Non-invasive prenatal testing for everybody or contingent screening?

Abstract

To compare the advantages and disadvantages of two main implementation strategies for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for the detection of trisomies 21, 13 and 18 in public healthcare settings. These concern NIPT as a first-tier screening test for all pregnant women, or NIPT contingent on an increased risk first-trimester combined test (FCT) result. Comparison based on (un)published data and literature. Despite the lower prevalence of trisomies in the low-risk population, data show that the positive predictive value (PPV) and detection-miscarriage ratio of first-tier NIPT are comparable to NIPT used as contingency test. Advantages of NIPT as a first-tier test compared to FCT with contingent NIPT are that there is no time-window for testing, sensitivity is higher, fewer women need follow-up testing (PPV of NIPT is higher than PPV of FCT), less anxiety for pregnant women and partners. When given the choice, pregnant women prefer first-tier NIPT. Although contingency testing still seems to be the cheaper option, the differences in costs are becoming increasingly smaller and might soon disappear. We argue that NIPT should preferably be offered as a first-tier test for the detection of fetal aneuploidies for all pregnant women, provided that women are supported to make informed decisions. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.