Patient actions and reactions after receiving negative results from expanded carrier screening

Adolescents' and young adults' reactions to and perceived utility of carrier screening results in the context of a genomic research study

Although guidelines have historically recommended deferring decisions about learning genomic information for conditions not actionable in childhood until adulthood, youth have increasing access to personal genomic information through research, clinical, and direct-to-consumer testing. However, little is known about young people's reactions to, and perceived future utility of learning genomic information actionable in adulthood. We conducted qualitative interviews with 28 youth ages 15-22 without clinical indications for genetic screening who, through enrollment in a genomic decision-making research study, learned they were carriers of an autosomal recessive condition, or anticipated being carriers but received negative results. Semi-structured interviews occurred virtually between 3 and 16 months after the return of results. Interpretative description guided deductive and inductive coding of transcripts. Of the 28 participants, 21 received positive carrier results, and 7 received negative results. Although some carriers felt the result was unexpected, they expressed relief overall and did not feel worried about their result. Participants with negative results also felt relief about their results. All participants correctly described what a carrier result means, but some carriers could not remember the condition associated with their result. No participant regretted learning personal genomic information, and all reported their results helped them better understand risks to future children. Carriers who perceived the condition for which they were carriers as more severe and/or those familiar with the condition were more likely to remember their result and consider future reproductive options. Carriers also felt testing at their respective age allowed increased familiarity with results and more time to gather information and decide on the personal utility of the information. Our findings suggest early access to genomic information for some youth may allow integration of carrier information over time with minimal adverse effects. More research is needed to assess long-term outcomes among carriers.

How people undergoing genomic sequencing interpret and react to varied secondary findings with limited actionability

PURPOSE

To investigate patient reactions to and understanding of secondary genomic findings with limited to no medical actionability (LMA-SFs) from diagnostic genome sequencing.

METHODS

We analyzed LMA-SFs returned to 47 adults who elected to receive a broad set of these results from 6 categories. Findings indicated elevated risk (reportable/positive) or not (negative/normal). Most participants (N = 43) also completed surveys to report their distress, decision regret, expected health anxiety, and whether and how they perceived results as reassuring or troubling.

RESULTS

Most participants received some reportable LMA-SFs for common risk, pharmacogenetic, and carrier status variants. Fewer received reportable APOE haplotype or monogenetic condition variants. None received results indicating high risk for severe neurological disease. Overall, participants (76.7% female, 97.7% White) had low distress, decision regret, and expected health anxiety. None described negative/normal findings as troubling. However, their interpretations of reportable/positive results varied. Even within the same result type, some participants found them troubling, while others found them reassuring based on their perception of the results' utility.

CONCLUSION

Participants' short-term well-being was not reduced by receiving LMA-SFs. Their interpretations suggested varied personal utilities and the need for post-test resources to aid understanding of these types of results and their health significance.

Exploring attitudes and experiences with reproductive genetic carrier screening among couples seeking medically assisted reproduction: a longitudinal survey study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the attitudes and experiences of subfertile couples applying for medically assisted reproduction (MAR) using their own gametes towards reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) for monogenic conditions.

METHODS

A prospective survey study was conducted where subfertile couples were recruited from the fertility centre of a university hospital in Flanders, Belgium. Participants were offered RGCS free of charge and completed self-administered questionnaires at three different time points.

RESULTS

The study sample consisted of 26 couples. Most participants had no children, did not consider themselves as religious, and had some form of higher education. Overall, attitudes towards RGCS were mostly positive and the intention to participate in RGCS was high. Anxiety scores were only elevated and clinically relevant for a limited number of participants. A large proportion of participants would consider preventive reproductive options like prenatal diagnosis or in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) combined with pre-implantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions (PGT-M) in the event of an increased likelihood of conceiving a child with a hereditary condition. Participants were satisfied with their decision to undergo RGCS, and the majority would recommend RGCS to other couples.

CONCLUSION

Our study findings suggest that subfertile couples applying for MAR using their own gametes find RGCS acceptable and have a positive attitude towards it. This study provides valuable insights into the perspectives of these couples, highlighting the need for appropriate counseling and timely information provision.

Experiences of nonpregnant couples after receiving reproductive genetic carrier screening results in Belgium

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) allows for the identification of couples who have an increased likelihood of conceiving a child with a particular autosomal recessive or X-linked condition. The aim of this study was to assess the level of satisfaction, anxiety, knowledge retention, psychosocial and counseling-related aspects among couples who chose to have RGCS. Participants were initially informed about their screening results by telephone. After obtaining a written report of test results, participants were asked to complete an individual self-administered questionnaire. All participants (n = 67) felt they had enough information to make an informed choice. None of the participants regretted their choice to have RGCS. Test results were most often shared with parents (61%) or siblings (37%). Our findings demonstrate that the information/counseling and reporting strategy that was used in the context of this study led to high participant satisfaction, an increase in knowledge over time and favorable psychosocial and counseling-related outcomes.

Genetic Counselling Needs for Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: A Scoping Review

Reproductive genetic carrier screening provides individuals and couples with information regarding their risk of having a child affected by an autosomal recessive or X-linked recessive genetic condition. This information allows them the opportunity to make reproductive decisions in line with their own beliefs and values. Traditionally, carrier screening has been accessed by family members of affected individuals. In recent years, improvements to accessibility and updates to recommendations suggest that all women planning or in early pregnancy should be offered reproductive genetic carrier screening. As uptake moves towards the population scale, how can the genetic counselling needs of such large-scale screening be met? A scoping review of the literature was performed to ascertain what the genetic counselling needs of reproductive genetic carrier screening are, and what future research is needed. Four broad themes were identified in the existing literature: (1) The offer-when and in what context to offer screening; (2) Information-the importance of and what to include in education, and pre- and post-test counselling; (3) Who and how-who the genetic counselling is performed by and how; (4) Personalization-how do we find the balance between standardized and individualized approaches? Based on the existing literature, we present a set of recommendations for consideration in implementing population-scale reproductive genetic carrier screening as well as suggested areas for future research.

Incorporating patient perspectives in the development of a core outcome set for reproductive genetic carrier screening: a sequential systematic review

There is currently no consensus on the key outcomes of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). This has led to a large amount of variability in approaches to research, limiting direct comparison and synthesis of findings. In a recently published systematic review of quantitative studies on RGCS, we found that few studies incorporated patient-reported outcomes. In response to this gap, we conducted a sequential systematic review of qualitative studies to identify outcomes exploring the patient experience of RGCS. In conjunction with the review of quantitative studies, these outcomes will be used to inform the development of a core outcome set. Text excerpts relevant to outcomes, including quotes and themes, were extracted verbatim and deductively coded as outcomes. We conducted a narrative synthesis to group outcomes within domains previously defined in our review of quantitative studies, and identify any new domains that were unique to qualitative studies. Seventy-eight outcomes were derived from qualitative studies and grouped into 19 outcome domains. Three new outcome domains were identified; 'goals of pre- and post-test genetic counselling', 'acceptability of further testing and alternative reproductive options', and 'perceived utility of RGCS'. The identification of outcome domains that were not identified in quantitative studies indicates that outcomes reflecting the patient perspective may be under-represented in the quantitative literature on this topic. Further work should focus on ensuring that outcomes reflect the real world needs and concerns of patients in order to maximise translation of research findings into clinical practice.

Expanded carrier screening in the United States: A systematic evidence review exploring client and provider experiences

The aim of carrier screening is to identify prospective parents at risk of having a pregnancy affected with an autosomal recessive or X-linked disorder. Though minimal guideline-based screening is available, expanded carrier screening (ECS) is quickly becoming a feasible option for the general population due to its growing availability and affordability. However, the impact of ECS on clients and providers remains relatively unexplored. We performed a systematic evidence review to identify publications describing client-, provider-, and test-related outcomes. We searched several biomedical databases for articles published between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they described genetic counseling and/or genetic testing for carrier screening (minimal guideline-based or ECS) in a prenatal or preconception setting in the United States. Title and abstract screening were performed using the Raayan web application or customized Google Forms. Full-text review and data extraction of included articles were performed using custom Google Forms. Two researchers performed a multistep selection process independently for validation purposes. Of 5413 unique articles screened, 36 studies were included with several studies contributing to multiple outcomes. Twenty described outcomes relating to patients/clients, 10 described provider-based outcomes, and 16 described test-based outcomes. Findings suggest that client and provider perceptions of ECS and minimal guideline-based carrier screening are multifaceted. Though clients have expressed desire for ECS, clinical uptake and impact on reproductive decision-making varies. Additionally, though genetic counselors seem to be comfortable with ECS, most other reproductive care providers seem to prefer minimal guideline or ancestry-based screening due to perceived barriers, such as time needed for ECS results disclosure and follow-up, as well as the desire to have panels set by professional societies/recommendations. There are limitations within the gathered literature, leading to potential uncertainty in the generalizability of our review. We outline several recommendations for future studies, including the need to examine variant interpretation and use of next-generation sequencing.

Systematic review of outcomes in studies of reproductive genetic carrier screening: Towards development of a core outcome set

PURPOSE

Current practice recommendations support the widespread implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). These consensus-based recommendations highlight a research gap, with findings from current studies being insufficient to meet the standard required for more rigorous evidence-based recommendations. This systematic review assessed methodological aspects of studies on RGCS to inform the need for a core outcome set.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search to identify peer-reviewed published studies offering population-based RGCS. Study designs, outcomes, and measurement methods were extracted. A narrative synthesis was conducting using an existing outcome taxonomy and criteria used in the evaluation of genetic screening programs as frameworks.

RESULTS

Sixty-five publications were included. We extracted 120 outcomes representing 24 outcome domains. Heterogeneity in outcome selection, measurement methods and time points of assessment was extensive. Quality appraisal raised concerns for bias. We found that reported outcomes had limited applicability to criteria used to evaluate genetic screening programs.

CONCLUSION

Despite a large body of literature, diverse approaches to research have limited the conclusions that can be cumulatively drawn from this body of evidence. Consensus regarding meaningful outcomes for evaluation of RGCS would be a valuable first step in working towards evidence-based practice recommendations, supporting the development of a core outcome set.

Genetic neuromuscular disorders: what is the best that we can do?

The major advances in genetic neuromuscular disorders in the last 30 years have been: (a) identification of the genetic basis for hundreds of these disorders, (b) through knowing the genes, understanding their pathobiology and (c) subsequent implementation of evidence-based treatments for some of the disorders. New genomic technologies are providing precision diagnosis, mode of inheritance and likely prognosis for more patients than ever before. Parents of children with a genetic diagnosis can then use preimplantation or prenatal diagnosis to avoid having further affected children if they wish. But is this the best we can do for genetic neuromuscular disorders? Since the 1980s, it has been argued it would be better to identify Duchenne muscular dystrophy carrier mothers, rather than diagnose their affected sons. Carrier screening for recessive disorders can identify couples with a high chance of having affected children. It allows couples reproductive choice and can prevent infant morbidity and mortality and significant distress for families. Professional bodies in many countries now recommend prospective parents should be informed about carrier screening. Implementing and funding expensive therapies increases the cost-effectiveness of carrier screening, increasing its attractiveness to governments. Best practice for genetic neuromuscular disorders should include equitable access to carrier screening.

Couples' experiences with expanded carrier screening: evaluation of a university hospital screening offer

Preconception carrier screening offers couples the possibility to receive information about the risk of having a child with a recessive disorder. Since 2016, an expanded carrier screening (ECS) test for 50 severe autosomal recessive disorders has been available at Amsterdam Medical Center, a Dutch university hospital. This mixed-methods study evaluated the experiences of couples that participated in the carrier screening offer, including high-risk participants, as well as participants with a general population risk. All participants received genetic counselling, and pre- (n = 132) and post-test (n = 86) questionnaires and semi-structured interviews (n = 16) were administered. The most important reason to have ECS was to spare a future child a life with a severe disorder (47%). The majority of survey respondents made an informed decision (86%), as assessed by the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice. Among the 86 respondents, 27 individual carriers and no new carrier couples were identified. Turn-around time of the test results was considered too long and costs were perceived as too high. Overall, mean levels of anxiety were not clinically elevated. High-risk respondents (n = 89) and pregnant respondents (n = 13) experienced higher levels of anxiety before testing, which decreased after receiving the test result. Although not clinically significant, distress was on average higher for carriers compared to non-carriers (p < 0.0001). All respondents would opt for the test again, and 80.2% would recommend it to others. The results suggest that ECS should ideally be offered before pregnancy, to minimise anxiety. This study could inform current and future implementation initiatives of preconception ECS.

Couple-based expanded carrier screening provided by general practitioners to couples in the Dutch general population: psychological outcomes and reproductive intentions

Purpose

The aim of expanded preconception carrier screening (ECS) is to inform any couple wishing to conceive about their chances of having children with severe autosomal or X-linked recessive conditions. Responsible implementation of ECS as reproductive genetic screening in routine care requires assessment of benefits and harms. We examined the psychological outcomes of couple-based ECS for 50 autosomal recessive (AR) conditions provided by general practitioners (GPs) to couples from the Dutch general population.

Methods

Dutch GPs invited 4,295 women aged 18–40. We examined anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI-6), worry, decisional conflict (DCS) over time in participants declining GP counseling or attending GP counseling with/without testing.

Results

One hundred ninety couples participated; 130 attended counseling, of whom 117 proceeded with testing. No carrier couples were identified. Before counseling, worry (median 6.0) and anxiety (mean 30–34) were low and lower than the population reference (36.4), although some individuals reported increased anxiety or worry. At follow-up, test acceptors reported less anxiety than test decliners (mean 29 vs. 35); differences in anxiety after testing compared to before counseling were not meaningful. Most participants (90%) were satisfied with their decision (not) to undergo testing.

Conclusion

Some individuals reported temporarily clinically relevant distress. Overall, the psychological outcomes are acceptable and no barrier to population-wide implementation.

First French study relative to preconception genetic testing: 1500 general population participants' opinion

Background

Until very recently, preconception genetic testing was only conducted in particular communities, ethnic groups or families for which an increased risk of genetic disease was identified. To detect in general population a risk for a couple to have a child affected by a rare, recessive or X-linked, genetic disease, carrier screening is proposed in several countries. We aimed to determine the current public opinion relative to this approach in France, using either a printed or web-based questionnaire.

Results

Among the 1568 participants, 91% are favorable to preconception genetic tests and 57% declare to be willing to have the screening if the latter is available. A medical prescription by a family doctor or a gynecologist would be the best way to propose the test for 73%, with a reimbursement from the social security insurance. However, 19% declare not to be willing to use the test because of their ethic or moral convictions, and the fear that the outcome would question the pregnancy. Otherwise, most participants consider that the test is a medical progress despite the risk of an increased medicalization of the pregnancy.

Conclusion

This first study in France highlights a global favorable opinion for the preconception genetic carrier testing under a medical prescription and a reimbursement by social security insurance. Our results emphasize as well the complex concerns underpinned by the use of this screening strategy. Therefore, the ethical issues related to these tests include the risk of eugenic drift mentioned by more than half of the participants.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13023-021-01754-z.

Genetic Counseling, Personalized Medicine, and Precision Health

Millions of individuals in the United States will have their exomes and genomes sequenced over the next 5 years as the use of genomic sequencing technologies in clinical care grows and as initiatives in personalized medicine and precision health move forward. As a result, we will see a shift away from the patient population of early adopters who pursued direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing and paid thousands of dollars to get their genomes sequenced and toward a different and more diverse set of test takers. Early data suggest that these individuals will have different motivations for pursuing genomic sequencing and will be less knowledgeable about and less confident of the benefits of genetic testing. To serve this growing population, genetic counselors must understand our future patients as well as the changing landscape of genomic testing, DTC offerings, and population sequencing initiatives.

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.

Lessons Learned From A Study Of Genomics-Based Carrier Screening For Reproductive Decision Making

Genomics-based carrier screening is one of many opportunities to use genomic information to inform medical decision making, but clinicians, health care delivery systems, and payers need to determine whether to offer screening and how to do so in an efficient, ethical way. To shed light on this issue, we conducted a study in the period 2014-17 to inform the design of clinical screening programs and guide further health services research. Many of our results have been published elsewhere; this article summarizes the lessons we learned from that study and offers policy insights. Our experience can inform understanding of the potential impact of expanded carrier screening services on health system workflows and workforces-impacts that depend on the details of the screening approach. We found limited patient or health system harms from expanded screening. We also found that some patients valued the information they learned from the process. Future policy discussions should consider the value of offering such expanded carrier screening in health delivery systems with limited resources.