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

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.

Implementing preconception expanded carrier screening in a universal health care system: A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE

The limited evidence available on the cost-effectiveness (CE) of expanded carrier screening (ECS) prevents its widespread use in most countries, including Italy. Herein, we aimed to estimate the CE of 3 ECS panels (ie, American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics [ACMG] Tier 1 screening, "Focused Screening," testing 15 severe, highly penetrant conditions, and ACMG Tier 3 screening) compared with no screening, the health care model currently adopted in Italy.

METHODS

The reference population consisted of Italian couples seeking pregnancy with no increased personal/familial genetic risk. The CE model was developed from the perspective of the Italian universal health care system and was based on the following assumptions: 100% sensitivity of investigated screening strategies, 77% intervention rate of at-risk couples (ARCs), and no risk to conceive an affected child by risk-averse couples opting for medical interventions.

RESULTS

The incremental CE ratios generated by comparing each genetic screening panel with no screening were: -14,875 ± 1,208 €/life years gained (LYG) for ACMG1S, -106,863 ± 2,379 €/LYG for Focused Screening, and -47,277 ± 1,430 €/LYG for ACMG3S. ACMG1S and Focused Screening were dominated by ACMG3S. The parameter uncertainty did not significantly affect the outcome of the analyses.

CONCLUSION

From a universal health care system perspective, all the 3 ECS panels considered in the study would be more cost-effective than no screening.

Barriers to completion of expanded carrier screening in an inner city population

PURPOSE

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics emphasizes a "consistent and equitable approach for offering carrier screening." At our academic center, publicly insured prenatal patients underwent universal expanded carrier screening (ECS) to promote equitable care. The aim of the study was to evaluate rates, time, and barriers to complete ECS. This was defined as post-test counseling and partner testing after a patient was found heterozygous for a pathogenic variant.

METHODS

In this descriptive retrospective cohort study from 2018 to 2021, patients were offered ECS, consisting of 283 recessive and X-linked genes. Heterozygotes were contacted by genetic counselors (≤5 attempts) for education and partner testing. Rates of counseling, partner testing, diagnostic procedures, follow-up times, and barriers to completion were assessed.

RESULTS

During this time, 643 women underwent ECS. Of these 643 women, 462 were heterozygotes and 326 of 462 had undergone counseling. Two hundred twenty-two of 462 partners obtained testing, with a median of 32 days from patient to partner result. Approximately 21 couples were heterozygous for the same pathogenic variant. One patient pursued diagnostic testing.

CONCLUSION

ECS offers useful information; however, this study highlights significant barriers to completion. There was suboptimal patient follow-up and low partner screening, perhaps from insufficient time to educate and counsel. Future directions include implementing quality measures to ensure optimal completion.

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.

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.

Carrier screening and PGT for an autosomal recessive monogenic disorder: insights from virtual trials

PURPOSE

To assess the costs and benefits of carrier screening and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for recessive autosomal monogenic disorders for couples attempting assisted conception.

METHODS

A simulated first full cycle for women less than 35 years transferring embryos one at a time. The effect of testing on pregnancy outcomes was evaluated for different reporting scenarios. A Monte Carlo method utilising 1000 trials for 10,000 couples, testing 4, 16 and 38 genes, was used to assess the numbers likely to be at high risk and to estimate the incremental cost of screening and PGT to avoid an affected child.

RESULTS

PGT for high-risk couples: testing embryos only for the monogenic condition avoided 1 affected pregnancy for 4 cycles started. Combined with testing for chromosomal aneuploidy: ranking test results avoided 1 adverse pregnancy (affected, biochemical, clinical miscarriage) from 3 cycles started; 1 in 2 when excluding from transfer all embryos with an abnormal test result, within 1 in 25 fewer women achieving an unaffected live birth. Carrier screening for 4, 16 and 38 gene scenarios, where 1:250, 1:196 and 1:29 couples were at high risk: the incremental cost to prevent 1 affected live birth was estimated to be less than GBP 1,150,000 (US $1,587,000), < 836,642 (1,154,566) and < 137,794 (190,156), respectively, in 95% of trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Carrier screening combined with PGT, with and without testing for unrelated chromosomal abnormalities, for couples attempting assisted conception is complex but likely to be effective and also expensive.

Reflex single-gene non-invasive prenatal testing is associated with markedly better detection of fetuses affected with single-gene recessive disorders at lower cost

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical benefits and achievable cost savings associated with the adoption of a carrier screen with reflex single-gene non-invasive prenatal test (sgNIPT) in prenatal care.

METHOD

A decision-analytic model was developed to compare carrier screen with reflex sgNIPT (maternal carrier status and fetal risk reported together) as first-line carrier screening to the traditional carrier screening workflow (positive maternal carrier screen followed by paternal screening to evaluate fetal risk). The model compared the clinical outcomes and healthcare costs associated with the two screening methods. These results were used to simulate appropriate pricing for reflex sgNIPT.

RESULTS

Reflex sgNIPT carrier screening-detected 108 of 110 affected pregnancies per 100,000 births (98.5% sensitivity), whereas traditional carrier screening-detected 46 of 110 affected pregnancies (41.5% sensitivity). The cost to identify one affected pregnancy was reduced by 62% in the reflex sgNIPT scenario compared to the traditional scenario. Adding together the testing cost savings and the savings from earlier clinical intervention made possible by reflex sgNIPT, the total cost savings was $37.6 million per 100,000 pregnancies. Based on these cost savings, we simulated appropriate reflex sgNIPT pricing range: if the cost to identify one affected pregnancy is the unit cost, carrier screening with reflex sgNIPT can be priced up to $1,859 per test (or $7,233 if sgNIPT is billed separately); if the cost per 100,000 pregnancies is the unit cost, carrier screening with sgNIPT can be priced up to $1,070 per test (or $2,336 if sgNIPT is billed separately).

CONCLUSION

Using the carrier screen with reflex sgNIPT as first-line screening improves the detection of affected fetuses by 2.4-fold and can save costs for the healthcare system. A real-life experience will be needed to assess the clinical utility and exact cost savings of carrier screen with reflex sgNIPT.