Acceptance of genetic editing and of whole genome sequencing of human embryos by patients with infertility before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic

A decade of public engagement regarding human germline gene editing: a systematic scoping review

Following the discovery of the CRISPR-Cas technology in 2012, there has been a growing global call for public engagement regarding the potential use of human germline gene editing (HGGE). In this systematic scoping review, we aim to evaluate public engagement studies considering the following questions based on three points of attention: 1) Inclusion of underrepresented groups: who have been engaged? 2) Gathering values: what output has been reported? 3) Reaching societal impact: what objectives of public engagement have been reported? A systematic literature search from 2012 to 2023 identified 3464 articles reporting on public engagement studies regarding HGGE retrieved from 12 databases. After screening, 52 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 36 articles that cover 31 public engagement studies. We conclude that co-created efforts are needed to engage underrepresented groups as well as to yield values rather than acceptance levels, and to concretise how engagement might result in societal impact.

Patient perspectives after receiving simulated preconception polygenic risk scores (PRS) for family planning

PURPOSE

The study investigates patient perspectives on the use of Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Polygenic disease (PGT-P) to select embryos with lower risks for common polygenic diseases. Participant responses and attitudes were evaluated after receiving simulated embryo PRS generated from their personal genetic profile.

METHODS

Couples seeking OB/GYN or Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (REI) care with an interest in genetic risks for common diseases in their prospective children participated. A tool provided PRS scores for 11 conditions, using parental DNA to simulate genetic risks for hypothetical embryos produced during IVF. Participants received counseling, reviewed results online, and completed a post-test survey. Feedback from 90 participants assessed understanding and attitudes toward PRS use in IVF.

RESULTS

Participants were overall more supportive of screening embryos for childhood-onset diseases (80%) compared to adult-onset conditions (63%); however, among specific diseases, participants expressed the greatest interest in screening for adult-onset cognitive disorders (Schizophrenia, 86%, Alzheimer's disease, 82%). Participant-free responses noted the importance of personalized counseling and participants not of European ancestry expressed frustration with limited PRS applicability. Negative reactions to testing (nervousness or anxiety 5%, regret 2%) were explored.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings examine the receipt of simulated embryo PRS in a patient population in which support for using PRS during embryo prioritization is high. Positive patient interest was consistent with other US studies; as prior studies identify significant clinician discomfort, these results highlight the need for comprehensive genetic counseling and inclusive stakeholder input in shaping guidelines for PRS during IVF.

Screening embryos for polygenic disease risk: a review of epidemiological, clinical, and ethical considerations

BACKGROUND

The genetic composition of embryos generated by in vitro fertilization (IVF) can be examined with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). Until recently, PGT was limited to detecting single-gene, high-risk pathogenic variants, large structural variants, and aneuploidy. Recent advances have made genome-wide genotyping of IVF embryos feasible and affordable, raising the possibility of screening embryos for their risk of polygenic diseases such as breast cancer, hypertension, diabetes, or schizophrenia. Despite a heated debate around this new technology, called polygenic embryo screening (PES; also PGT-P), it is already available to IVF patients in some countries. Several articles have studied epidemiological, clinical, and ethical perspectives on PES; however, a comprehensive, principled review of this emerging field is missing.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This review has four main goals. First, given the interdisciplinary nature of PES studies, we aim to provide a self-contained educational background about PES to reproductive specialists interested in the subject. Second, we provide a comprehensive and critical review of arguments for and against the introduction of PES, crystallizing and prioritizing the key issues. We also cover the attitudes of IVF patients, clinicians, and the public towards PES. Third, we distinguish between possible future groups of PES patients, highlighting the benefits and harms pertaining to each group. Finally, our review, which is supported by ESHRE, is intended to aid healthcare professionals and policymakers in decision-making regarding whether to introduce PES in the clinic, and if so, how, and to whom.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for PubMed-indexed articles published between 1/1/2003 and 1/3/2024 using the terms 'polygenic embryo screening', 'polygenic preimplantation', and 'PGT-P'. We limited the review to primary research papers in English whose main focus was PES for medical conditions. We also included papers that did not appear in the search but were deemed relevant.

OUTCOMES

The main theoretical benefit of PES is a reduction in lifetime polygenic disease risk for children born after screening. The magnitude of the risk reduction has been predicted based on statistical modelling, simulations, and sibling pair analyses. Results based on all methods suggest that under the best-case scenario, large relative risk reductions are possible for one or more diseases. However, as these models abstract several practical limitations, the realized benefits may be smaller, particularly due to a limited number of embryos and unclear future accuracy of the risk estimates. PES may negatively impact patients and their future children, as well as society. The main personal harms are an unindicated IVF treatment, a possible reduction in IVF success rates, and patient confusion, incomplete counselling, and choice overload. The main possible societal harms include discarded embryos, an increasing demand for 'designer babies', overemphasis of the genetic determinants of disease, unequal access, and lower utility in people of non-European ancestries. Benefits and harms will vary across the main potential patient groups, comprising patients already requiring IVF, fertile people with a history of a severe polygenic disease, and fertile healthy people. In the United States, the attitudes of IVF patients and the public towards PES seem positive, while healthcare professionals are cautious, sceptical about clinical utility, and concerned about patient counselling.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The theoretical potential of PES to reduce risk across multiple polygenic diseases requires further research into its benefits and harms. Given the large number of practical limitations and possible harms, particularly unnecessary IVF treatments and discarded viable embryos, PES should be offered only within a research context before further clarity is achieved regarding its balance of benefits and harms. The gap in attitudes between healthcare professionals and the public needs to be narrowed by expanding public and patient education and providing resources for informative and unbiased genetic counselling.

Perspectives of preimplantation genetic testing patients in Belgium on the ethics of polygenic embryo screening

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the perspectives of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) patients in Belgium on the ethics of PGT for polygenic risk scoring (PGT-P)?

DESIGN

In-depth interviews (18 in total, 10 couples, 8 women, n = 28) were performed with patients who had undergone treatment with PGT for monogenic/single-gene defects (PGT-M) or chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) between 2017 and 2019 in Belgium. Participants were asked about their own experiences with PGT-M/SR and about their viewpoints on PGT-P, including their own interest and their ideas on its desirability, scope and consequences. Inductive content analysis was used to analyse the interviews.

RESULTS

Participants stated that their experiences with PGT-M/SR had been physically, psychologically and practically difficult. Most participants stated that, partly because of these difficulties, they did not see the added value of knowing the risk scores of embryos via PGT-P. Many participants worried that PGT-P could lead to additional anxieties, responsibilities and complex choices in reproduction and parenthood. They argued that not everything should be controlled and felt that PGT-P, especially non-medical and broad screening, was going too far. With regards to the clinical implementation of PGT-P, participants in general preferred PGT-P to be limited to people with a serious polygenic family history and wanted embryo selection decisions to be made by healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that individuals with experience of PGT-M/SR saw PGT-P as different from PGT-M/SR. They had various ethical concerns with regards to PGT-P, especially regarding broadly offering PGT-P. These stakeholder viewpoints need to be considered regarding potential PGT-P implementation and guidelines.

Ready for polygenic risk scores? An analysis of regulation of preimplantation genetic testing in European countries

STUDY QUESTION

Would the different regulatory approaches for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in Europe permit the implementation of preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores (PGT-P)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

While the regulatory approaches for PGT differ between countries, the space provided for potential implementation of PGT-P seems limited in all three regulatory models.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

PGT is a reproductive genetic technology that allows the testing for hereditary genetic disorders and chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. Throughout its history, PGT has largely been regarded as an ethically sensitive technology. For example, ethical questions have been raised regarding the use of PGT for adult-onset conditions, non-medical sex selection, and human leukocyte antigen typing for the benefit of existing siblings. Countries in which PGT is offered each have their own approach of regulating the clinical application of PGT, and a clear overview of legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe is lacking. An emerging development within the field of PGT, namely PGT-P, is currently bringing new ethical tensions to the forefront. It is unclear whether PGT-P may be applied within the current regulatory frameworks in Europe. Therefore, it is important to investigate current regulatory frameworks in Europe and determine whether PGT-P fits within these frameworks.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the legal and practical regulation of the use of PGT in seven selected European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK) and critically analyse the different approaches with regards to regulatory possibilities for PGT-P. Between July and September 2023, we performed a thorough and extensive search of websites of governments and governmental agencies, websites of scientific and professional organizations, and academic articles in which laws and regulations are described.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We investigated the legal and regulatory aspects of PGT by analysing legal documents, regulatory frameworks, scientific articles, and guidelines from scientific organizations and regulatory bodies to gather relevant information about each included country. The main sources of information were national laws relating to PGT.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We divided the PGT regulation approaches into three models. The regulation of PGT differs per country, with some countries requiring central approval of PGT for each new indication (the medical indication model: the UK, the Netherlands), other countries evaluating each individual PGT request at the local level (the individual requests model: France, Germany), and countries largely leaving decision-making about clinical application of PGT to healthcare professionals (the clinical assessment model: Belgium, Italy, Spain). In the countries surveyed that use the medical indication model and the individual requests model, current legal frameworks and PGT criteria seem to exclude PGT-P. In countries using the clinical assessment model, the fact that healthcare professionals and scientific organizations in Europe are generally negative about implementation of PGT-P due to scientific and socio-ethical concerns, implies that, even if it were legally possible, the chance that PGT-P would be offered in the near future might be low.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The results are based on our interpretation of publicly available written information and documents, therefore not all potential discrepancies between law and practice might have been identified. In addition, our analysis focuses on seven-and not all-European countries. However, since these countries are relevant players within PGT in Europe and since they have distinct PGT regulations, the insights gathered give relevant insights into diverse ways of PGT regulation.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that provides a thorough overview of the legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe. Our analysis of how PGT-P fits within current regulation models provides guidance for healthcare professionals and policymakers in navigating the possible future implementation of PGT-P within Europe.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 813707. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Public Attitudes, Interests, and Concerns Regarding Polygenic Embryo Screening

Importance

Polygenic embryo screening (PES) is a novel technology that estimates the likelihood of developing future conditions (eg, diabetes or depression) and traits (eg, height or cognitive ability) in human embryos, with the goal of selecting which embryos to use. Given its commercial availability and concerns raised by researchers, clinicians, bioethicists, and professional organizations, it is essential to inform key stakeholders and relevant policymakers about the public's perspectives on this technology.

Objective

To survey US adults to examine general attitudes, interests, and concerns regarding PES use.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this survey study, data were collected from 1 stratified sample and 1 nonprobability sample (samples 1 and 2, respectively) between March and July 2023. The surveys measured approval, interest, and concerns regarding various applications of PES. In the second sample, presentation of a list of potential concerns was randomized (presented at survey onset vs survey end). The survey was designed using Qualtrics and distributed to participants through Prolific, an online sampling firm. Sample 1 was nationally representative with respect to gender, age, and race and ethnicity; sample 2 was recruited without specific demographic criteria. Analyses were conducted between March 2023 and February 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Participants reported their approval, interest, and concerns regarding various applications of PES and outcomes screened (eg, traits and conditions). Statistical analysis was conducted using independent samples t tests and repeated-measures analyses of variance.

Results

Of the 1435 respondents in sample 1, demographic data were available for 1427 (mean [SD] age, 45.8 [16.0] years; 724 women [50.7%]). Among these 1427 sample 1 respondents, 1027 (72.0%) expressed approval for PES and 1169 (81.9%) expressed some interest in using PES if already undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Approval among these respondents for using PES for embryo selection was notably high for physical health conditions (1109 [77.7%]) and psychiatric health conditions (1028 [72.0%]). In contrast, there was minority approval for embryo selection based on PES for behavioral traits (514 [36.0%]) and physical traits (432 [30.3%]). Nevertheless, concerns about PES leading to false expectations and promoting eugenic practices were pronounced, with 787 of 1422 (55.3%) and 780 of 1423 (54.8%) respondents finding them very to extremely concerning, respectively. Sample 2 included 192 respondents (mean [SD] age 37.7 [12.2] years; 110 men [57.3%]). These respondents were presented concerns at survey onset (n = 95) vs survey end (n = 97), which was associated with less approval (28-percentage point decrease) and more uncertainty (24 percentage-point increase) but with only slightly higher disapproval (4 percentage-point increase).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that it is critical for health care professionals and medical societies to consider and understand the perspectives of diverse stakeholders (eg, patients undergoing IVF, clinicians, and the general public), given the absence of regulation and the recent commercial availability of PES.

Patient interest in and clinician reservations on polygenic embryo screening: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives

PURPOSE

We explored and compared perspectives of reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists (REIs) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients regarding polygenic embryo screening (PES), a new type of preimplantation screening that estimates the genetic chances of developing polygenic conditions and traits in the future.

METHODS

Qualitative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with US-based REIs and IVF patients.

RESULTS

Clinicians and patients often held favorable views of screening embryos for physical or psychiatric conditions, though clinicians tended to temper their positive attitudes with specific caveats. Clinicians also expressed negative views about screening embryos for traits more frequently than patients, who generally held more positive views. Most clinicians were either unwilling to discuss or offer PES to patients or were willing to do so only under certain circumstances, while many patients expressed interest in PES. Both stakeholder groups envisioned multiple potential benefits or uses of PES and raised multiple potential, interrelated concerns about PES.

CONCLUSION

A gap exists between clinician and patient attitudes toward PES; clinicians generally maintained reservations about such screening and patients indicated interest in it. Clinicians and patients sometimes imagined using PES to prepare for the birth of a predisposed or "affected" individual-a rationale that is often associated with prenatal testing. Many clinicians and patients held different attitudes depending on what is specifically screened, despite the sometimes blurry distinction between conditions and traits. Considerations raised by clinicians and patients may help guide professional societies in developing guidelines to navigate the uncertain terrain of PES.

Divergence Between Clinician and Patient Perspectives on Polygenic Embryo Screening: A Qualitative Study

Objective

To explore and compare the perspectives of clinicians and patients on polygenic embryo screening.

Design

Qualitative.

Subjects

Fifty-three participants: 27 reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists and 26 patients currently undergoing in vitro fertilization or had done so within the last five years.

Main Outcome Measures

Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts.

Results

Both clinicians and patients often held favorable views of screening embryos for physical or psychiatric conditions, though clinicians tended to temper their positive attitudes with specific caveats. Clinicians also expressed negative views about screening embryos for traits more often than patients, who generally held more positive views. Most clinicians were either unwilling to discuss or offer polygenic embryo screening to patients or were willing to do so only under certain circumstances, while many patients expressed interest in polygenic embryo screening. Both sets of stakeholders envisioned multiple potential benefits or uses of polygenic embryo screening; the most common included selection and/or prioritization of embryos, receipt of more information about embryos, and preparation for the birth of a predisposed or "affected" child. Both sets of stakeholders also raised multiple potential, interrelated concerns about polygenic embryo screening. The most common concerns among both sets of stakeholders included the potential for different types of "biases" - most often in relation to selection of embryos with preferred genetic chances of traits -, the probabilistic nature of polygenic embryo screening that can complicate patient counseling and/or lead to excessive cycles of in vitro fertilization, and a lack of data from long-term prospective studies supporting the clinical use of polygenic embryo screening.

Conclusion

Despite patients' interest in polygenic embryo screening, clinicians feel such screening is premature for clinical application. Though now embryos can be screened for their genetic chances of developing polygenic conditions and traits, many clinicians and patients maintain different attitudes depending on what is specifically screened, despite the blurry distinction between conditions and traits. Considerations raised by these stakeholders may help guide professional societies as they consider developing guidelines to navigate the uncertain terrain of polygenic embryo screening, which is already commercially available.