Everything You Want to Know about the Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (II)

Being proven the effectiveness of these tests, how do you justify that the national health service not comparticipe?

The Ministry of health has, as you understand, manage investment priorities, especially as our resources are very limited.

So, it doesn’t surprise me that there are at present investments that the Ministry of health considers most priority. On the other hand, there will be surely convinced that prices will lower any time soon, as almost always with new technologies.

And in relation to insurers, which do you think is due to the resistance of the same on reimbursement?

Insurance companies assess, more than the interest in public health, the financial return of investment. If they feel they can make a study and earn (or save) money, will do it for sure. But I admit I also count on a reduction in prices of this kind of tests.

Taking into account that it is increasingly common for women become pregnant after 35 years and all indications are that this trend will increase even more in the light of the current economy and the fact that young people have a financial stability each time later-not to impose a test like this is part of the NHS?

Things take your time. Note, for almost 20 years, used only the age of pregnant as an indication to do, or not, amniocentesis. Even after the currently used methods arise from antenatal screening (using the age of pregnant, ultrasound and blood biochemical analyses) long before the NHS comparticipasse these screenings and, even today, only part of these analyses are subsidised. So it is not surprising that the reimbursement of non-invasive tests also takes a long time to take place.

An article of Deco Protest says that, despite the undeniable advantages of this test, he senses no malformations, is unreliable to 100% and therefore before a positive result, amniocentesis is still necessary. Can you comment?

It is true.

Non-invasive tests are not to detect anything other than the trisomy 13, 18 or 21 and, if required, the abnormalities of chromosome number X and y. IE do not detect all problems, detect trisomies.

On the other hand, as have false positives (although, to be only 21 trisomy 1:00 pm 1000), even when these tests detect a Trisomy, you must confirm your existence through amniocentesis.

But it is indisputable that, if the objective is detecting babies with trisomy 21, these tests make it possible to reduce about of 20 times the use of amniocentesis.

Genetic tests have evolved a lot in recent years. What’s the next step? The desirable step in the short term?

It is difficult to predict the future, in an area of such rapid development. In any case, with regard to prenatal diagnosis, I think evolution (say temptation) predictable in the short/medium term, is to get more and more diseases of the baby through the mother’s blood, that is, not only trisomies, but all the chromosomal changes and other diseases not associated with chromosome anomalies.

Under the genetic diagnosis in General and not just in prenatal diagnosis, I admit that the trend is to allow the analysis of more and more genes, more rapidly and cheaply than is possible today.