4.4 Article

Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for cystic fibrosis: detection of paternal mutations, exploration of patient preferences and cost analysis

期刊

PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS
卷 35, 期 10, 页码 950-958

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pd.4585

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under Programme Grants for Applied Research programme ('RAPID' project) [RP-PG-0707-10107]
  2. Central and East London NIHR Comprehensive Local Research Network
  3. Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity
  4. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Great Ormond Street Hospital
  5. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0513-10141, RP-PG-0707-10107] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives We aim to develop non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for cystic fibrosis (CF) and determine costs and implications for implementation. Methods A next-generation sequencing assay was developed to detect ten common CF mutations for exclusion of the paternal mutation in maternal plasma. Using uptake data from a study exploring views on NIPD for CF, total test-related costs were estimated for the current care pathway and compared with those incorporating NIPD. Results The assay reliably predicted mutation status in all control and maternal plasma samples. Of carrier or affected adults with CF (n=142) surveyed, only 43.5% reported willingness to have invasive testing for CF with 94.4% saying they would have NIPD. Using these potential uptake data, the incremental costs of NIPD over invasive testing per 100 pregnancies at risk of CF are 9025 for paternal mutation exclusion, and 26510 for direct diagnosis. Conclusions We have developed NIPD for risk stratification in around a third of CF families. There are economic implications due to potential increased test demand to inform postnatal management rather than to inform decisions around termination of an affected pregnancy. (c) 2015 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据