1
|
Barlevy D, Cenolli I, Campbell T, Furrer R, Mukherjee M, Kostick-Quenet K, Carmi S, Lencz T, Lazaro-Munoz G, Pereira S. Divergence Between Clinician and Patient Perspectives on Polygenic Embryo Screening: A Qualitative Study. medRxiv 2023:2023.10.12.23296961. [PMID: 37873214 PMCID: PMC10592985 DOI: 10.1101/2023.10.12.23296961] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dorit Barlevy
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - Ilona Cenolli
- Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | | | - Remy Furrer
- Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Meghna Mukherjee
- Sociology Department, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
| | | | - Shai Carmi
- Braun School of Public Health and Community Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Todd Lencz
- Institute of Behavioral Science, The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY
- Departments of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY
- Department of Psychiatry, Division of Research, The Zucker Hillside Hospital Division of Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, NY
| | - Gabriel Lazaro-Munoz
- Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
- Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Stacey Pereira
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pereira S, Carmi S, Altarescu G, Austin J, Barlevy D, Hershlag A, Juengst E, Kostick-Quenet K, Kovanci E, Lathi RB, Mukherjee M, Van den Veyver I, Zuk O, Lázaro-Muñoz G, Lencz T. Polygenic embryo screening: four clinical considerations warrant further attention. Hum Reprod 2022; 37:1375-1378. [PMID: 35604365 PMCID: PMC9247413 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2022] [Revised: 04/28/2022] [Indexed: 10/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Recent advances in developing polygenic scores have made it possible to screen embryos for common, complex conditions and traits. Polygenic embryo screening (PES) is currently offered commercially, and though there has been much recent media and academic coverage, reproductive specialists' points of view have not yet been prominent in these discussions. We convened a roundtable of multidisciplinary experts, including reproductive specialists to discuss PES and its implications. In this Opinion, we describe four clinically relevant issues associated with the use of PES that have not yet been discussed in the literature and warrant consideration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Pereira
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, MS420, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - S Carmi
- Braun School of Public Health and Community Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - G Altarescu
- Preimplantation Genetic Unit and lysosomal Clinic, Medical Genetics Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - J Austin
- Departments of Psychiatry and Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - D Barlevy
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, MS420, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - A Hershlag
- Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
- Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA
| | - E Juengst
- Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - K Kostick-Quenet
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, MS420, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - E Kovanci
- Houston Assisted Reproductive Technologies (HART) Fertility Clinic, The Woodlands, TX, USA
| | - R B Lathi
- Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - M Mukherjee
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, MS420, Houston, TX 77030, USA
- Department of Sociology, University of Califorinia, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
| | - I Van den Veyver
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
- Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - O Zuk
- Department of Statistics and Data Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - G Lázaro-Muñoz
- Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - T Lencz
- Departments of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA
- Institute of Behavioral Science, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, NY, USA
- Division of Psychiatry Research, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Glen Oaks, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|