In vitro fertilisation with preimplantation genetic testing: the need for expanded insurance coverage

Preimplantation genetic testing: A remarkable history of pioneering, technical challenges, innovations, and ethical considerations

Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) has emerged as a powerful companion to assisted reproduction technologies. The origins and history of PGT are reviewed here, along with descriptions of advances in molecular assays and sampling methods, their capabilities, and their applications in preventing genetic diseases and enhancing pregnancy outcomes. Additionally, the potential for increasing accuracy and genome coverage is considered, as well as some of the emerging ethical and legislative considerations related to the expanding capabilities of PGT.

Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Adult-Onset Neurodegenerative Disease: Considerations for Access, Utilization, and Counseling

Preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions (PGT-M), formerly called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, is a specialized assisted reproduction technique that aims to reduce the risk of a pregnancy inheriting a monogenic condition. Despite calls to increase awareness and prepare neurologists for discussing PGT-M with patients and their families, no guidelines currently exist. When introducing PGT-M to those who may be interested in using it, there are major factors for discussion, including (1) genetic considerations (e.g., requirement for a confirmed genetic diagnosis; timing of genetic test results); (2) practical considerations (e.g., access to PGT-M and genetic services); (3) technical considerations (e.g., factors that can affect the success rate of PGT-M); and (4) psychosocial and ethical considerations (e.g., predictive testing for asymptomatic family members; family dynamics and values). Here, our team of neurologists and specialized genetic counselors discusses the current state of genetic characterization in adult-onset neurodegenerative conditions and highlights the major factors that should be considered when discussing PGT-M with families.

Expecting more: the case for incorporating fertility services into comprehensive sickle cell disease care

Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are not yet systematically available to people with sickle cell disease or their parents. Fertility care for these groups requires addressing sickle cell disease-associated infertility risks, fertility preservation options, pregnancy possibilities and outcomes, and, when needed, infertility treatment. People with a chance of having a child with sickle cell disease can use in-vitro fertilisation with preimplantation genetic testing to conceive a child unaffected by sickle cell disease. Also, parents of children with sickle cell disease can use this technology to identify embryos to become potential future matched sibling donors for stem cell transplant. In the USA, disparities in fertility care for the sickle cell disease community are especially stark. Universal screening of newborn babies' identifies sickle cell disease and sickle cell trait, guidelines direct preconception genetic carrier screening, and standard-of-care fertility preserving options exist. However, potentially transformative treatments and cures for patients with sickle cell disease are not used due to iatrogenic infertility concerns. In diversely resourced care settings, obstacles to providing fertility care to people affected by sickle cell disease persist. In this Viewpoint, we contend that fertility care should be incorporated into the comprehensive care model for sickle cell disease, supporting alignment of treatment goals with reproductive life plans and delivering on the promise of individualised high-quality care for people with sickle cell disease and their families. We consider the obligation to provide fertility care in light of medical evidence, with acknowledgment of formidable obstacles to optimising care, and powerful historical and ethical considerations.

Expanding insurance coverage for in vitro fertilisation with preimplantation genetic testing: putting the cart before the horse

Madison Kilbride recently argued that insurance (eg, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)) should cover in vitro fertilisation with preimplantation genetic testing (IVF-PGT) services for couples at high risk of having a child affected with a genetic condition. She argues that IVF-PGT meets CMS's definition of 'medically necessary care', where such care includes 'services or supplies needed to diagnose or treat an illness, injury, condition, disease or its symptoms'. Kilbride argues that IVF-PGT satisfies this definition in two ways: as a diagnostic tool and as a treatment. Contradicting Kilbride, however, I argue that IVF-PGT provides neither diagnosis nor treatment under CMS's definition. Thus, as long as we accept CMS's definition of medically necessary care-which Kilbride does, explicitly-it follows that IVF-PGT does not count as medically necessary care. Still, there may be other reasons to conclude that IVF-Preimplantation genetic testing should be covered, and so, it would be a mistake to reject Kilbride's conclusion altogether. The problem is simply that Kilbride's argument-that the procedure should be covered because it is medically necessary per CMS's definition-is not sound. I conclude by discussing a number of other genetic services that are not currently being covered despite the fact that (unlike IVF-PGT) they do seem to satisfy CMS's definition of 'medically necessary diagnosis or treatment'. These services, I argue, should be provided under CMS before we consider expanding coverage to include elective procedures such as IVF-PGT.

Acceptable, hopeful, and useful: development and mixed-method evaluation of an educational tool about reproductive options for people with sickle cell disease or trait

PURPOSE

People with sickle cell disease (SCD) or trait have many reproductive options, some of which decrease the chance of passing SCD to children, including in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing (IVF + PGT). Few are aware of these options, and educational materials are needed. This study aimed to develop an accessible, non-directive patient education material about reproductive options for those with SCD or trait via a process that incorporated stakeholders from the SCD community.

METHODS

Multidisciplinary stakeholders guided development and revision of a novel pamphlet. Researchers applied health literacy scales to measure pamphlet understandability. We interviewed nine patients with SCD and six multidisciplinary clinicians to evaluate the pamphlet. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded by a five-member team who developed a codebook and proposed themes that were revised by all research team members. Feedback was incorporated into a revised pamphlet.

RESULTS

A two-page pamphlet describing reproductive options for people with SCD including IVF + PGT was acceptable to key stakeholders, including people with SCD. Material about this complex topic met health literacy standards, including being written at a 5th grade level. Patients reported feeling hopeful after reviewing the pamphlet, and participants considered the pamphlet useful, clear, and appropriate for distribution in clinics and online.

CONCLUSIONS

Though awareness of reproductive options for those with SCD or trait is low, patients and providers find a novel pamphlet about this topic acceptable and useful. Educational materials about complex topics including IVF + PGT can be written at a level understandable to the average American.