3.8 Article

Non-invasive Prenatal Testing and the Unveiling of an Impaired Translation Process

Journal

JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY CANADA
Volume 39, Issue 1, Pages 10-17

Publisher

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2016.09.004

Keywords

Commercialization; obstetrics; prenatal screening; gynaecology; ethics

Funding

  1. Genome Quebec
  2. Genome Canada
  3. Government of Canada
  4. PACE'OMICS project
  5. PEGASUS project
  6. Ministere de l'Enseignement Superieur, de la Recherche, de la Science et de la Technologie du Quebec
  7. Ariosa Diagnostics Inc., San Jose, CA
  8. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA
  9. Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA
  10. QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany
  11. Perkin Elmer, Inc., Waltham, MA
  12. Genome Alberta
  13. Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  14. Alberta Health Wellness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is an exciting technology with the potential to provide a variety of clinical benefits, including a reduction in miscarriages, via a decline in invasive testing. However, there is also concern that the economic and near-future clinical benefits of NIPT have been overstated and the potential limitations and harms underplayed. NIPT, therefore, presents an opportunity to explore the ways in which a range of social pressures and policies can influence the translation, implementation, and use of a health care innovation. NIPT is often framed as a potential first tier screen that should be offered to all pregnant women, despite concerns over cost-effectiveness. Multiple forces have contributed to a problematic translational environment in Canada, creating pressure towards first tier implementation. Governments have contributed to commercialization pressure by framing the publicly funded research sector as a potential engine of economic growth. Members of industry have an incentive to frame clinical value as beneficial to the broadest possible cohort in order to maximize market size. Many studies of NIPT were directly funded and performed by private industry in laboratories lacking strong independent oversight. Physicians' fear of potential liability for failing to recommend NIPT may further drive widespread uptake. Broad social endorsement, when combined with these translation pressures, could result in the routinization of NIPT, thereby adversely affecting women's reproductive autonomy. Policymakers should demand robust independent evidence of clinical and public health utility relevant to their respective jurisdictions before making decisions regarding public funding for NIPT. Copyright (C) 2017 The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Societe des obstetriciens et gynecologues du Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available