Non-invasive prenatal testing in mitigating concerns from invasive prenatal diagnostic testing: retrospective assessment of utility in an academic healthcare system in the US.

OBJECTIVE

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a front-line screening for fatal chromosomal aneuploidy. In pregnant women with a risk of having fetal congenital disorders, NIPT is anticipated to reduce the needs of invasive prenatal diagnostic test (IPD). The objective of this study was to understand the acceptance of NIPT and the utility of NIPT to mitigate concerns about IPD in the US high-risk pregnancy management.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a retrospective observational research using healthcare records obtained from an academic healthcare system in the US. The study consisted of site-level longitudinal analysis and patient-level cross-sectional analysis.

PARTICIPANT

A total of 5660 new high-risk pregnancies with age ≥35 years were identified for the longitudinal trend analysis. Cross-sectional utility assessment included 2057 pregnant women.

EXPOSURE AND OUTCOME MEASURES

Longitudinal trends of NIPT order, IPD procedure and the number of patients diagnosed with high-risk pregnancy were descriptively summarised. In the cross-sectional assessment, we tested the association between the use of NIPT and IPD using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

The rate of increase in the NIPT use exceeded the changes in the number of high-risk pregnancies with age ≥35 years, while the number of annual IPD procedures has fluctuated without specific trends. There was no significant association between the numbers of NIPT and IPD with the adjusted ORs between 0.90 and 1.14 (p>0.1). The order of NIPT was not selected as an independent variable predicting the use of IPD. Clinical characteristics indicating low socioeconomic status and limited healthcare coverage are associated with less use of NIPT and lower clinical utility.

CONCLUSION

Although prenatal care accepted NIPT over the last decade, the utility of NIPT in mitigating concerns on IPD is unclear and needs further investigation. Limited clinical utility should be addressed in the context of disparity in prenatal care.