Growing complexity of (expanded) carrier screening: Direct-to-consumer, physician-mediated, and clinic-based offers

Reproductive genetic carrier screening in pregnancy: improving health outcomes and expanding access

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) serves to screen couples for their risk of having children affected by monogenic conditions. The included conditions are mostly autosomal recessive or X-linked with infantile or early-childhood onset. Cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy, and hemoglobinopathies are now recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for universal screening. Recommendations for further RGCS remain ethnicity based. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors in recent years have recommended universal expanded-panel RGCS and moving towards a more equitable approach. ACOG guidelines state that offering RGCS is an acceptable option, however it has not provided clear guidance on standard of care. Positive results on RGCS can significantly impact reproductive plans for couples, including pursuing in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing, prenatal genetic testing, specific fetal or neonatal treatment, or adoption. RGCS is a superior approach compared to ethnicity-based carrier screening and moves away from single race-based medical practice. We urge the obstetrics and gynecology societies to adopt the guidelines for RGCS put forward by multiple societies and help reduce systemic inequalities in medicine in our new genetic age. Having national societies such as ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine officially recommend and endorse RGCS would bolster insurance coverage and financial support by employers for RGCS. The future of comprehensive reproductive care in the age of genomic medicine entails expanding access so patients and families can make the reproductive options that best fit their needs.

An ESHG-ESHRE survey on the current practice of expanded carrier screening in medically assisted reproduction

STUDY QUESTION

What is the current practice and views on (expanded) carrier screening ((E)CS) among healthcare professionals in medically assisted reproductive (MAR) practices in Europe?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The findings show a limited support for ECS with less than half of the respondents affiliated to centres offering ECS, and substantial variation in practice between centres in Europe.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The availability of next-generation sequencing, which enables testing for large groups of genes simultaneously, has facilitated the introduction and expansion of ECS strategies, currently offered particularly in the private sector in the context of assisted reproduction.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A cross-sectional survey evaluating practice and current views among professionals working in MAR practice in different European countries was designed using the online SurveyMonkey tool. The web-based questionnaire included questions on general information regarding the current practice of (E)CS in MAR and questions on what is offered, to whom the test is offered, and how it is offered. It consisted mostly of multiple-choice questions with comment boxes, but also included open questions on the respondents' attitudes/concerns relevant to (E)CS practice, and room to upload requested files (e.g. guidelines and gene panels). In total, 338 responses were collected from 8 February 2022 to 11 April 2022.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The online survey was launched with an invitation email from the ESHRE central office (n = 4889 emails delivered) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) central office (n = 1790 emails delivered) sent to the ESHRE and ESHG members, and by social media posts. The survey was addressed to European MAR centres or gamete banks and to centres located in non-European countries participating in the European IVF-monitoring Consortium. Two reminder emails were sent. After exclusion of 39 incomplete responses received (e.g. only background information), 299 respondents from 40 different countries were included for analyses.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Overall, 42.5% (127/299) of respondents were affiliated to centres offering ECS. The perceived responsibility to enable prospective parents to make informed reproductive decisions and preventing suffering/burden for parents were the main reasons to offer ECS. A single ECS panel is offered by nearly 45% (39/87 received answers) of the centres offering ECS, 25.3% (22/87) of those centres offer a selection of ECS panels, and 29.9% (26/87) offer whole exome sequencing and a large in silico panel. Different ranges of panel sizes and conditions were included in the ECS panel(s) offered. Most of the respondents (81.8%; 72/88 received answers) indicated that the panels they offer are universal and target the entire population. Pathogenic variants (89.7%; 70/78 received answers), and to a lesser extent, likely pathogenic variants (64.1%%; 50/78 received answers), were included in the ECS report for individuals and couples undergoing MAR with their own gametes. According to 87.9% (80/91 received answers) of the respondents, patients have to pay to undergo an ECS test. Most respondents (76.2%; 61/80 received answers) reported that counselling is provided before and after the ECS test. Preimplantation genetic testing, the use of donor gametes, and prenatal diagnostic testing were the three main reproductive options discussed with identified carrier couples. The main reason, according to the respondents, for not offering ECS in their centre, was the lack of professional recommendations supporting ECS (52.5%; 73/139 received answers) and the high cost for couples or reimbursement not being available (49.6%; 69/139). The challenges and moral dilemmas encountered by the respondents revolved mainly around the content of the offer, including the variants classification and the heterogeneity of the panels, the counselling, and the cost of the test.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Although the total number of respondents was acceptable, the completion rate of the survey was suboptimal. In addition, the heterogeneity of answers to open-ended questions and the ambiguity of some of the answers, along with incomplete responses, posed a challenge in interpreting survey results. It is also plausible that some questions were not easily understood by the respondents. For this reason, response and non-response bias are acknowledged as further limitations of the survey.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The results of this survey could aid in identifying potential challenges or areas for improvement in the current practice of ECS in the MAR field and contribute to the discussion on how to address them. The results underline the need to stimulate a more knowledge-based debate on the complexity and the pros and cons of a possible implementation of ECS in MAR.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

All costs relating to the development process were covered from European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and European Society of Human Genetics funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. A.C. is full-time employee of Juno Genetics. L.H. declared receiving a research grant during the past 36 months from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. She has also participated in a Health Council report of the Netherlands on preconception carrier screening and collaborated with the VSOP Dutch Genetic Alliance (patient umbrella organization on rare and genetic disorders). L.H. and C.v.E. are affiliated with Amsterdam University Medical Centre, a hospital that offers ECS in a non-commercial setting. R.V. received honoraria for presentations from Merck Academy and is unpaid board member of the executive committee of the Spanish Fertility Society. The other authors had nothing to disclose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Perceptions of reproductive healthcare providers regarding their involvement in offering expanded carrier screening in fertility clinics: a qualitative study

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the main arguments of reproductive healthcare providers in favour or against their involvement in offering expanded carrier screening (ECS) for recessive disorders at fertility clinics in the Netherlands?

DESIGN

Semi-structured interview study with 20 reproductive healthcare providers between May 2020 and January 2021. Participants included 11 gynaecologists, seven fertility doctors, one nurse practitioner and one clinical embryologist, recruited from academic medical centres (n = 13), peripheral facilities associated with academic centres (n = 4), and independent fertility treatment centres (n = 3) in the Netherlands. An interview guide was developed, and thematic content analysis was performed using ATLAS.ti software.

RESULTS

Arguments of reproductive healthcare providers in favour of their potential involvement in offering ECS included: (i) opportunities offered by the setting; (ii) motivation to assist in reproduction and prevent suffering; and (iii) to counter unwanted commercialization offers. Arguments against involvement included: (i) lack of knowledge and familiarity with offering ECS; (ii) insufficient staff and resources, and potential high costs for clinics and/or couples; (iii) the emotional impact it may have on couples; (iv) perceived complexity of counselling and expected elongation of waiting lists; and (v) expected low impact on reducing the burden of diseases. Participants felt that more evidence and research on the costs-benefits, implications and demand are needed prior to their involvement.

CONCLUSION

While agreeing that the field of medically assisted reproduction provides a unique opportunity to offer ECS, reproductive healthcare workers feel a lack of capability and limited motivation to offer ECS to all or a selection of couples at their fertility clinics.

Scaling-up and future sustainability of a national reproductive genetic carrier screening program

An understanding of factors influencing implementation is essential to realise the benefits of population-based reproductive genetic carrier screening programs. The aim of this study was to synthesise data collected during the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission) to track how priorities shifted over time and identify important factors during scaling-up and for sustainment. We used a multi-method qualitative approach to integrate longitudinal project data collected from 10 project committees with 16 semi-structured interviews conducted with study team members. Both datasets were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify constructs of interest within early, mid-point, and future implementation phases. Several CFIR constructs were present across implementation. The complexity of implementation presented challenges that were overcome through a quality-designed and packaged product, formal and informal networks and communication, and access to knowledge and information. Addressing the diverse consumer needs through resources and increasing community and non-genetic speciality engagement remained a priority throughout and for future sustainment. Going forward, further addressing program complexities and securing funding were emphasised. By applying an implementation framework, findings from this study may be useful for future effort towards building and/or sustaining reproductive genetic carrier screening programs.

Expanded carrier screening for reproductive risk assessment: An evidence-based practice guideline from the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) intends to broadly screen healthy individuals to determine their reproductive chance for autosomal recessive (AR) and X-linked (XL) conditions with infantile or early-childhood onset, which may impact reproductive management (Committee Opinion 690, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2017, 129, e35). Compared to ethnicity-based screening, which requires accurate knowledge of ancestry for optimal test selection and appropriate risk assessment, ECS panels consist of tens to hundreds of AR and XL conditions that may be individually rare in various ancestries but offer a comprehensive approach to inherited disease screening. As such, the term "equitable carrier screening" may be preferable. This practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for ECS using the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework (Guyatt et al., BMJ, 2008, 336, 995; Guyatt et al., BMJ, 2008, 336, 924). We used evidence from a recent systematic evidence review (Ramdaney et al., Genetics in Medicine, 2022, 20, 374) and compiled data from peer-reviewed literature, scientific meetings, and clinical experience. We defined and prioritized the outcomes of informed consent, change in reproductive plans, yield in identification of at-risk carrier pairs/pregnancies, perceived barriers to ECS, amount of provider time spent, healthcare costs, frequency of severely/profoundly affected offspring, incidental findings, uncertain findings, patient satisfaction, and provider attitudes. Despite the recognized barriers to implementation and change in management strategies, this analysis supported implementation of ECS for these outcomes. Based upon the current level of evidence, we recommend ECS be made available for all individuals considering reproduction and all pregnant reproductive pairs, as ECS presents an ethnicity-based carrier screening alternative which does not rely on race-based medicine. The final decision to pursue carrier screening should be directed by shared decision-making, which takes into account specific features of patients as well as their preferences and values. As a periconceptional reproductive risk assessment tool, ECS is superior compared to ethnicity-based carrier screening in that it both identifies more carriers of AR and XL conditions as well as eliminates a single race-based medical practice. ECS should be offered to all who are currently pregnant, considering pregnancy, or might otherwise biologically contribute to pregnancy. Barriers to the broad implementation of and access to ECS should be identified and addressed so that test performance for carrier screening will not depend on social constructs such as race.

Elective genomic testing: Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Genetic counseling for patients who are pursuing genetic testing in the absence of a medical indication, referred to as elective genomic testing (EGT), is becoming more common. This type of testing has the potential to detect genetic conditions before there is a significant health impact permitting earlier management and/or treatment. Pre- and post-test counseling for EGT is similar to indication-based genetic testing. Both require a complete family and medical history when ordering a test or interpreting a result. However, EGT counseling has some special considerations including greater uncertainties around penetrance and clinical utility and a lack of published guidelines. While certain considerations in the selection of a high-quality genetic testing laboratory are universal, there are some considerations that are unique to the selection of a laboratory performing EGT. This practice resource intends to provide guidance for genetic counselors and other healthcare providers caring for adults seeking pre- or post-test counseling for EGT. Genetic counselors and other genetics trained healthcare providers are the ideal medical professionals to supply accurate information to individuals seeking counseling about EGT enabling them to make informed decisions about testing and follow-up.

Couple screening for recessively inherited disorders

Couple screening aims to identify couples with an increased risk of having a child affected with an autosomal recessive or X-linked disorder, in order to facilitate informed reproductive decision making. Both expectant parents should be screened as a single entity, instead of individual testing. Carrier testing was typically performed for a few relatively common recessive disorders associated with significant morbidity, reduced life expectancy and often because of a considerably higher carrier frequency in a specific population for certain diseases. However, new genetic testing technologies enable the expansion of screening to multiple conditions, genes and sequence variants. There are multiple reproductive options for screening couples at risk, particularly when genetic traits are detected in the preconception period.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing in South Africa: Stumbling Over the First Legal Hurdle?

Despite the growing popularity of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, there is minimal South African literature on the topic. The limited available research suggests that direct-to-consumer genetic testing is unregulated. However, we suggest that direct-to-consumer genetic testing is indeed regulated, and unusually so. The first step in the process - the collection of a saliva sample by consumers themselves - is unlawful on a plain reading of the National Health Act 61 of 2003 and the Regulations Relating to the Use of Human Biological Material. This is because these statutes require that certain healthcare professionals must remove saliva for genetic testing. Yet, on closer analysis, such an apparent ban on the self-collection of saliva is neither aligned with a purposive interpretation of the relevant legislation, nor would it survive constitutional scrutiny - as it impedes an individual's autonomy. It is concluded that, contrary to a plain reading of the relevant statutes, individuals can lawfully collect their own saliva for direct-to-consumer genetic testing. To provide legal clarity we recommend that the relevant provisions of the National Health Act 61 of 2003 and Regulations Relating to the Use of Human Biological the Material be amended to allow individuals to collect their own saliva samples.

Considerations for developing regulations for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a scoping review using the 3-I framework

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing exists largely outside of any regulatory schemes, and studies providing a comprehensive overview of the ethical, social, legal, and technological considerations for regulating these types of technologies are lacking. This paper uses the 3-I framework for policy analysis to analyze the ideas, interests, and institutions relevant to policy development for DTC genetic testing in North America and internationally. A scoping review was conducted. Citation databases were searched for papers addressing the ethical, social, legal, and technological implications of DTC genetic testing; stakeholder perspectives on and experiences with DTC genetic testing; or the effect of such testing on the healthcare system. Ninety-nine publications, organizational reports, governmental documents, or pieces of legislation were included. The ideas included are autonomy, informed decision making, privacy, and clinical validity and utility. The interests discussed are those of the public and healthcare providers. The institutions included are regulatory organizations such as the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, laws governing the implementation or delivery of genetic testing in general, and legislation created to protect against genetic discrimination. This analysis clarifies the ethical, social, legal, and technological issues of DTC genetic testing regulation. This information can be used by policy makers to develop or strengthen regulations for DTC genetic testing such as requiring an assessment of the clinical validity of tests before they become publicly available, controlling how tests are marketed, and stipulating requirements for healthcare provider involvement and informed consent.

Evaluating Web-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests for Cancer Susceptibility

PURPOSE

Recent years have seen direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing for cancer susceptibility change dramatically. For one, a new model now dominates the market where tests are advertised to consumers but ordered by physicians. For another, many of today's tests are distinguished from earlier DTC offerings for cancer susceptibility by their scope and potential clinical significance. This review provides a comprehensive overview of available DTC genetic tests for cancer susceptibility and identifies aspects of the DTC testing process that could affect consumers' ability to make informed decisions about testing and understand their results.

METHODS

First, we provide an overview of each DTC genetic test for cancer susceptibility that includes information about cost; who orders it; whether variants of uncertain significance are returned; availability of genetic counseling; intended users; management of variant reclassifications; whether it is characterized as diagnostic, actionable, and clinically valid; molecular technique used; and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments/College of American Pathologists status. Second, we identify six aspects of the testing process that could affect consumers' ability to make informed decisions about testing and interpret their results: How companies use certain terms (eg, medical grade or clinical grade); how companies use consumers' health information during the ordering process; the extent of genetic counseling provided by companies; companies' procedures for returning results; the role of company-provided ordering physicians; and companies' procedures for communicating variant reclassifications.

RESULTS

On the basis of our review of companies' Web sites, we believe that consumers would benefit from more information about these aspects of testing.

CONCLUSION

Providing this information would help consumers make informed decisions about whether to use a particular DTC genetic testing service and, should they choose to pursue testing, understand the implications and limitations of their results.

Qualitative study of GPs' views and experiences of population-based preconception expanded carrier screening in the Netherlands: bioethical perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Between 2016 and 2017, a population-based preconception expanded carrier screening (PECS) test was developed in the Netherlands during a pilot study. It was subsequently made possible in mid-2018 for couples to ask to have such a PECS test from specially trained general practitioners (GPs). Research has described GPs as crucial in offering PECS tests, but little is known about the GPs' views on PECS and their experiences of providing this test. This article presents a thematic analysis of the PECS practice from the perspective of GPs and a bioethical discussion of the empirical results.

DESIGN

Empirical bioethics. A thematic analysis of qualitative semi-structured interviews was conducted, and is combined with an ethical/philosophical discussion.

SETTING

The Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

7 Dutch GPs in the Netherlands, interviewed in 2019-2020.

RESULTS

Two themes were identified in the thematic analysis: 'Choice and its complexity' and 'PECS as prompting existential concerns'. The empirical bioethics discussion showed that the first theme highlights that several areas coshape the complexity of choice on PECS, and the need for shared relational autonomous decision-making on these areas within the couple. The second theme highlights that it is not possible to analyse the existential issues raised by PECS solely on the level of the couple or family. A societal level must be included, since these levels affect each other. We refer to this as 'entangled existential genetics'.

CONCLUSION

The empirical bioethical analysis leads us to present two practical implications. These are: (1) training of GPs who are to offer PECS should cover shared relational autonomous decision-making within the couple and (2) more attention should be given to existential issues evoked by genetic considerations, also during the education of GPs and in bioethical discussions around PECS.

Screening for autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions during pregnancy and preconception: a practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

Carrier screening began 50 years ago with screening for conditions that have a high prevalence in defined racial/ethnic groups (e.g., Tay-Sachs disease in the Ashkenazi Jewish population; sickle cell disease in Black individuals). Cystic fibrosis was the first medical condition for which panethnic screening was recommended, followed by spinal muscular atrophy. Next-generation sequencing allows low cost and high throughput identification of sequence variants across many genes simultaneously. Since the phrase "expanded carrier screening" is nonspecific, there is a need to define carrier screening processes in a way that will allow equitable opportunity for patients to learn their reproductive risks using next-generation sequencing technology. An improved understanding of this risk allows patients to make informed reproductive decisions. Reproductive decision making is the established metric for clinical utility of population-based carrier screening. Furthermore, standardization of the screening approach will facilitate testing consistency. This practice resource reviews the current status of carrier screening, provides answers to some of the emerging questions, and recommends a consistent and equitable approach for offering carrier screening to all individuals during pregnancy or preconception.

The use of expanded carrier screening of gamete donors

STUDY QUESTION

What are the sperm and egg donor rejection rates after expanded carrier screening (ECS)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Using an ECS panel looking at 46/47 genes, 17.6% of donors were rejected.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The use of ECS is becoming commonplace in assisted reproductive technology, including testing of egg and sperm donors. Most national guidelines recommend rejection of donors if they are carriers of a genetic disease. If the use of ECS increases, there will be a decline in the number of donors available.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A review of the current preconception ECS panels available to donors was carried out through an online search. The genetic testing results of donors from Cryos International were analysed to determine how many were rejected on the basis of the ECS.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Data on gamete donors and their carrier status was provided by Cryos International, who screen donors using their own bespoke ECS panel. The ECS panels identified through the review were compared to the Cryos International panel and data.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 16 companies and 42 associated ECS panels were reviewed. There were a total of 2673 unique disorders covered by the panels examined, with a mean of 329 disorders screened. None of these disorders were common to all panels. Cryos International screen 46 disorders in males and 47 in females. From 883 candidate donors, 17.6% (155/883) were rejected based on their ECS result. Carriers of alpha-thalassaemia represented the largest proportion of those rejected (19.4%, 30/155), then spinal muscular atrophy (15.5%, 24/155) and cystic fibrosis (14.8%, 23/155).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Panel information was found on company websites and may not have been accurate.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study highlights the need for consistent EU regulations and guidelines that allow genetic matching of gamete donors to their recipients, preventing the need to reject donors who are known carriers. A larger ECS panel would be most beneficial; however, this would not be viable without matching of donors and recipients.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No specific funding was obtained. J.C.H. is the founder of Global Women Connected, a platform to discuss women's health issues and the Embryology and PGD Academy, who deliver education in clinical embryology. She has been paid to give a lecture by Cryos in 2019. A-B.S. is an employee of Cryos International.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Current attitudes and preconceptions towards expanded carrier screening in the Eastern Chinese reproductive-aged population

PURPOSE

A growing number of Chinese individuals of reproductive age will face the choice of accepting or refusing expanded carrier screening (ECS). This study aimed to explore the awareness, wishes, and possible misconceptions of ECS among this population, as well as factors affecting their decision-making.

METHODS

Chinese reproductive-aged individuals in Eastern China who sought cell-free fetal DNA screening and peripheral blood karyotype were invited to complete a 31-item ECS survey by scanning a specific quick response code. We evaluated the relationship between awareness, attitudes, and intentions to participate in ECS, along with possible misconceptions.

RESULTS

Overall, 93.1% of participants intended to undergo ECS at their expenses, and 53.6% indicated they would pay less than 1000 CNY (approximately 145 USD) for the test. Around 96.5% of participants had misconceptions about ECS and genetic diseases. Participants whose first reaction was interest, who had prior awareness of the test, or who perceived benefits were more likely to intend to use ECS (p < 0.001). Participants with a bachelor's degree or above or with a household income over 150,000 CNY (approximately 21,700 USD) would be more likely to pay ≥ 1000 CNY (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that overall, the Eastern Chinese reproductive-aged population has positive attitudes towards ECS, although there are some misconceptions about ECS and genetic disorders. Population-based ECS appears to be desired by the reproductive-aged people in Eastern China. Steps should be taken to offer ECS along with pre- and post-test education and genetic counseling to raise awareness and to reduce misconceptions.

Re-examining the Ethics of Genetic Counselling in the Genomic Era

Respect for patient autonomy has served as the dominant ethical principle of genetic counselling, but as we move into a genomic era, it is time to actively re-examine the role that this principle plays in genetic counselling practice. In this paper, we argue that the field of genetic counselling should move away from its emphasis on patient autonomy and toward the incorporation of a more balanced set of principles that allows counsellors to offer clear guidance about how best to obtain or use genetic information. We begin with a brief history of how respect for patient autonomy gained such emphasis in the field and how it has taken on various manifestations over time, including the problematic concept of nondirectiveness. After acknowledging the field's preliminary move away from nondirectiveness, we turn to a series of arguments about why the continued dominance of patient autonomy has become untenable given the arrival of the genomic era. To conclude, we describe how a more complete set of bioethical principles can be adapted and used by genetic counsellors to strengthen their practice without undermining patient autonomy.

Expanded Preconception Carrier Screening in Clinical Practice: Review of Technology, Guidelines, Implementation Challenges, and Ethical Quandaries

In the last 10 years, expanded preconception carrier screening has become widely available and helps patients/couples make more informed decisions with regard to their reproductive options and facilitates more effective preconception planning, prenatal diagnosis, condition-specific counseling, and condition-specific care. This review provides an overview of expanded preconception carrier screening's high-throughput genotyping and sequencing approaches, current guidelines, implementation challenges and evolving ethical quandaries.

Expanded universal carrier screening and its implementation within a publicly funded healthcare service

Carrier screening, a well-established clinical initiative, has been slow to take advantage of the new possibilities offered by high-throughput next generation sequencing technologies. There is evidence of significant benefit in expanding carrier screening to include multiple autosomal recessive conditions and offering a ‘universal’ carrier screen that could be used for a pan-ethnic population. However, the challenges of implementing such a programme and the difficulties of demonstrating efficacy worthy of public health investment are significant barriers. In order for such a programme to be successful, it would need to be applicable and acceptable to the population, which may be ethnically and culturally diverse. There are significant practical and ethical implications associated with determining which variants, genes and conditions to include whilst maintaining adequate sensitivity and accuracy. Although preconception screening would maximise the potential benefits from universal carrier screening, the resource implications of different modes of delivery need to be carefully evaluated and balanced against maximising reproductive autonomy and ensuring equity of access. Currently, although a number of existing initiatives are increasing access to carrier screening, there is insufficient evidence to inform the development of a publicly funded, expanded, universal carrier screening programme that would justify investment over other healthcare interventions.

How does carrier status for recessive disorders influence reproductive decisions? A systematic review of the literature

Introduction: Carrier screening for recessive disorders is undertaken by prospective parents to inform their reproductive decisions. With the growing availability of affordable and comprehensive expanded carrier screening (ECS), it is expected that carrier screening will become a standard practice in the future. However, the impact of positive carrier screening results on the reproductive decisions of at-risk couples (ARCs) remains underexplored.Areas covered: We performed a systematic literature review to identify peer-reviewed publications describing the reproductive decisions of ARCs. Our search identified 19 relevant publications spanning the period 1994-2018. By synthesizing available evidence, we found that most ARCs chose to prevent the birth of an affected child and the decision to utilize preventive reproductive options was strongly influenced by the clinical nature of a disorder. However, there was also some heterogeneity in reproductive decisions within the same recessive disorders, suggesting that choices of ARCs can be influenced by factors other than the clinical nature of a disorder.Expert opinion: ECS is becoming increasingly common, which will result in the routine identification of many ARCs. Reproductive decision-making by ARCs is a complex and emotionally challenging process, highlighting the critical role of genetic counseling in the care for these potentially vulnerable patients.

Expanded carrier screening: counseling and considerations

The primary goal of carrier screening is to identify asymptomatic individuals who carry variants associated with genetic diseases, to inform about the risk of having a child with a genetic disease. Carrier screening can be accomplished through different approaches including ethnicity-based screening, pan-ethnic screening, and expanded carrier screening (ECS), and the decision to pursue carrier screening is voluntary. ECS takes a broad approach by screening for a large number of genetic diseases irrespective of ethnic background, and ideally is performed prior to conception. ECS has many benefits, including that it does not depend on accuracy of reported ancestry, as well as its greater yield of information that can be used for reproductive decision-making. However, there are also many important limitations of ECS to consider, ranging from the yield of unexpected information, uncertainty about the phenotype of a particular disease for which an individual is a carrier, and greater downstream costs associated with further testing and genetic counseling. Detailed genetic counseling both prior to and after ECS is essential in order for patients to understand the breadth of this approach, potential and actual results, and limitations.

The evolving landscape of expanded carrier screening: challenges and opportunities

Carrier screening allows individuals to learn their chance of passing on an autosomal or X-linked condition to their offspring. Initially introduced as single-disease, ancestry-based screening, technological advances now allow for the possibility of multi-disease, pan-ethnic carrier screening, which we refer to as “expanded carrier screening.” There are numerous potential benefits to expanded carrier screening, including maximizing the opportunity for couples to make autonomous reproductive decisions, and efficiency and marginal additional costs of including more conditions if the test is already being offered. While numerous laboratories currently offer expanded carrier screening services, it is not yet commonly used in clinical practice, and there is a lack of consensus among experts about the service, including whether this should be offered to individuals and couples, whether this should be offered preconception or prenatally, and what conditions to include in screening programs. Challenges for expanded carrier screening programs include a lack of demand from the public, low prioritization by health systems, the potential for pressure to undergo screening, the possibility of disability-based discrimination, needed adaptations to pre- and post-test counseling, technical limitations, and the evolving technological and socio-political landscape.

A systematic analysis of online marketing materials used by providers of expanded carrier screening

PURPOSE

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) for a large number of recessive disorders is available to prospective parents through commercial providers. This study aimed to analyze the content of marketing materials on ECS providers' websites.

METHODS

To identify providers of ECS tests, we undertook a comprehensive online search, reviewed recent academic literature on commercial carrier screening, and consulted with colleagues familiar with the current ECS landscape. The identified websites were archived in April 2017, and inductive content analysis was performed on website text, brochures and educational materials, and video transcripts.

RESULTS

We identified 18 ECS providers, including 16 commercial genetic testing companies. Providers typically described ECS as an important family planning tool. The content differed in both the tone used to promote ECS and the accuracy and completeness of the test information provided. We found that most providers offered complimentary genetic counseling to their consumers, although this was often optional, limited to the posttest context, and, in some cases, appeared to be available only to test-positive individuals.

CONCLUSION

The quality of ECS providers' websites could be improved by offering more complete and accurate information about ECS and their tests. Providers should also ensure that all carrier couples receive posttest genetic counseling to inform their subsequent reproductive decision making.