Direct-to-consumer carrier screening for cystic fibrosis via a hospital website: a 6-year evaluation

Carrier Screening Programs for Cystic Fibrosis, Fragile X Syndrome, Hemoglobinopathies and Thalassemia, and Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Health Technology Assessment

Background

We conducted a health technology assessment to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of carrier screening programs for cystic fibrosis (CF), fragile X syndrome (FXS), hemoglobinopathies and thalassemia, and spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in people who are considering a pregnancy or who are pregnant. We also evaluated the budget impact of publicly funding carrier screening programs, and patient preferences and values.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS), and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted cost-effectiveness analyses comparing preconception or prenatal carrier screening programs to no screening. We considered four carrier screening strategies: 1) universal screening with standard panels; 2) universal screening with a hypothetical expanded panel; 3) risk-based screening with standard panels; and 4) risk-based screening with a hypothetical expanded panel. We also estimated the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding preconception or prenatal carrier screening programs for the given conditions in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of carrier screening, we spoke with 22 people who had sought out carrier screening.

Results

We included 107 studies in the clinical evidence review. Carrier screening for CF, hemoglobinopathies and thalassemia, FXS, and SMA likely results in the identification of couples with an increased chance of having an affected pregnancy (GRADE: Moderate). Screening likely impacts reproductive decision-making (GRADE: Moderate) and may result in lower anxiety among pregnant people, although the evidence is uncertain (GRADE: Very low).We included 21 studies in the economic evidence review, but none of the study findings were directly applicable to the Ontario context. Our cost-effectiveness analyses showed that in the short term, preconception or prenatal carrier screening programs identified more at-risk pregnancies (i.e., couples that tested positive) and provided more reproductive choice options compared with no screening, but were associated with higher costs. While all screening strategies had similar values for health outcomes, when comparing all strategies together, universal screening with standard panels was the most cost-effective strategy for both preconception and prenatal periods. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of universal screening with standard panels compared with no screening in the preconception period were $29,106 per additional at-risk pregnancy detected and $367,731 per affected birth averted; the corresponding ICERs in the prenatal period were about $29,759 per additional at-risk pregnancy detected and $431,807 per affected birth averted.We estimated that publicly funding a universal carrier screening program in the preconception period over the next 5 years would require between $208 million and $491 million. Publicly funding a risk-based screening program in the preconception period over the next 5 years would require between $1.3 million and $2.7 million. Publicly funding a universal carrier screening program in the prenatal period over the next 5 years would require between $128 million and $305 million. Publicly funding a risk-based screening program in the prenatal period over the next 5 years would require between $0.8 million and $1.7 million. Accounting for treatment costs of the screened health conditions resulted in a decrease in the budget impact of universally provided carrier screening programs or cost savings for risk-based programs.Participants value the perceived potential positive impact of carrier screening programs such as medical benefits from early detection and treatment, information for reproductive decision-making, and the social benefit of awareness and preparation. There was a strong preference expressed for thorough, timely, unbiased information to allow for informed reproductive decision-making.

Conclusions

Carrier screening for CF, FXS, hemoglobinopathies and thalassemia, and SMA is effective at identifying at-risk couples, and test results may impact preconception and reproductive decision-making.The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of carrier screening programs are uncertain for Ontario. Over the short term, carrier screening programs are associated with higher costs, and also higher chances of detecting at-risk pregnancies compared with no screening. The 5-year budget impact of publicly funding universal carrier screening programs is larger than that of risk-based programs. However, accounting for treatment costs of the screened health conditions results in a decrease in the total additional costs for universal carrier screening programs or in cost savings for risk-based programs.The people we spoke with who had sought out carrier screening valued the potential medical benefits of early detection and treatment, particularly the support and preparation for having a child with a potential genetic condition.

Incorporating patient perspectives in the development of a core outcome set for reproductive genetic carrier screening: a sequential systematic review

There is currently no consensus on the key outcomes of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). This has led to a large amount of variability in approaches to research, limiting direct comparison and synthesis of findings. In a recently published systematic review of quantitative studies on RGCS, we found that few studies incorporated patient-reported outcomes. In response to this gap, we conducted a sequential systematic review of qualitative studies to identify outcomes exploring the patient experience of RGCS. In conjunction with the review of quantitative studies, these outcomes will be used to inform the development of a core outcome set. Text excerpts relevant to outcomes, including quotes and themes, were extracted verbatim and deductively coded as outcomes. We conducted a narrative synthesis to group outcomes within domains previously defined in our review of quantitative studies, and identify any new domains that were unique to qualitative studies. Seventy-eight outcomes were derived from qualitative studies and grouped into 19 outcome domains. Three new outcome domains were identified; 'goals of pre- and post-test genetic counselling', 'acceptability of further testing and alternative reproductive options', and 'perceived utility of RGCS'. The identification of outcome domains that were not identified in quantitative studies indicates that outcomes reflecting the patient perspective may be under-represented in the quantitative literature on this topic. Further work should focus on ensuring that outcomes reflect the real world needs and concerns of patients in order to maximise translation of research findings into clinical practice.

Couples' experiences with expanded carrier screening: evaluation of a university hospital screening offer

Preconception carrier screening offers couples the possibility to receive information about the risk of having a child with a recessive disorder. Since 2016, an expanded carrier screening (ECS) test for 50 severe autosomal recessive disorders has been available at Amsterdam Medical Center, a Dutch university hospital. This mixed-methods study evaluated the experiences of couples that participated in the carrier screening offer, including high-risk participants, as well as participants with a general population risk. All participants received genetic counselling, and pre- (n = 132) and post-test (n = 86) questionnaires and semi-structured interviews (n = 16) were administered. The most important reason to have ECS was to spare a future child a life with a severe disorder (47%). The majority of survey respondents made an informed decision (86%), as assessed by the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice. Among the 86 respondents, 27 individual carriers and no new carrier couples were identified. Turn-around time of the test results was considered too long and costs were perceived as too high. Overall, mean levels of anxiety were not clinically elevated. High-risk respondents (n = 89) and pregnant respondents (n = 13) experienced higher levels of anxiety before testing, which decreased after receiving the test result. Although not clinically significant, distress was on average higher for carriers compared to non-carriers (p < 0.0001). All respondents would opt for the test again, and 80.2% would recommend it to others. The results suggest that ECS should ideally be offered before pregnancy, to minimise anxiety. This study could inform current and future implementation initiatives of preconception ECS.