"Are we not going too far?": Socio-ethical considerations of preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores according to healthcare professionals

The recent introduction of polygenic risk scores within preimplantation genetic testing (PGT-P) has been met with many concerns. To get more insights into the perspectives of relevant stakeholders on the socio-ethical aspects of PGT-P, an interview study with 31 healthcare professionals involved in reproductive medicine and genetics in Europe and North-America was performed. Healthcare professionals in our study were concerned that PGT-P was going too far in terms of selection, with regards to both medical conditions and non-medical traits. Healthcare professionals were worried about the ethical 'slippery slope' of PGT-P, the increasing medicalization of reproductive health, the commercial context of PGT-P, and potential stigmatization and discrimination. There were also concerns that the availability and the 'technological imperative' of PGT-P could lead to pressure and a sense of responsibility for parents to use PGT-P. Additionally, it could cause new anxieties about the child's health before the child has even been born. Since PGT-P provides polygenic risk scores before birth, the autonomy of the child has to be considered. These socio-ethical concerns heighten existing debates regarding reproductive genetic technologies and show that the specifics of PGT-P make this screening option especially ethically controversial.

The Future of IVF: The New Normal in Human Reproduction

Increased demand for in vitro fertilization (IVF) due to socio-demographic trends, and supply facilitated by new technologies, converged to transform the way a substantial proportion of humans reproduce. The purpose of this article is to describe the societal and demographic trends driving increased worldwide demand for IVF, as well as to provide an overview of emerging technologies that promise to greatly expand IVF utilization and lower its cost.

Not just carriers: experiences of X-linked female heterozygotes

PURPOSE

To better understand the needs and experiences of the X-linked carrier community to improve future recognition, diagnosis, and treatment by bringing X-linked carrier voices together.

METHODS

An anonymous survey link was distributed to members of Remember the Girls, a non-profit organization for female (XX) carriers of X-linked conditions, through its website, Facebook group, Instagram, and Twitter. The survey was developed to gather data on XX carriers of numerous X-linked conditions.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty individuals participated in the study. The majority (81/150) of individuals learned about their carrier status by giving birth to a son diagnosed with an X-linked condition. However, over 80% (120/145) believed that they should learn this information before the age of 18. Over 80% of participants (124/148) felt that they either have or may have symptoms attributable to their X-linked condition. Yet, only 10.1% (15/148) felt that they had sufficient access to knowledgeable healthcare providers and/or medical information. Additionally, 46.7% (70/150) of participants reported that healthcare providers did not discuss reproductive options with them. Improving carrier access to medical information, research studies, new treatments, and reproductive methods was found to be the top priority.

CONCLUSION

Limited information exists on X-linked carriers' risk for symptoms and there is a lack of available treatments. This study demonstrates the need for more knowledgeable healthcare providers and medical information within the X-linked carrier community.

Expanded carrier screening for recessively inherited disorders: economic burden and factors in decision-making when one individual in a couple is identified as a carrier

PURPOSE

When undergoing expanded carrier screening (ECS), couples are often screened sequentially to reduce need for a second individual's test. It is unknown how often partners of individuals found to be carriers complete the recommended testing with a sequential approach and what factors contribute to decision-making regarding partner testing. Additionally, the economic burden placed on individuals by ECS testing and its effect on partner testing has not been evaluated.

METHODS

In part 1, all individuals at a university-affiliated reproductive endocrinology and infertility practice identified to be carriers of a recessively inherited mutation using the Counsyl/Foresight ECS were included. Conditions were categorized by severity according to a previously described classification system. In part 2, all individuals who underwent ECS with a single test provider between September 1, 2013 and February 1, 2020 were contacted via email to complete a confidential and anonymized online survey.

RESULTS

In part 1, a total of 2061 patients were screened. 36.9% were carriers of one or more recessively inherited disorders. Twenty-seven percent of positively screened individuals did not have their partner screened. Carriers of a moderate condition had a trend towards a reduced odds for having their partner screened compared to a profound condition (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12-1.05, p = 0.06). Number of conditions was not predictive of subsequent partner screening (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72-1.25, p = 0.72). In part 2, the cost of ECS was not covered by insurance for 54.5% (103/189) and most paid over $300 out-of-pocket for testing (47.6%). The most common reason for not completing partner testing was that the results would not alter their course when seeking conception (33.3%). 73.5% of patients knew that the largest benefit of ECS comes from knowing a partner's results as well as their own.

CONCLUSIONS

Not all carriers of recessively inherited disorders choose to undergo partner screening. Patients found to be carrier of more debilitating genetic disorders may be more likely to screen their reproductive partners. For many, ECS testing is not covered by insurance, and this test may impose a significant economic burden. For some patients, the results of ECS would not change what they would do when seeking conception. Providers should evaluate whether a patient's ECS result would change their treatment course prior to testing.

Female and male perspectives on male partner roles in expanded carrier screening

PURPOSE

To explore facilitators and barriers for male partner follow through carrier screening (CS) after their female partners were identified as carriers, from both male and female perspectives.

METHODS

Participants were either females identified as a carrier through CS (512 participants) or males who had CS (125 participants). Participants were recruited via e-mails with survey links. The survey explored factors surrounding decisions to pursue CS or not.

RESULTS

Males who attended the females' CS appointment were more likely to have CS (OR: 2.07). More male partners of females identified as carriers of severe or profound conditions pursued CS (82.0%) than male partners of females who were carriers for moderate conditions (50.0%). Logistic factors were more impactful for males who pursued CS. Females whose male partners did not test endorsed personal belief factors as most impactful, reporting the perceived low risk (75.0%) and his low concern for the specific condition (65.5%) were the top reasons their partners did not test.

CONCLUSION

Many factors impact how male partners appraise reproductive risk from CS and make decisions regarding their own screening. Advising that male partners attend CS appointments may increase the likelihood of follow through CS. Thorough and repeated risk counseling is indicated.

The model of "genetic compartments": a new insight into reproductive genetics

Currently, we are witnessing revolutionary advances in the analytical power of genetic tools. An enormous quantity of data can now be obtained from samples; however, the translation of genetic findings to the general status of individuals, or their offspring, should be done with caution. This is especially relevant in the reproductive context, where the concepts of "transmission" and "inheritability" of a trait are crucial. Against this background, we offer new insight based on a systemic view of genetic constitution in the compartmentalized organism, that is, the human body. This model considers the coexistence of "different" genomes in the same individual and the repercussion of this on reproductive efficacy and offspring. Herein, we review the major differences between somatic, germinal, embryonic, and fetal/placental genomes and their contribution to the next generation and its reproductive efficacy. The major novelty of our approach is the holistic interaction between microsystems within a macrosystem (i.e., the reproductive system). This panoramic model allows us to sketch the future implications of genetic results in function of the origin (compartment) of the sample: peripheral blood or other somatic tissues, gametes, zygotes, preimplantation embryos, fetus, or placenta. We believe this perspective can be of great use in the context of reproductive genetic counseling.

Expanded genetic carrier screening in clinical practice: a current survey of patient impressions and attitudes

PURPOSE

Expanded genetic carrier screening (ECS) is an important part of gynecological practice and preconception planning. We evaluated the awareness and attitudes among women regarding ECS and factors that may influence decision-making in a family planning context.

METHODS

A 32-question survey in an academic university practice was given to 521 women who were either currently pregnant (n = 108), undergoing gynecologic care who were considering future fertility (n = 308), and considering or receiving fertility treatment (n = 105). Data are reported descriptively.

RESULTS

Forty-seven percent (n = 246) of patients were aware of ECS. Though most reported feeling positive or neutral towards ECS, 51% (n = 263) reported no desire for testing. Fifty-eight percent (n = 303) felt it beneficial to know their carrier status, and 55% (n = 257) said it was their responsibility to undergo testing. Those considering future fertility were found to have a more positive attitude towards ECS (51.4%) than those considering or receiving fertility treatment (34%). For positive carriers of a genetic disorder, 228 (49%) of patients would proceed with having their partner screened, 58 (13%) would undergo prenatal screening only and 12 (2.6%) would continue with vitro fertilization (IVF). Related to cost for ECS, 53.5% (n = 191) would be willing to pay at least $50-100 for testing, while 29% (n = 146) would not pay anything out of pocket.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite patients' beliefs that it would be beneficial and their responsibility to undergo carrier status testing, the majority reported no desire for ECS and many were unwilling to pay out of pocket. Further education is necessary to reconcile the gap between technology and patient decision-making.

Expanded carrier screening: a current survey of physician utilization and attitudes

PURPOSE

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) is an available component of preconception and prenatal care. There is complexity around offering, administering, and following-up test results. The goal of this study is to evaluate current physicians' utilization and attitudes towards ECS in current practice.

METHODS

This was a prospective qualitative survey study. A 32-question electronic survey was distributed during a 1-year period to obstetricians-gynecologists who were identified using a Qualtrics listserv database.

RESULTS

While more than 90% of physicians offered ethnic-based carrier screening (CS), ECS was offered significantly less (2010, 20.6%, and 2016, 27.1%). Physicians who were not fellowship-trained in reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) preferred ethnic-based carrier screening (95.9 vs 16.8%; P < 0.001). REI subspecialists were more likely to offer ECS (80%) compared to 70% of maternal fetal medicine physicians (MFM). Physicians were comfortable discussing negative results (53.6%) compared to positive results (48.4%). Most physicians (56%) believed that ECS should not be offered until the significance of each disease is understood; 52% believed that testing should be restricted to those conditions important to couples; while 26% felt that testing should be done regardless of the clinical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Discussion and application of ECS has increased in clinical practice. However, lack of comfort with counseling and varying beliefs surrounding ECS continue to hinder its utilization. Further education and training programs, and subsequent evaluation are warranted.

Precision reproductive medicine: multigene panel testing for infertility risk assessment

The concept of precision medicine relies on a thorough understanding of the consequences of unique features of individual patients, such as environmental exposures and genetic profiles. A key component of implementing individualized care in this paradigm will be improved assessment of genetic risk. Compared with single gene tests, multigene panel testing-which has recently become commercially available for female infertility-offers the possibility of a more comprehensive and efficient risk evaluation. However, as the use of multigene panel testing for breast cancer risk has shown, this approach must be used judiciously to ensure its usefulness in a clinical setting. Key challenges which have been encountered in oncology include the interpretation of gene variants of questionable clinical effect and a lack of evidence to guide management after variants are identified. In this review, the core concepts of multigene panel testing for risk assessment are discussed, with careful attention to both its shortcomings as well as its potential for benefit in reproductive medicine.

Pathogenic variant in NLRP7 (19q13.42) associated with recurrent gestational trophoblastic disease: Data from early embryo development observed during in vitro fertilization

Objective

To describe in vitro development of human embryos derived from an individual with a homozygous pathogenic variant in NLRP7 (19q13.42) and recurrent hydatidiform mole (HM), an autosomal recessive condition thought to occur secondary to an oocyte defect.

Methods

A patient with five consecutive HM pregnancies was genomically evaluated via next generation sequencing followed by controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, in vitro fertilization (IVF) with intracytoplasmic sperm injection, embryo culture, and preimplantation genetic screening. Findings in NLRP7 were recorded and embryo culture and biopsy data were tabulated as a function of parental origin for any identified ploidy error.

Results

The patient was found to have a pathogenic variant in NLRP7 (c.2810+2T>G) in a homozygous state. Fifteen oocytes were retrieved and 10 embryos were available after fertilization via intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Developmental arrest was noted for all 10 embryos after 144 hours in culture, thus no transfer was possible. These non-viable embryos were evaluated by karyomapping and all were diploid biparental; two were euploid and eight had various aneuploidies all of maternal origin.

Conclusion

This is the first report of early human embryo development from a patient with any NLRP7 mutation. The pathogenic variant identified here resulted in global developmental arrest at or before blastocyst stage. Standard IVF should therefore be discouraged for such patients, who instead need to consider oocyte (or embryo) donation with IVF as preferred clinical methods to treat infertility.

A Pilot Study of Fragile X Syndrome Screening in Pregnant Women and Women Planning Pregnancy: Implementation, Acceptance, Awareness, and Geographic Factors

We report herein results of a study performed in the Balearic Islands which had the following goals: 1) Determine the proportion of pregnant or non-pregnant women planning pregnancy, who would choose to undergo a screening test for Fragile X Syndrome (FXS), if it is accompanied by the appropriate information; 2) Assess satisfaction and any increase in stress among women who participate in screening; 3) Collect epidemiological information about the incidence of the disease in our population; and 4) Collect demographic and health history data and assess participants' awareness of the disease. Screening was performed on 3,731 pregnant and non-pregnant women of childbearing age and the results indicate: a very high voluntary rate of participation; a high level of self-reported satisfaction and low levels of stress because of the test; a very high incidence of premutation (1/106) in our population; and a low level of awareness about the existence of FXS (25 %). Additional findings indicate no significant correlation between self-reported health history and premutation detection, and the high premutation incidence does not seem to be specific to the indigenous Balearic population. Based on these results, we discuss the pros and cons of an implementation of preconception and pregnant women screening for FXS within a public health screening program.

Genetic Counselors' Perspectives and Practices Regarding Expanded Carrier Screening after Initial Clinical Availability

Expanded carrier screening (ECS), introduced in 2009, identifies carriers for dozens or hundreds of recessive diseases. At the time of its introduction into clinical use, perspectives of the genetic counseling community regarding ECS were unknown. We conducted a survey in early 2012 of GCs and report the results here. They represent a snapshot of opinions and usage at that time, providing a baseline for comparison as the technology continues to evolve and as usage increases. The survey assessed personal perspectives, opinions on clinical implementation and clinical utilization of ECS. The sample included 337 GCs of varying clinical fields, of whom 150 reported practicing in reproductive settings. Our findings demonstrate that, at the time, GCs indicated general agreement with ECS as a concept - for example, most GCs agreed that carrier screening should address diseases outside of current guidelines and also indicated personal interest in electing ECS. There were also disagreements or concerns expressed regarding appropriate pre- and post-test counseling (e.g., the content and delivery mode of adequate informed consent) and practical implementation (e.g., the amount of time available for follow-up care). This was the first quantitative study of a large number of GCs and it revealed initial overall support for ECS among the GC profession. The authors plan to re-administer a similar survey, which may reveal changes in opinions and/or utilization over time. A follow up survey would also allow further exploration of questions uncovered by these data.