8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

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

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Noninvasive diagnosis of fetal aneuploidy by shotgun sequencing DNA from maternal blood.

          We directly sequenced cell-free DNA with high-throughput shotgun sequencing technology from plasma of pregnant women, obtaining, on average, 5 million sequence tags per patient sample. This enabled us to measure the over- and underrepresentation of chromosomes from an aneuploid fetus. The sequencing approach is polymorphism-independent and therefore universally applicable for the noninvasive detection of fetal aneuploidy. Using this method, we successfully identified all nine cases of trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), two cases of trisomy 18 (Edward syndrome), and one case of trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome) in a cohort of 18 normal and aneuploid pregnancies; trisomy was detected at gestational ages as early as the 14th week. Direct sequencing also allowed us to study the characteristics of cell-free plasma DNA, and we found evidence that this DNA is enriched for sequences from nucleosomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy.

              Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing for fetal trisomy is highly effective among high-risk women. However, there have been few direct, well-powered studies comparing cfDNA testing with standard screening during the first trimester in routine prenatal populations. In this prospective, multicenter, blinded study conducted at 35 international centers, we assigned pregnant women presenting for aneuploidy screening at 10 to 14 weeks of gestation to undergo both standard screening (with measurement of nuchal translucency and biochemical analytes) and cfDNA testing. Participants received the results of standard screening; the results of cfDNA testing were blinded. Determination of the birth outcome was based on diagnostic genetic testing or newborn examination. The primary outcome was the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) for trisomy 21 (Down's syndrome) with cfDNA testing versus standard screening. We also evaluated cfDNA testing and standard screening to assess the risk of trisomies 18 and 13. Of 18,955 women who were enrolled, results from 15,841 were available for analysis. The mean maternal age was 30.7 years, and the mean gestational age at testing was 12.5 weeks. The AUC for trisomy 21 was 0.999 for cfDNA testing and 0.958 for standard screening (P=0.001). Trisomy 21 was detected in 38 of 38 women (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 90.7 to 100) in the cfDNA-testing group, as compared with 30 of 38 women (78.9%; 95% CI, 62.7 to 90.4) in the standard-screening group (P=0.008). False positive rates were 0.06% (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.11) in the cfDNA group and 5.4% (95% CI, 5.1 to 5.8) in the standard-screening group (P<0.001). The positive predictive value for cfDNA testing was 80.9% (95% CI, 66.7 to 90.9), as compared with 3.4% (95% CI, 2.3 to 4.8) for standard screening (P<0.001). In this large, routine prenatal-screening population, cfDNA testing for trisomy 21 had higher sensitivity, a lower false positive rate, and higher positive predictive value than did standard screening with the measurement of nuchal translucency and biochemical analytes. (Funded by Ariosa Diagnostics and Perinatal Quality Foundation; NEXT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01511458.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                European Journal of Human Genetics
                Eur J Hum Genet
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                1018-4813
                1476-5438
                July 2016
                November 18 2015
                July 2016
                : 24
                : 7
                : 968-975
                Article
                10.1038/ejhg.2015.249
                5070900
                26577044
                a14c265e-4782-4a05-a816-ee75d324f197
                © 2016

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content831

                Cited by33

                Most referenced authors864