Barriers and Facilitators for Population Genetic Screening in Healthy Populations: A Systematic Review

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.

Integrating Genetic Services in the Philippine Public Health Delivery System: The Value of Networks

The delivery of genetic services in developing countries is faced with significant challenges, despite medical and technological advances globally. The Philippines, being an archipelago, faces even more challenges, with significant disparities in access to healthcare, and tertiary medical centers and specialists being concentrated in the major cities. The utilization of different networks for the integration of genetic services in the existing public health delivery system has been valuable. Using the well-established network of the national newborn screening program, genetic services have been successfully integrated into the delivery of healthcare, even at the grassroot level. Equitable access to healthcare, including genetic services, was highlighted and supported by the enactment of the Rare Disease Law in 2016. The support of the academe to assure the sustainability of services was evident in the establishment of a genetic counseling program to augment the work of a handful of clinical geneticists. Professional societies and support groups have been instrumental in identifying genetic conditions to be prioritized and lobbying for increased public awareness, leading to national programs and policies. This paper primarily discusses the value of networks in the delivery of genetic services, specifically newborn screening, programs for rare diseases, birth defects, and genetic counseling.

Evaluating the utility of multi-gene, multi-disease population-based panel testing accounting for uncertainty in penetrance estimates

Panel germline testing allows for the efficient detection of deleterious variants for multiple conditions, but the benefits and harms of identifying these variants are not always well understood. We present a multi-gene, multi-disease aggregate utility formula that allows the user to consider adding or removing each gene in a panel based on variant frequency, estimated penetrances, and subjective disutilities for testing positive but not developing the disease and testing negative but developing the disease. We provide credible intervals for utility that reflect uncertainty in penetrance estimates. Rare, highly penetrant deleterious variants tend to contribute positive net utilities for a wide variety of user-specified disutilities, even when accounting for parameter estimation uncertainty. However, the clinical utility of deleterious variants with moderate, uncertain penetrance depends more on assumed disutilities. The decision to include a gene on a panel depends on variant frequency, penetrance, and subjective utilities and should account for uncertainties around these factors.

Demographic Determinants Influencing the Adoption of Genetic Testing for Cardiovascular Diseases in Japan - Insights From a Large-Scale Online Survey

Background: Genetic testing for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is vital, but is underutilized in Japan due to limited insurance coverage, accessibility, and public disinterest. This study explores demographic factors influencing the decision to undergo CVD genetic testing. Methods and Results: We compared the CVD history and baseline demographics of Japanese adults who underwent genetic testing with those who did not, using an Internet survey. The regression model indicated that men, the young, married individuals, parents, and those with CVD, higher score for rationality, and lower quality of life were more inclined to undergo testing. Conclusions: Targeting strategies for CVD genetic testing could focus on these demographics.

Genetic Screening-Emerging Issues

In many countries, some form of genetic screening is offered to all or part of the population, either in the form of well-organized screening programs or in a less formalized way. Screening can be offered at different phases of life, such as preconception, prenatal, neonatal and later in life. Screening should only be offered if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Technical innovations in testing and treatment are driving changes in the field of prenatal and neonatal screening, where many jurisdictions have organized population-based screening programs. As a result, a greater number and wider range of conditions are being added to the programs, which can benefit couples' reproductive autonomy (preconception and prenatal screening) and improve early diagnosis to prevent irreversible health damage in children (neonatal screening) and in adults (cancer and cascade screening). While many developments in screening are technology-driven, citizens may also express a demand for innovation in screening, as was the case with non-invasive prenatal testing. Relatively new emerging issues for genetic screening, especially if testing is performed using DNA sequencing, relate to organization, data storage and interpretation, benefit-harm ratio and distributive justice, information provision and follow-up, all connected to acceptability in current healthcare systems.

Interventions to support decision making in people considering germline genetic testing for BRCA 1/2 pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants: A scoping review

Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are medically actionable and may inform hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) treatment and prevention. However, rates of germline genetic testing (GT) in people with and without cancer are suboptimal. Individuals' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs may influence GT decisions. While genetic counseling (GC) provides decision support, the supply of genetic counselors is insufficient to meet demand. Accordingly, there is a need to explore the evidence on interventions that aim to support BRCA1/2 testing decisions. We conducted a scoping review of PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO using search terms related to HBOC, GT, and decision making. First, we screened records to identify peer-reviewed reports that described interventions to support BRCA1/2 testing decisions. Next, we reviewed full-text reports and excluded studies that lacked statistical comparisons or enrolled previously tested individuals. Finally, we extracted study characteristics and findings into a table. All records and reports were reviewed independently by two authors; decisions were tracked in Rayyan, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Of 2116 unique citations, 25 met the eligibility criteria. Articles were published between 1997 and 2021 and described randomized trials and nonrandomized, quasi-experimental studies. Most studies tested technology-based (12/25, 48%) or written (9/25, 36%) interventions. Nearly half (12/25, 48%) of interventions were designed to complement traditional GC. Of the interventions compared to GC, 75% (6/8) increased or had a noninferior effect on knowledge, and 67% (4/6) decreased or had a noninferior effect on decisional conflict. Intervention effects on GT uptake were mixed, which may reflect evolving eligibility criteria for GT. Our findings suggest novel interventions may promote informed GT decision making, but many were developed to complement traditional GC. Trials that assess the effects of decision support interventions in diverse samples and evaluate implementation strategies for efficacious interventions are warranted.

HerediGene Population Study IT infrastructure: A model to support genomic research recruitment and precision public health

The HerediGene Population Study is a large research study focused on identifying new genetic biomarkers for disease prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and development of new therapeutics. A substantial IT infrastructure evolved to reach enrollment targets and return results to participants. More than 170,000 participants have been enrolled in the study to date, with 5.87% of those whole genome sequenced and 0.46% of those genotyped harboring pathogenic variants. Among other purposes, this infrastructure supports: (1) identifying candidates from clinical criteria, (2) monitoring for qualifying clinical events (e.g., blood draw), (3) contacting candidates, (4) obtaining consent electronically, (5) initiating lab orders, (6) integrating consent and lab orders into clinical workflow, (7) de-identifying samples and clinical data, (8) shipping/transmitting samples and clinical data, (9) genotyping/sequencing samples, (10) and re-identifying and returning results for participants where applicable. This study may serve as a model for similar genomic research and precision public health initiatives.

Participation in genetic screening: testing different outreach methods across a diverse hospital system based patient population

Introduction: Genomics has the potential to transform medicine by identifying genetic risk factors that predispose people to certain illnesses. Use of genetic screening is rapidly expanding and shifting towards screening all patients regardless of known risk factors, but research is limited on the success of broad population-level outreach for genetic testing and the effectiveness of different outreach methods across diverse populations. In this study, we tested the effectiveness of Digital Only (emailing and texting) and Brochure Plus Digital (mailed brochure, emailing, and texting) outreach to encourage a diverse patient population to participate in a large hospital system's whole genome sequencing program. Methods: Disproportionate stratified sampling was used to create a study population more demographically diverse than the eligible population and response rates were analyzed overall and by demographics to understand the effectiveness of different outreach strategies. Results: 7.5% of all eligible patients enrolled in the program. While approximately 70% of patients invited to complete genetic testing identified in their EHR as being Hispanic, Black or African America, Asian, or another non-White race, these patients generally enrolled at lower rates than the overall population. Other underrepresented groups had higher enrollment rates including people with Medicaid coverage (8.7%) and those residing in rural areas (10.6%). We found no significant difference in enrollment rates between our Digital-Only and our Brochure Plus Digital outreach approaches in the overall population, but enrollment rates were significantly higher for Asian patients and patients who resided in rural areas in the Brochure Plus Digital group. Across both outreach approaches, links provided in emails were most commonly used for enrollment. Discussion: Our study reveals expected enrollment rates for proactive outreach by a hospital system for genetic testing in a diverse population. As more hospital systems are adopting population-scale genetic testing, these findings can inform future outreach efforts to recruit patients for genetic testing including those patients traditionally underrepresented in genomics.

Medical and psychosocial outcomes of state-funded population genomic screening

As the uptake of population screening expands, assessment of medical and psychosocial outcomes is needed. Through the Alabama Genomic Health Initiative (AGHI), a state-funded genomic research program, individuals received screening for pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 59 actionable genes via genotyping. Of the 3874 eligible participants that received screening results, 858 (22%) responded to an outcomes survey. The most commonly reported motivation for seeking testing through AGHI was contribution to genetic research (64%). Participants with positive results reported a higher median number of planned actions (median = 5) due to AGHI results as compared to negative results (median = 3). Interviews were conducted with survey participants with positive screening results. As determined by certified genetic counselors, 50% of interviewees took appropriate medical action based on their result. There were no negative or harmful actions taken. These findings indicate population genomic screening of an unselected adult population is feasible, is not harmful, and may have positive outcomes on participants now and in the future; however, further research is needed in order to assess clinical utility.

Factors Influencing Genetic Screening Enrollment among a Diverse, Community-Ascertained Cohort

INTRODUCTION

Genetic screening for preventable adult-onset hereditary conditions has been proposed as a mechanism to reduce health disparities. Analysis of how race and ethnicity influence decision-making to receive screening can inform recruitment efforts and more equitable population screening design. A study at the University of Washington Medicine that invited unselected patients to participate in genetic screening for pathogenic variation in medically important genes provided an opportunity to evaluate these factors.

METHODS

We analyzed screening enrollee survey data to understand factors most important and least important in decision-making about screening overall and across different race and ethnicity groups. Electronic health record race and ethnicity and survey-reported race and ethnicity were compared to assist with interpretation. Comments provided about reasons for not enrolling in screening were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, learning about disease risk and identifying risk early for prevention purposes were important factors in decision-making to receive screening, and regrets about screening and screening being against one's moral code were not viewed as important. Although racial identity was challenging to assign in all cases, compared to other enrollees, African-American and Asian enrollees considered test accuracy and knowing more about the test to be of greater importance. Three themes emerged related to nonparticipation: benefits do not outweigh risks, don't want to know, and challenges with study logistics.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight important motivators for receiving screening and areas that can be addressed to increase screening interest and accessibility. This knowledge can inform future population screening program design including recruitment and education approaches.

Age-Based Genomic Screening during Childhood: Ethical and Practical Considerations in Public Health Genomics Implementation

Genomic sequencing offers an unprecedented opportunity to detect inherited variants that are implicated in rare Mendelian disorders, yet there are many challenges to overcome before this technology can routinely be applied in the healthy population. The age-based genomic screening (ABGS) approach is a novel alternative to genome-scale sequencing at birth that aims to provide highly actionable genetic information to parents over the course of their child's routine health care. ABGS utilizes an established metric to identify conditions with high clinical actionability and incorporates information about the age of onset and age of intervention to determine the optimal time to screen for any given condition. Ongoing partnerships with parents and providers are instrumental to the co-creation of educational resources and strategies to address potential implementation barriers. Implementation science frameworks and informative empirical data are used to evaluate strategies to establish this unique clinical application of targeted genomic sequencing. Ultimately, a pilot project conducted in primary care pediatrics clinics will assess patient and implementation outcomes, parent and provider perspectives, and the feasibility of ABGS. A validated, stakeholder-informed, and practical ABGS program will include hundreds of conditions that are actionable during infancy and childhood, setting the stage for a longitudinal implementation that can assess clinical and health economic outcomes.

Motivations and Barriers to Participation in a Randomized Trial on Melanoma Genomic Risk: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

The evolution of polygenic scores for use in for disease prevention and control compels the development of guidelines to optimize their effectiveness and promote equitable use. Understanding the motivations and barriers to participation in genomics research can assist in drafting these standards. We investigated these in a community-based randomized controlled trial that examined the health behavioral impact of receiving personalized melanoma genomic risk information. We examined participant responses in a baseline questionnaire and conducted interviews post-trial participation. Motivations differed in two ways: (1) by gender, with those identifying as women placing greater importance on learning about their personal risk or familial risk, and how to reduce risk; and (2) by age in relation to learning about personal risk, and fear of developing melanoma. A barrier to participation was distrust in the handling of genomic data. Our findings provide new insights into the motivations for participating in genomics research and highlight the need to better target population subgroups including younger men, which will aid in tailoring recruitment for future genomic studies.

Lessons Learned from the Pilot Phase of a Population-Wide Genomic Screening Program: Building the Base to Reach a Diverse Cohort of 100,000 Participants

Background and Objectives: Genomic information is increasingly relevant for disease prevention and risk management at the individual and population levels. Screening healthy adults for Tier 1 conditions of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, and familial hypercholesterolemia using a population-based approach can help identify the 1−2% of the US population at increased risk of developing diseases associated with these conditions and tailor prevention strategies. Our objective is to report findings from an implementation science study that evaluates multi-level facilitators and barriers to implementation of the In Our DNA SC population-wide genomic screening initiative. Methods: We established an IMPACTeam (IMPlementAtion sCience for In Our DNA SC Team) to evaluate the pilot phase using principles of implementation science. We used a parallel convergent mixed methods approach to assess the Reach, Implementation, and Effectiveness outcomes from the RE-AIM implementation science framework during the pilot phase of In Our DNA SC. Quantitative assessment included the examination of frequencies and response rates across demographic categories using chi-square tests. Qualitative data were audio-recorded and transcribed, with codes developed by the study team based on the semi-structured interview guide. Results: The pilot phase (8 November 2021, to 7 March 2022) included recruitment from ten clinics throughout South Carolina. Reach indicators included enrollment rate and representativeness. A total of 23,269 potential participants were contacted via Epic’s MyChart patient portal with 1976 (8.49%) enrolled. Black individuals were the least likely to view the program invitation (28.9%) and take study-related action. As a result, there were significantly higher enrollment rates among White (10.5%) participants than Asian (8.71%) and Black (3.46%) individuals (p < 0.0001). Common concerns limiting reach and participation included privacy and security of results and the impact participation would have on health or life insurance. Facilitators included family or personal history of a Tier 1 condition, prior involvement in genetic testing, self-interest, and altruism. Assessment of implementation (i.e., adherence to protocols/fidelity to protocols) included sample collection rate (n = 1104, 55.9%) and proportion of samples needing recollection (n = 19, 1.7%). There were no significant differences in sample collection based on demographic characteristics. Implementation facilitators included efficient collection processes and enthusiastic clinical staff. Finally, we assessed the effectiveness of the program, finding low dropout rates (n = 7, 0.35%), the identification of eight individuals with Tier 1 conditions (0.72% positive), and high rates of follow-up genetic counseling (87.5% completion). Conclusion: Overall, Asian and Black individuals were less engaged, with few taking any study-related actions. Strategies to identify barriers and promoters for the engagement of diverse populations are needed to support participation. Once enrolled, individuals had high rates of completing the study and follow-up engagement with genetic counselors. Findings from the pilot phase of In Our DNA SC offer opportunities for improvement as we expand the program and can provide guidance to organizations seeking to begin efforts to integrate population-wide genomic screening.