of prenatal screening and diagnosis. A wide variety of tests are available today, and this at times becomes confusing both for the patient and the treating doctor that which screening test would be best suited in the given circumstances. Non-invasive prenatal screening, with its numerous advantages is rapidly becoming the test of first choice, especially in the affording set of population.  Although, the test has a very high sensitivity and a very good positive predictive value, this too suffers from some disadvantages which should be clear to the obstetrician ordering the test. A good knowledge about the test, the ideal target population in which this should be offered as the primary screening tool and limitations of the test should be known to all practicing obstetricians and primary health care providers. The current review aims to provide a simplified and updated knowledge regarding non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), its major advantages and disadvantages and summarizes the role of ultrasound in patients with negative NIPT.

Budget impact of incorporating non-invasive prenatal testing in prenatal screening for Down syndrome in Turkey

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-407
Author(s):  
Zeynep Guldem Okem ◽  
Gokcen Orgul ◽  
Berna Tari Kasnakoglu ◽  
Mehmet Cakar ◽  
Mehmet Sinan Beksac
Keyword(s):  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Non Invasive
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document