The potential for bias in industry-developed information about noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), in addition to the lack of regulatory oversight for this type of product, raises questions about clinical communication and adoption. We identify NIPTs marketed globally and analyze their English-language consumer-oriented brochures to determine whether they meet existing policy and ethical guidance from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics on NIPT marketing, how they establish the legitimacy of the test given the lack of regulatory oversight for NIPT, and whether content differs between the brochures from for-profit and nonprofit entities. In many of these brochures, NIPTs are misrepresented as diagnostic tests, claims lack supporting evidence, regulatory bodies that do not evaluate the test itself are referenced, and clinicians are invoked as authorities on specific NIPTs. Our findings substantiate concerns about the extent to which commercial imperatives operating in the absence of market-access regulation could exacerbate problems of misrepresentation and inaccuracy in marketing materials.
Keywords: NIPT; bioethics; conflict of interest; doctor-patient relationship; medical marketing; noninvasive prenatal testing; prenatal screening; reproductive ethics; responsibility.
© 2022 The Hastings Center.