The Dutch NIPT Consortium, a multidisciplinary collaboration of stakeholders in prenatal care initiated and launched the TRIDENT studies. The goal of the TRIDENT studies was to implement non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), first as a contingent (second-tier) and later as a first-tier test, and to evaluate this implementation. This paper describes how NIPT can be successfully implemented in a country or state. Important factors include the significance of forming a consortium and encouraging cooperation among relevant stakeholders, appropriate training for obstetric care professionals, and taking into account the perspectives of pregnant women when implementing prenatal tests. We describe the advantages of high sensitivity and specificity when comparing contingent NIPT with first-tier NIPT. This paper emphasizes the value of pre- and post-test counselling and the requirement for a standardized method of information delivery and value clarification, to assist couples in decision making for prenatal screening.

BACKGROUND: Multiple marker screening is offered to pregnant individuals in many jurisdictions to screen for trisomies 21 and 18. On occasion, the result is \'double-positive\'-a screening result that is unexpectedly positive for both aneuploidies. Although this occurs rarely, the paucity of available evidence about the outcomes of these pregnancies hinders patient counselling. This study aimed to investigate the association of double-positive results with preterm birth and other adverse perinatal outcomes.
METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of pregnancies with an estimated date of delivery from September 1, 2016, to March 31, 2021, using province-wide perinatal registry data in Ontario, Canada. Pregnancies with double-positive screening results where trisomies 21 and 18 were ruled-out were compared to pregnancies with screen negative results for both aneuploidies. We used modified Poisson regression models with robust variance estimation to examine the association of double positive results with preterm birth and secondary outcomes.
RESULTS: From 429 540 pregnancies with multiple marker screening, 863 (0.2%) had a double-positive result; trisomies 21 and 18 were ruled out in 374 pregnancies, 203 of which resulted in a live birth. Among the pregnancies in the double-positive group resulting in a live birth, the risk of preterm birth was increased compared to pregnancies with a screen negative result: adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 2.6 (95%CI 2.0-3.6), adjusted risk difference (aRD) 10.5% (95%CI 5.4-15.7). In a sensitivity analysis excluding all diagnosed chromosomal abnormalities, the risk of preterm birth remained elevated to a similar degree: aRR 2.6 (95%CI 1.9-3.7), aRD 10.0% (95%CI 4.8-15.3). The risk of other adverse perinatal outcomes was also higher, including the risk of chromosomal abnormalities other than trisomies 21 and 18: aRR 81.1 (95%CI 69.4-94.8), aRD 34.0% (95%CI 29.2-38.8). Pregnancies with double-positive results were also less likely to result in a live birth, even when excluding all diagnosed chromosomal abnormalities; and at increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes for those resulting in a live birth.
CONCLUSIONS: Although rare, double-positive multiple marker screening results are associated with an increased risk of preterm birth and other adverse perinatal outcomes, even when excluding all identified chromosomal abnormalities.

OBJECTIVE: Haemophilus influenzae (HINF), primarily non-typeable H. influenzae: (NTHi), is an important cause of neonatal sepsis and meningitis. The goal of this study was to investigate the point prevalence of HINF vaginal-rectal carriage in pregnant women, which could impact neonatal health.
METHODS: Simulated vaginal-rectal swabs were cultured and tested to establish optimal recovery methods for HINF. These methods were then applied to vaginal-rectal swabs from a prospective cohort of pregnant women (n = 300) undergoing routine Group B Streptococcus: (GBS) screening. Both culture and PCR were used for detection of HINF. Subject demographics, reproductive history, and genitourinary test results were documented. A retrospective surveillance study was conducted to determine incidence of invasive neonatal HINF infections from 7/1/2017-6/30/2023.
RESULTS: HINF was recovered from 42/42 (100%) simulated vaginal-rectal swabs at 2-45 CFU/plate via direct plating onto chocolate and chocolate + bacitracin agar. HINF was rarely recovered following LIM broth enrichment at 0-75 CFU/plate in 1/42 (2.4%) simulated swabs, but was recovered from BHI/Fildes broth enrichment in 22/42 (52%) specimens at high abundance (> 100 CFU/plate). Among pregnant women prospectively screened for HINF, the median age was 29 (IQR, 24-33) years and gestational age was 36 (IQR, 34-36) weeks. HINF was recovered in 1 of 300 prospective specimens by culture but 0/100 by PCR. A six-year retrospective analysis showed there were seven total cases of neonatal sepsis and majority of HINF was isolated from respiratory specimens followed by blood/CSF overall.
CONCLUSIONS: This study established a sensitive culture method for recovering HINF from vaginal-rectal swab specimens and demonstrated low prevalence of HINF carriage rate in pregnant women. These findings highlight the need for further research to pinpoint the source for transmission of HINF to neonates.

There is a lack of standardized measurement tools globally to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of expecting women toward prenatal screening. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify reasons women pursue or decline prenatal screening and compare the strengths and limitations of available measurement tools used to assess pregnant women\'s perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes toward prenatal screening. This review followed the five-step York methodology by Arksey and O\'Malley and incorporated recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results. The five steps consisted of: (1) identification of the research questions; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selection of studies relevant to the research questions; (4) data charting; and (5) collation, summarization, and reporting of results. Four online databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were selected after the librarian\'s development of a detailed search strategy. The Rayyan platform was used between June 2023 and August 2023 to epitomize the articles produced from our search. A total of 68 eligible studies were included in the analysis. The top five major reasons for declining prenatal screening uptake included (1) being unsure of the risk of prenatal screening and harm to the baby or miscarriage (n = 15), (2) not considering action such as termination of pregnancy for prenatal screening to be considered as necessary (n = 14), (3) high cost (n = 12), (4) lack of knowledge about testing procedures and being anxious about the test (n = 10), and (5) being worried about probability of false negative or false positive results (n = 6). Only 32 studies utilized scientifically validated instruments. Difficulties in capturing representative, adequately sized samples inclusive of diverse ethnicities and demographics were pervasive. Findings highlight the need for rigorous validation of research measurement methodologies to ensure the accuracy and applicability of resulting data regarding the assessment of prenatal screening perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes across diverse female populations.Registration: N/A.
Measurement tools used to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of pregnant women toward prenatal screeningThe following systematic review provides a comprehensive summary and quality evaluation of measurement tools used globally to assess the role of knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of pregnant women in seeking prenatal tests.

OBJECTIVE: Although serum screening for aneuploidies has become less prevalent, maternal-serum alpha-fetoprotein (MSAFP) screening for body-wall defects remains widespread. We explored whether MSAFP screening is associated with earlier omphalocele detection than ultrasound alone.
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of prenatally detected omphalocele cases at our center from 2007 to 2023. We explored the association between MSAFP screening, gestational age at omphalocele detection, and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: Among 101 pregnancies with prenatally diagnosed omphalocele, 27 (26.7%) had MSAFP screening. The median gestational age at MSAFP screening was 17 weeks 4 days. Of those who received MSAFP screening, 11 (41%) had values ≥2.5 multiples of the median (MoM) and 16 (59%) were not elevated. MSAFP results did not correlate with omphalocele size and were not associated with prenatal or postnatal outcomes. MSAFP screening did not result in earlier suspicion for or confirmation of omphalocele (P = .97 and P = .87, respectively). In contrast, first-trimester ultrasound screening was associated with earlier suspicion for and confirmation of omphalocele (P < .01 and P = .01, respectively). There were no clinical or demographic differences between those who received MSAFP screening and those who did not (including body mass index or commute distance to an urban center).
CONCLUSIONS: MSAFP screening is not associated with earlier omphalocele detection. Furthermore, in pregnancies with prenatally diagnosed omphalocele, the results of MSAFP screening are not predictive of clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Uterine fibroids are monoclonal tumors, which are often genetically abnormal and associated with false-positive genome-wide cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening results, particularly when large. It is plausible that fibroids may also increase the risk of cfDNA failure by affecting fetal fraction or due to their genetic anomalies confounding cfDNA algorithms. We aimed to investigate a possible association between fibroids and cfDNA non-informative results.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of women undergoing cfDNA screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities between 2013 and 2020, comparing pregnancies with vs without uterine fibroids recorded on any obstetric ultrasound before 24 weeks\' gestation. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate the association between fibroids and cfDNA failure, adjusting for gestational age, maternal age, weight and height at blood sampling, mode of conception, multiple gestation and test platform (chromosome-selective or genome-wide). Analyses were stratified according to the number of fibroids and total fibroid volume. The impact of fibroids on fetal fraction was assessed using linear regression, adjusting for the same covariates.
RESULTS: Among 19 818 pregnancies undergoing cfDNA screening, fibroids were reported in 2038 (10.28%) and cfDNA failure at the first screening attempt occurred in 228 (1.15%) pregnancies. Non-informative results occurred in 1.96% of pregnancies with fibroids and 1.06% of pregnancies without fibroids (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 2.40 (95% CI, 1.65-3.48)). The risk of failure in the first screening attempt increased progressively with the number of fibroids (aOR, 5.05 (95% CI, 2.29-11.13) in women with four or more fibroids) and total fibroid volume, with greater than a 5-fold and 14-fold increase in risk among women with fibroid volumes of 100.1-400 mL (aOR, 5.52 (95% CI, 2.30-13.25)) and > 400 mL (aOR, 14.80 (95% CI, 4.50-48.69)), respectively. Although test failure was more common with chromosome-selective than genome-wide screening, fibroids similarly increased the risk of failure of both screening platforms. Compared to pregnancies without fibroids, those with fibroids had a fetal fraction on average 0.61% lower (adjusted mean difference, -0.61% (95% CI, -0.77% to -0.45%)).
CONCLUSIONS: Uterine fibroids are associated with lower fetal fraction and an increased risk of cfDNA screening failure. The strength of this association increases with increasing fibroid number and volume. © 2024 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) was developed to improve the accuracy of prenatal screening to detect chromosomal abnormalities. Published economic analyses have yielded different incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs), leading to conclusions of NIPT being dominant, cost-effective, and cost-ineffective. These analyses have used different model structures, and the extent to which these structural variations have contributed to differences in ICERs is unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of different model structures on the cost-effectiveness of NIPT for the detection of trisomy 21 (T21; Down syndrome).
METHODS: A systematic review identified economic models comparing NIPT to conventional screening. The key variations in identified model structures were the number of health states and modeling approach. New models with different structures were developed in TreeAge and populated with consistent parameters to enable a comparison of the impact of selected structural variations on results.
RESULTS: The review identified 34 economic models. Based on these findings, demonstration models were developed: 1) a decision tree with 3 health states, 2) a decision tree with 5 health states, 3) a microsimulation with 3 health states, and 4) a microsimulation with 5 health states. The base-case ICER from each model was 1) USD$34,474 (2023)/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), 2) USD$14,990 (2023)/QALY, (3) USD$54,983 (2023)/QALY, and (4) NIPT was dominated.
CONCLUSIONS: Model-structuring choices can have a large impact on the ICER and conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness, which may inadvertently affect policy decisions to support or not support funding for NIPT. The use of reference models could improve international consistency in health policy decision making for prenatal screening.
CONCLUSIONS: NIPT is a clinical area in which a variety of modeling approaches have been published, with wide variation in reported cost-effectiveness.This study shows that when broader contextual factors are held constant, varying the model structure yields results that range from NIPT being less effective and more expensive than conventional screening (i.e., NIPT was dominated) through to NIPT being more effective and more expensive than conventional screening with an ICER of USD$54,983 (2023)/QALY.Model-structuring choices may inadvertently affect policy decisions to support or not support funding of NIPT. Reference models could improve international consistency in health policy decision making for prenatal screening.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of major fetal structural anomalies can be detected in the first trimester by ultrasound examination. However, the test performance of the first-trimester anomaly scan performed in a low-risk population as part of a nationwide prenatal screening program is unknown. Potential benefits of the first-trimester anomaly scan include early detection of fetal anomalies, providing parents with more time for reproductive decision-making.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the uptake, test performance, and time to a final prenatal diagnosis after referral.
METHODS: A nationwide implementation study was conducted in the Netherlands (November 2021-November 2022). The FTAS was performed between 12+3 and 14+3 weeks of gestation by certified sonographers using a standard protocol. Women were referred to a tertiary care center if anomalies were suspected. Uptake, test performance, and time to a final prenatal diagnosis (days between referral and date of final diagnosis/prognosis for reproductive decision-making) were determined. Test performance was calculated for first-trimester major congenital anomalies, such as anencephaly and holoprosencephaly and all diagnosed anomalies <24 weeks of gestation.
RESULTS: The first-trimester anomaly scan uptake was 74.9% (129,704/173,129). In 1.0% (1313/129,704), an anomaly was suspected, of which 54.9% (n=721) had abnormal findings on the detailed first-trimester diagnostic scan and 44.6% (n=586) showed normal results. In 0.5% (n=6), intrauterine fetal death occurred. In the total group of 721 cases with abnormal findings, 332 structural anomalies, 117 genetic anomalies, 82 other findings (abnormal fetal biometry, sonomarkers, placental/umbilical cord anomaly, an-/oligohydramnios), and 189 cases with transient findings (defined as ultrasound findings which resolved <24 weeks of gestation) were found, with 1 case having an unknown outcome. 0.9% (n=1164) of all cases with a normal first-trimester anomaly scan were diagnosed with a fetal anomaly in the second trimester. Test performance included a sensitivity of 84.6% (126/149) for first-trimester major congenital anomalies and 31.6% (537/1701) for all types of anomalies. Specificity for all anomalies was 99.2% (98,055/98,830); positive predictive value 40.9% (537/1312); negative predictive value 98.8% (98,055/99,219); positive likelihood ratio 40.3; negative likelihood ratio 0.7; false positive rate 0.8% (775/98,830), and false negative rate 68.4% (1164/1701). The median time to diagnosis for structural anomalies was 20 days (6-43 days; median gestational age 16+3), for genetic anomalies 17 days (8.5-27.5 days; median gestational age 15+6 weeks), and for first-trimester major congenital anomalies 9 days (5-22 days; median gestational age 14+6 weeks).
CONCLUSIONS: The performance of a newly introduced nationwide first-trimester anomaly scan in a low-risk population showed a high sensitivity for first-trimester major congenital anomalies and a lower sensitivity for all anomalies combined. The program was accompanied by a referral rate of 1.0%, of which 59.1% involved cases where anomalies were either not confirmed or resolved before 24 weeks gestation. Timing of diagnosis was around 16 weeks of gestation for referred cases. To evaluate the balance between benefits and potential harm of the first-trimester anomaly scan within a nationwide prenatal screening program, it is essential to assess the effectiveness of the program over time and to consider the perspectives of both women and their partners, as well as healthcare professionals.

Sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) collectively occur in 1 in 500 livebirths, and diagnoses in the neonatal period are increasing with advancements in prenatal and early genetic testing. Inevitably, SCA will be identified on either routine prenatal or newborn screening in the near future. Tetrasomy SCAs are rare, manifesting more significant phenotypes compared to trisomies. Prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening has been demonstrated to have relatively poor positive predictive values (PPV) in SCAs, directing genetic counseling discussions towards false-positive likelihood rather than thoroughly addressing all possible outcomes and phenotypes, respectively. The eXtraordinarY Babies study is a natural history study of children prenatally identified with SCAs, and it developed a longitudinal data resource and common data elements with the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network (NBSTRN). A review of cfDNA and diagnostic reports from participants identified a higher than anticipated rate of discordance. The aims of this project are to (1) compare our findings to outcomes from a regional clinical cytogenetic laboratory and (2) describe discordant outcomes from both samples. Twenty-one (10%), and seven (8.3%) cases were found to be discordant between cfDNA (result or indication reported to lab) and diagnosis for the Babies Study and regional laboratory, respectively. Discordant results represented six distinct discordance categories when comparing cfDNA to diagnostic results, with the largest groups being Trisomy cfDNA vs. Tetrasomy diagnosis (66.7% of discordance in eXtraordinarY Babies study) and Mosaicism (57.1% in regional laboratory). Traditional genetic counseling for SCA-related cfDNA results is inadequate given a high degree of discordance that jeopardizes the accuracy of the information discussed and informed decision making following prenatal genetic counseling.

In 2011, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) published practice resources about communicating a prenatal or postnatal diagnosis of Down syndrome (DS). However, the impact of GC adherence to those recommendations on patient experiences has been unknown. The objective of this analysis was to investigate perceived GC adherence to professional recommendations for delivering a DS diagnosis and the impact on parental diagnosis experiences and the information and support offered. Parents of children with DS born between 2016 and 2021 completed a survey distributed by 12 local DS organizations and the national DS Diagnosis Network to assess prenatal diagnosis experiences and the provision of support and information by health professionals. Participants were queried about whether their GC followed specific recommendations from the NSGC practice resource. Respondents were also invited to describe their diagnosis experience. An overall perceived adherence score was calculated (percentage of elements GC demonstrated/total number of elements). Open-ended responses were inductively coded by a GC and GC student to identify categories and to perform a sentiment analysis where 1 was completely negative, 2 was mixed/more negative, 3 was neutral, 4 was mixed/more positive, and 5 was completely positive. The GCs were blinded to participants\' perceived adherence scores while performing the sentiment analysis. Of the 242 parents who completed the survey, 161 respondents answered questions about GC\'s perceived practice resource adherence. The median perceived adherence score was 42.9% (IQR 21.4-71.4)%. A total of 61 people provided an open-ended response about their prenatal diagnosis experience with a GC and were assigned a sentiment score. The median sentiment score was 3 (IQR 1-5). Kendall\'s Tau analysis showed that higher perceived practice resource adherence was associated with more positive sentiment scores. These results suggest that NSGC practice resource adherence may improve the prenatal diagnosis experiences of parents of children with DS and have the potential to improve counseling outcomes.