A leap of faith? An interview study with professionals on the use of mitochondrial replacement to avoid transfer of mitochondrial diseases

Reproductive options in mitochondrial disease

Mitochondrial diseases require customized approaches for reproductive counseling, addressing differences in recurrence risks and reproductive options. The majority of mitochondrial diseases is caused by mutations in nuclear genes and segregate in a Mendelian way. Prenatal diagnosis (PND) or preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) are available to prevent the birth of another severely affected child. In at least 15%-25% of cases, mitochondrial diseases are caused by mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations, which can occur de novo (25%) or be maternally inherited. For de novo mtDNA mutations, the recurrence risk is low and PND can be offered for reassurance. For maternally inherited, heteroplasmic mtDNA mutations, the recurrence risk is often unpredictable, due to the mitochondrial bottleneck. PND for mtDNA mutations is technically possible, but often not applicable given limitations in predicting the phenotype. Another option for preventing the transmission of mtDNA diseases is PGT. Embryos with mutant load below the expression threshold are being transferred. Oocyte donation is another safe option to prevent the transmission of mtDNA disease to a future child for couples who reject PGT. Recently, mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) became available for clinical application as an alternative to prevent the transmission of heteroplasmic and homoplasmic mtDNA mutations.

Mitochondrial replacement therapy: Genetic counselors' experiences, knowledge, and opinions

Mitochondrial disorders affect at least 1 in 5,000 individuals worldwide and are often incurable and fatal. Mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) is an in vitro fertilization technique used to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disorders. Currently, MRT is the only approach that provides mothers who carry a pathogenic variant in their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), the opportunity to have a biological child without a mitochondrial disease. MRT involves the combination of nuclear DNA from the egg of the carrier mother and the cytoplasm from an oocyte donor, which contains healthy mitochondria. While MRT was approved for use in the UK in 2015, the ban on congressional funding for research on 'heritable genetic modification' has made MRT unavailable within the US borders. This survey-based study aimed to describe genetic counselors' experience, knowledge, and opinions about MRT. Additionally, we also assessed whether genetic counselors' comfort discussing MRT with patients, and feelings about clinical use of MRT in the United States changed after providing information about MRT compared with baseline. Responses were received from 139 genetic counselors in North America. Findings indicate low awareness and knowledge about MRT among participants. However, more participants expressed comfort with discussing MRT with patients and more participants were able to form opinions about statements about MRT after they were provided with information about MRT. This study is the first to assess genetic counselors' opinions toward MRT and suggests the need for more education about novel technologies such as MRT among genetic counselors.

Public attitudes towards novel reproductive technologies: a citizens' jury on mitochondrial donation

STUDY QUESTION

Does an informed group of citizens endorse the clinical use of mitochondrial donation in a country where this is not currently permitted?

SUMMARY ANSWER

After hearing balanced expert evidence and having opportunity for deliberation, a majority (11/14) of participants in a citizens’ jury believed that children should be able to be born using mitochondrial donation.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Research suggests that patients, oocyte donors and health professionals support mitochondrial donation to prevent transmission of mitochondrial disease. Less is known about public acceptability of this novel reproductive technology, especially from evidence using deliberative methods.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This study comprised a citizens’ jury, an established method for determining the views of a well-informed group of community members. The jury had 14 participants, and ran over one and a half days in 2017.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Jurors were members of the public with no experience of mitochondrial disease. They heard and engaged with relevant evidence and were asked to answer the question: ‘Should Australia allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation?’

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Eleven jurors decided that Australia should allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation; 7 of whom added conditions such as the need to limit who can access the intervention. Three jurors decided that children should not (or not yet) be born using this intervention. All jurors were particularly interested in the reliability of evidence, licensing/regulatory mechanisms and the rights of children to access information about their oocyte donors.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Jurors’ views were well informed and reflected critical deliberation and discussion, but are not intended to be representative of the whole population.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

When presented with high quality evidence, combined with opportunities to undertake structured deliberation of novel reproductive technologies, members of the public are able to engage in detailed discussions. This is the first study to use an established deliberative method to gauge public views towards mitochondrial donation.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was funded by a University of Sydney Industry and Community Collaboration Seed Award (2017), which was awarded contingent on additional funding from the Mito Foundation. Additional funding was provided by the Mito Foundation. The Foundation was not involved in jury facilitation or deliberation, nor analysis of research data.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

Should Long-Term Follow-up Post-Mitochondrial Replacement be Left up to Physicians, Parents, or Offspring?

UK law permits parents to use mitochondrial replacement (MR) to have genetically-related children without serious mitochondrial disease. However, long-term follow-up is required for each case. Whether this follow-up should be left to physicians, parents, or offspring has not been established. Due to the experimental status of MR, physicians must inform parents of the risks and the importance of follow-up tailored to a specific mitochondrial disease. Given that the use of MR is a responsible exercise of reproductive freedom, parents should ensure that the follow-up is performed properly and in the best interests of their offspring. On becoming legally competent, the resulting children should be entitled to refuse follow-up provided that the prevention of mitochondrial disease with no adverse effects has been evident till then. This offspring-centred long-term follow-up approach might also be applied to the use of MR for infertility treatment, even though the primary endpoint is healthy live births.

Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques : Examining Collective Representation in Emerging Technologies Governance

In this article, I draw on research carried out in Europe, primarily in Germany, on patients' and scientists' perspectives on mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) in order to explore some of the complexities related to collective representation in health governance, which includes the translation of emerging technologies into clinical use. Focusing on observations, document analyses, and interviews with eight mitochondrial disease patient organization leaders, this contribution extends our understanding of the logic and meanings behind the ways in which patient participation and collective representation in health governance initiatives take shape. My findings highlight the ways in which a commitment to a global mitochondrial disease patient community and a sense of patient solidarity influence expressions of support with regard to legalizing mitochondrial replacement techniques. My analyses illustrate how normative practices and expectations of participatory governance potentially foreclose opportunities for sustained collective patient engagement with the complex ethical, social, and political dimensions of emerging technologies and may silence diverse and potentially dissenting embodied and lived responses to the prospects of particular technological developments.

The importance of genetic parenthood for infertile men and women

STUDY QUESTION

Do men and women beginning to attend a fertility clinic prefer genetic over non-genetic parenthood?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Nearly, all infertile men and women prefer genetic parenthood.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Clinicians assume that all infertile couples prefer genetic parenthood over non-genetic parenthood and, therefore, consider treatments with donor gametes an option of last resort. Previous studies of the desire for parenthood identified 30 motivations for genetic parenthood, and 51 motivations for which having a genetically related child is not strictly necessary but might be deemed required. The exact strength of the preference of infertile men and women for genetic parenthood remains unclear, as does the importance of the various motivations.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A questionnaire was developed based on a literature review. It was assessed by professionals and pilot tested among patients. The coded paper-pencil questionnaire was disseminated among both partners of 201 heterosexual infertile couples after their first consultation at one of two Belgian fertility clinics between October 2015 and May 2016.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The survey addressed: (i) the preference for genetic parenthood for themselves and for their partner, (ii) the importance of 30 motivations for genetic parenthood and (iii) the importance of 51 other motivations for parenthood and whether these motivations require being the genetic parent of their child to be fulfilled. To simplify presentation of the results, all 81 motivations were grouped into reliable categories of motivations using psychometric analyses.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The survey was completed by 104 women and 91 men (response rate: 49%). Almost all respondents (98%) favored genetic over non-genetic parenthood for both their partner and themselves. One-third of the respondents stated they only wanted to parent their own genetically related child. Achieving genetic parenthood for their partner was considered significantly more important than achieving genetic parenthood for themselves. Within couples, men had a stronger preference for genetic parenthood (P = 0.004), but this was not significant after correction for educational level, which was significantly associated with the preference of both men and women. The 30 motivations for becoming a genetic parent clustered into 11 categories of which 'to experience a natural process' was deemed most important. The 51 motivations for becoming a parent for which having a genetically related child is not strictly necessary clustered into 14 categories of which 'to contribute to a child's well-being' and 'to experience the love of a child' were most important. Respondents deemed they would need to be the genetic parent of their child to fulfill nearly all their motivations for parenthood.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

We included couples that visited the fertility clinic for the first time, and the preference for genetic parenthood might change throughout a fertility treatment trajectory. Moreover, what prospective parents expect to be important for their future well-being might not really define parents' well-being.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The presumed preference of couples for genetic parenthood was confirmed. Resistance against using donor gametes is more likely among lower educated individuals. Researching whether non-genetic parents actually feel they cannot fulfill the 51 motivations for parenthood, could be a basis for developing patient information.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Funded by the Parkes Foundation, the University of Amsterdam and the Leuven University Hospital. No conflict of interest.

Prenatal and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis

The past decade has seen the development of technologies that have revolutionized prenatal genetic testing; that is, genetic testing from conception until birth. Genome-wide single-cell arrays and high-throughput sequencing analyses are dramatically increasing our ability to detect embryonic and fetal genetic lesions, and have substantially improved embryo selection for in vitro fertilization (IVF). Moreover, both invasive and non-invasive mutation scanning of the genome are helping to identify the genetic causes of prenatal developmental disorders. These advances are changing clinical practice and pose novel challenges for genetic counselling and prenatal care.