Expanded universal carrier screening and its implementation within a publicly funded healthcare service

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.

Perceptions of reproductive healthcare providers regarding their involvement in offering expanded carrier screening in fertility clinics: a qualitative study

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the main arguments of reproductive healthcare providers in favour or against their involvement in offering expanded carrier screening (ECS) for recessive disorders at fertility clinics in the Netherlands?

DESIGN

Semi-structured interview study with 20 reproductive healthcare providers between May 2020 and January 2021. Participants included 11 gynaecologists, seven fertility doctors, one nurse practitioner and one clinical embryologist, recruited from academic medical centres (n = 13), peripheral facilities associated with academic centres (n = 4), and independent fertility treatment centres (n = 3) in the Netherlands. An interview guide was developed, and thematic content analysis was performed using ATLAS.ti software.

RESULTS

Arguments of reproductive healthcare providers in favour of their potential involvement in offering ECS included: (i) opportunities offered by the setting; (ii) motivation to assist in reproduction and prevent suffering; and (iii) to counter unwanted commercialization offers. Arguments against involvement included: (i) lack of knowledge and familiarity with offering ECS; (ii) insufficient staff and resources, and potential high costs for clinics and/or couples; (iii) the emotional impact it may have on couples; (iv) perceived complexity of counselling and expected elongation of waiting lists; and (v) expected low impact on reducing the burden of diseases. Participants felt that more evidence and research on the costs-benefits, implications and demand are needed prior to their involvement.

CONCLUSION

While agreeing that the field of medically assisted reproduction provides a unique opportunity to offer ECS, reproductive healthcare workers feel a lack of capability and limited motivation to offer ECS to all or a selection of couples at their fertility clinics.

Reproductive genetic carrier screening in pregnancy: improving health outcomes and expanding access

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) serves to screen couples for their risk of having children affected by monogenic conditions. The included conditions are mostly autosomal recessive or X-linked with infantile or early-childhood onset. Cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy, and hemoglobinopathies are now recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for universal screening. Recommendations for further RGCS remain ethnicity based. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors in recent years have recommended universal expanded-panel RGCS and moving towards a more equitable approach. ACOG guidelines state that offering RGCS is an acceptable option, however it has not provided clear guidance on standard of care. Positive results on RGCS can significantly impact reproductive plans for couples, including pursuing in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing, prenatal genetic testing, specific fetal or neonatal treatment, or adoption. RGCS is a superior approach compared to ethnicity-based carrier screening and moves away from single race-based medical practice. We urge the obstetrics and gynecology societies to adopt the guidelines for RGCS put forward by multiple societies and help reduce systemic inequalities in medicine in our new genetic age. Having national societies such as ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine officially recommend and endorse RGCS would bolster insurance coverage and financial support by employers for RGCS. The future of comprehensive reproductive care in the age of genomic medicine entails expanding access so patients and families can make the reproductive options that best fit their needs.

Antenatal reproductive screening for pregnant people including preconception: Provides the best reproductive opportunity for informed consent, quality, and safety

INTRODUCTION

This antenatal screening review will include reproductive screening evidence and approaches for pre-conception and post-conception, using first to third trimester screening opportunities.

METHODS

Focused antenatal screening peer-reviewed publications were evaluated and summarized.

RESULTS

Evidenced-based reproductive antenatal screening elements should be offered and discussed, with the pregnancy planning or pregnant person, during Preconception (genetic carrier screening for reproductive partners, personal and family (including reproductive partner) history review for increased genetic and pregnancy morbidity risks); First Trimester (fetal dating with ultrasound; fetal aneuploidy screening plus consideration for expanded fetal morbidity criteria, if appropriate; pregnant person preeclampsia screening; early fetal anatomy screening; early fetal cardiac screening); Second Trimester for standard fetal anatomy screening (18-22 weeks) including cardiac; pregnant person placental and cord pathology screening; pregnant person preterm birth screening with cervical length measurement); Third Trimester (fetal growth surveillance; continued preterm birth risk surveillance).

CONCLUSION

Antenatal reproductive screening has multiple elements, is complex, is time-consuming, and requires the use of pre- and post-testing counselling for most screening elements. The use of preconception and trimesters 'one to three' requires clear patient understanding and buy-in. Informed consent and knowledge transfer is a main goal for antenatal reproductive screening approaches.

Prevalence of common autosomal recessive mutation carriers in women in the Southern Vietnam following the application of expanded carrier screening

The common autosomal recessive (AR) mutation carrier is still unknown in Vietnam. This study aims to identify the most common AR gene mutation carriers in women of reproductive age to build a Vietnamese-specific carrier screening panel for AR and X-linked disorders in the preconception and prenatal healthcare program. A cross-sectional study was conducted at University Medical Center-Branch 2 in Ho Chi Minh City from December 1st, 2020, to June 30th, 2023. 338 women have consented to take a 5 mL blood test to identify 540 recessive genes. The carrier screening panel was designed based on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)-recommended genes and suggestions from 104 clinical experts in Vietnam. Obstetricians and genetic experts counseled all positive testing results to discuss the possibility of recessive diseases in their offspring. The most common recessive disorders were defined at a prevalence of 1 in 60 or greater, and those were added to a Vietnamese-specific carrier screening panel. 338 non-pregnant and pregnant women underwent the expanded carrier screening (ECS). The carrier frequency was 63.6%, in which 215 women carried at least one AR gene mutation. GJB2 hearing impairment was identified as the most common chronic condition (1 in 5). The second most common AR disorder was beta-thalassemia (1 in 16), followed by cystic fibrosis (1 in 23), G6PD deficiency (1 in 28), Wilson's disease (1 in 31), Usher's syndrome (1 in 31), and glycogen storage disease (1 in 56). Seven common recessive genes were added in ethnic-based carrier screening. Women in the South of Vietnam have been carried for many recessive conditions at high frequency, such as hearing impairment, genetic anemia, and cystic fibrosis. It is necessary to implement a preconception and prenatal screening program by using seven widely popular AR genes in a Vietnamese-specific carrier screening panel to reduce the burden related to AR and X-linked disorders.

Carrier frequency estimation of pathogenic variants of autosomal recessive and X-linked recessive mendelian disorders using exome sequencing data in 1,642 Thais

BACKGROUND

People with autosomal recessive disorders often were born without awareness of the carrier status of their parents. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommends screening 113 genes known to cause autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions in couples seeking to learn about their risk of having children with these disorders to have an appropriate reproductive plan.

METHODS

We analyzed the exome sequencing data of 1,642 unrelated Thai individuals to identify the pathogenic variant (PV) frequencies in genes recommended by ACMG.

RESULTS

In the 113 ACMG-recommended genes, 165 PV and likely PVs in 60 genes of 559 exomes (34%, 559/1642) were identified. The carrier rate was increased to 39% when glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) was added. The carrier rate was still as high as 14.7% when thalassemia and hemoglobinopathies were excluded. In addition to thalassemia, hemoglobinopathies, and G6PD deficiency, carrier frequencies of > 1% were found for Gaucher disease, primary hyperoxaluria, Pendred syndrome, and Wilson disease. Nearly 2% of the couples were at risk of having offsprings with the tested autosomal recessive conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the study samples, the expanded carrier screening, which specifically targeted common autosomal recessive conditions in Thai individuals, will benefit clinical outcomes, regarding preconception/prenatal genetic carrier screening.

Carrier screening programs for rare diseases in developed countries and the case of Turkey: A systematic review

Effective control of rare diseases requires health programs based on principles of protection and prevention. Carrier screening programs serve as preventive measures by identifying at-risk groups. This review examines the impact, implementation, advantages, and disadvantages of carrier screening, incorporating examples from ten countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Israel, China, Australia, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Data on carrier screening and related policies were collected from July to November 2022 and presented in a tabular format using a coding system devised by the authors. Variability was observed in the diseases/disorders and populations screened, screening expenses, and government provision across the countries. The number of diseases/disorders examined, ranging from 3 to 47, was determined by committee guidelines, government resources, pilot studies, and national institute resources. Notably, carrier screening programs exhibited greater worldwide inconsistency compared to newborn screening programs. The comparative analysis of developed countries serves to guide emerging nations. To address inequalities at both local and global levels, there is a need to enhance the establishment, development, and implementation of carrier screening programs. Furthermore, cost analyses of screening should be conducted, and adequate funding should be allocated to countries. In conclusion, this review highlights the preventive potential of carrier screening for rare diseases and emphasizes the importance of improving carrier screening programs globally to achieve equitable healthcare outcomes.

Are We Ready for Whole Population Genomic Sequencing of Asymptomatic Newborns?

The introduction of genomic sequencing technologies into routine newborn screening programs in some form is not only inevitable but also already occurring in some settings. The question is therefore not "if" but "when and how" genomic newborn screening (GNBS) should be implemented. In April 2022, the Centre for Ethics of Paediatric Genomics held a one-day symposium exploring ethical issues relating to the use of genomic sequencing in a range of clinical settings. This review article synthesises the panel discussion and presents both the potential benefits of wide-scale implementation of genomic newborn screening, as well as its practical and ethical issues, including obtaining appropriate consent, and health system implications. A more in-depth understanding of the barriers associated with implementing genomic newborn screening is critical to the success of GNBS programs, both from a practical perspective and also in order to maintain public trust in an important public health initiative.

Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening: A Discourse Analysis of Dutch Webpages

Preconception expanded carrier screening (PECS) informs prospective parents about the risk of conceiving a child with a heritable genetic condition. PECS will also, for many, become an important screening test, and websites will likely play a vital role in providing information on this practice. The aim of this article is to examine rationalities in the information on PECS on Dutch websites. The method used is multimodal critical discourse analysis. This method allows an examination of norms and assumptions in the descriptions, as well as of the positions that are discursively made available. The data consist of publicly available material on websites from two genetics departments in the Netherlands. In the results, we present the three main discourses and subject positions that were identified: risk and the couple as possible mediators of severe conditions; the focus on scientific facts and rational conceivers; and severity of the conditions and the responsible couple. In this study, we highlight the importance of acknowledging the interrelation between epistemology and ethics in the discourse on PECS. Finally, it is claimed that the focus on scientific facts in information on PECS risks making existential and ethical dilemmas and choices invisible.

Is It Just for a Screening Program to Give People All the Information They Want?

Genomic screening at population scale generates many ethical considerations. One is the normative role that people's preferences should play in determining access to genomic information in screening contexts, particularly information that falls beyond the scope of screening. We expect both that people will express a preference to receive such results and that there will be interest from the professional community in providing them. In this paper, we consider this issue in relation to the just and equitable design of population screening programs like reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). Drawing on a pluralistic public health ethics perspective, we claim that generating and reporting information about genetic variants beyond the scope of the screening program usually lacks clinical, and perhaps personal, utility. There are both pragmatic and ethical reasons to restrict information provision to that which fits the stated purpose of the program.

The implementation of large-scale genomic screening or diagnostic programmes: A rapid evidence review

Genomic healthcare programmes, both in a research and clinical context, have demonstrated a pivotal opportunity to prevent, diagnose, and treat rare diseases. However, implementation factors could increase overall costs and affect uptake. As well, uncertainties remain regarding effective training, guidelines and legislation. The purpose of this rapid evidence review was to draw together the available global evidence on the implementation of genomic testing programmes, particularly on population-based screening and diagnostic programmes implemented at the national level, to understand the range of factors influencing implementation. This review involved a search of terms related to genomics, implementation and health care. The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles published between 2017-2022 and found in five databases. The review included thirty articles drawing on sixteen countries. A wide range of factors was cited as critical to the successful implementation of genomics programmes. These included having policy frameworks, regulations, guidelines; clinical decision support tools; access to genetic counselling; and education and training for healthcare staff. The high costs of implementing and integrating genomics into healthcare were also often barriers to stakeholders. National genomics programmes are complex and require the generation of evidence and addressing implementation challenges. The findings from this review highlight that there is a strong emphasis on addressing genomic education and engagement among varied stakeholders, including the general public, policymakers, and governments. Articles also emphasised the development of appropriate policies and regulatory frameworks to govern genomic healthcare, with a focus on legislation that regulates the collection, storage, and sharing of personal genomic data.

Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review

Carrier screening aims to identify couples at risk of conceiving children with a recessive condition. Until recently, carrier screening was primarily offered ancestry-based. Technological advances now facilitate expanded universal carrier screening (EUCS). This scoping review aimed to map EUCS's potential societal implications based on both theoretical studies and empirical evidence. To this aim, we performed a CoCites search to find relevant articles, including articles describing carrier screening for at-risk populations, based on five selected query articles. Forty articles were included. Three main potential societal implications were identified: (1) unwanted medicalization, (2) stigmatization and discrimination of carriers and people affected with the conditions screened and (3) challenges in achieving equitable access. Within these themes, potential positive implications are reduction of ethnic stigmatization in ancestry-based offers and increased equity. Potential negative implications are reinforcement of disability-based stigmatization, less possibility for developing expertise in healthcare and societal pressure to partake in screening. Empirical evidence on all these implications is however scarce. In conclusion, both positive and negative potential societal implications of implementing EUCS, primarily theoretical, were identified, even in at-risk groups where evidence is mostly lacking. Empirical research in EUCS pilots is needed to identify which societal implications are likely to occur and therefore should be overcome when implementing EUCS.

Association of Patient and Site-of-Care Characteristics With Reproductive Carrier Screening Timing in a Large Integrated Health System

IMPORTANCE

Reproductive genetic carrier screening can be performed prior to or during pregnancy to assess a reproductive couple's risk of having a child with a recessively inherited disorder. Although professional societies endorse preconception screening as preferable to prenatal screening to allow for greater reproductive choice, implementation of preconception screening is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how carrier screening timing varies by multilevel factors associated with health care delivery including patient, clinician, and location across a large integrated health care system.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study used a mixed-methods approach including (1) quantitative analysis of multilevel factors associated with the timing of reproductive carrier screening and (2) qualitative analyses of data from interviews conducted with clinicians ordering carrier screenings. The setting was the Mass General Brigham, a large integrated health care system in the greater Boston, Massachusetts area. Participants included adult female patients who completed reproductive carrier screening performed by Myriad Women's Health between October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Site of care (ordering clinical location and hospital affiliate), ordering clinician specialty, and patient characteristics, including age at date of test collection, self-reported race and ethnicity, primary insurance payor, and number of comorbidities.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the timing of carrier screening (preconception vs prenatal). A series of 4 multilevel logistic regression models were fitted to measure the relative contribution of site, clinician, and patient-level factors on the timing of screening. Interviews with ordering clinicians (N = 9) were analyzed using a framework approach to explore barriers to preconception screening.

RESULTS

Among 6509 adult female patients who completed carrier screenings, 770 (12%) were Asian, 352 (5%) were Hispanic, 640 (10%) were non-Hispanic Black, 3844 (59%) were non-Hispanic White, 858 (13%) were other or multiple races and ethnicities, and 2611 (40%) were aged 31 to 35 years; 4701 (63%) had prenatal screening and 2438 (37%) had preconception screening; screenings were ordered by 161 distinct clinicians across 32 clinical locations affiliated with 4 hospitals. In model 1, adjusted for hospital (fixed effect), clinic and clinician (random effects), 49% of the variability in timing was associated with clinician-level effects (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.49) and 28% was associated with clinic-level effects (ICC, 0.28). Clinician specialty explained the greatest amount of variation in screening timing. Interviewed clinicians (N = 9) supported preconception screening but cited several barriers to offering population-based preconception screening.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, multilevel factors were associated with carrier screening timing. These findings suggest that increasing access to preconception screening may involve engaging specific medical specialties.

Considerations on the use of carrier screening testing in human reproduction: comparison between recommendations from the Italian Society of Human Genetics and other international societies

PURPOSE

Carrier screening (CS) is a term used to describe a genetic test performed on individuals without family history of genetic disorders, to investigate the carrier status for pathogenic variants associated with multiple recessive conditions. The advent of next-generation sequencing enabled simultaneous CS for an increasing number of conditions; however, a consensus on which diseases to include in gene panels and how to best develop the provision of CS is far to be reached. Therefore, the provision of CS is jeopardized and inconsistent and requires solving several important issues.

METHODS

In 2020, the Italian Society of Human Genetics (SIGU) established a working group composed of clinical and laboratory geneticists from public and private fields to elaborate a document to define indications and best practice of CS provision for couples planning a pregnancy.

RESULTS

Hereby, we present the outcome of the Italian working group's activity and compare it with previously published international recommendations (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG)). We determine a core message on genetic counseling and nine main subject categories to explore, spanning from goals and execution to technical scientific, ethical, and socio-economic topics. Moreover, a level of agreement on the most critical points is discussed using a 5-point agreement scale, demonstrating a high level of consensus among the four societies.

CONCLUSIONS

This document is intended to provide genetic and healthcare professionals involved in human reproduction with guidance regarding the clinical implementation of CS.

Development and use of the Australian reproductive genetic carrier screening decision aid

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) may be offered to all individuals and couples, regardless of family history or ethnicity. "Mackenzie's Mission" (MM) is an Australian RGCS pilot study, evaluating the offer of couple-based screening for ~1300 genes associated with around 750 autosomal and X-linked recessive childhood-onset conditions. Each member of the couple makes an individual decision about RGCS and provides consent. We developed a decision aid (RGCS-DA) to support informed decision-making in MM, suitable for couples who were either non-pregnant or in early pregnancy. A Delphi approach invited experts to review values statements related to various concepts of RGCS. Three review rounds were completed, seeking consensus for relevance and clarity of statements, incorporating recommended modifications in subsequent iterations. The final RGCS-DA contains 14 statements that achieved Delphi consensus plus the attitude scale of the measure of informed choice. This was then evaluated in cognitive talk aloud interviews with potential users to assess face and content validity. Minimal wording changes were required at this stage. After this process, the RGCS-DA was piloted with 15 couples participating in MM who were then interviewed about their decision-making. The RGCS-DA prompted discussion within couples and facilitated in depth consideration of screening. There was reassurance when values aligned and a sense of shared decision-making within the couple. This RGCS-DA may become a very useful tool in supporting couples' decision making and contribute to RGCS being feasible for scaled-up implementation.

Ethical considerations in gene selection for reproductive carrier screening

Genetic carrier screening for reproductive purposes has existed for half a century. It was originally offered to particular ethnic groups with a higher prevalence of certain severe recessive or X-linked genetic conditions, or (as carrier testing) to those with a family history of a particular genetic condition. Commercial providers are increasingly offering carrier screening on a user-pays basis. Some countries are also trialing or offering public reproductive genetic carrier screening with whole populations, rather than only to those known to have a higher chance of having a child with an inherited genetic condition. Such programs broaden the ethical and practical challenges that arise in clinical carrier testing. In this paper we consider three aspects of selecting genes for population reproductive genetic carrier screening panels that give rise to important ethical considerations: severity, variable penetrance and expressivity, and scalability; we also draw on three exemplar genes to illustrate the ethical issues raised: CFTR, GALT and SERPINA1. We argue that such issues are important to attend to at the point of gene selection for RGCS. These factors warrant a cautious approach to screening panel design, one that takes into account the likely value of the information generated by screening and the feasibility of implementation in large and diverse populations. Given the highly complex and uncertain nature of some genetic variants, careful consideration needs to be given to the balance between delivering potentially burdensome or harmful information, and providing valuable information to inform reproductive decisions.

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.

Molecular classification of blood and bleeding disorder genes

The advances and development of sequencing techniques and data analysis resulted in a pool of informative genetic data, that can be analyzed for informing decision making in designing national screening, prevention programs, and molecular diagnostic tests. The accumulation of molecular data from different populations widen the scope of utilization of this information. Bleeding disorders are a heterogeneous group of clinically overlapping disorders. We analyzed the targeted sequencing data from ~1285 Saudi individuals in 17 blood and bleeding disorders genes, to determine the frequency of mutations and variants. We used a replication set of ~5000 local exomes to validate pathogenicity and determine allele frequencies. We identified a total of 821 variants, of these 98 were listed in HGMD as disease related variants and 140 were novel variants. The majority of variants were present in VWF, followed by F5, F8, and G6PD genes, while FGG, FGB, and HBA1 had the lowest number of variants. Our analysis generated a priority list of genes, mutations and novel variants. This data will have an impact on informing decisions for screening and prevention programs and in management of vulnerable patients admitted to emergency, surgery, or interventions with bleeding side effects.

Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: From the Clinic to the Population

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RCS) is increasingly being offered more widely, including to people with no family history or otherwise elevated chance of having a baby with a genetic condition. There are valid reasons to reject a prevention-focused public health ethics approach to such screening programs. Rejecting the prevention paradigm in this context has led to an emphasis on more individually-focused values of freedom of choice and fostering reproductive autonomy in RCS. We argue, however, that population-wide RCS has sufficient features in common with other public health screening programs that it becomes important also to attend to its public health implications. Not doing so constitutes a failure to address the social conditions that significantly affect people's capacity to exercise their reproductive autonomy. We discuss how a public health ethics approach to RCS is broader in focus than prevention. We also show that additional values inherent to ethical public health-such as equity and solidarity-are essential to underpin and inform the aims and implementation of reproductive carrier screening programs.

The use of expanded carrier screening of gamete donors

STUDY QUESTION

What are the sperm and egg donor rejection rates after expanded carrier screening (ECS)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Using an ECS panel looking at 46/47 genes, 17.6% of donors were rejected.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The use of ECS is becoming commonplace in assisted reproductive technology, including testing of egg and sperm donors. Most national guidelines recommend rejection of donors if they are carriers of a genetic disease. If the use of ECS increases, there will be a decline in the number of donors available.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A review of the current preconception ECS panels available to donors was carried out through an online search. The genetic testing results of donors from Cryos International were analysed to determine how many were rejected on the basis of the ECS.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Data on gamete donors and their carrier status was provided by Cryos International, who screen donors using their own bespoke ECS panel. The ECS panels identified through the review were compared to the Cryos International panel and data.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 16 companies and 42 associated ECS panels were reviewed. There were a total of 2673 unique disorders covered by the panels examined, with a mean of 329 disorders screened. None of these disorders were common to all panels. Cryos International screen 46 disorders in males and 47 in females. From 883 candidate donors, 17.6% (155/883) were rejected based on their ECS result. Carriers of alpha-thalassaemia represented the largest proportion of those rejected (19.4%, 30/155), then spinal muscular atrophy (15.5%, 24/155) and cystic fibrosis (14.8%, 23/155).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Panel information was found on company websites and may not have been accurate.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study highlights the need for consistent EU regulations and guidelines that allow genetic matching of gamete donors to their recipients, preventing the need to reject donors who are known carriers. A larger ECS panel would be most beneficial; however, this would not be viable without matching of donors and recipients.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No specific funding was obtained. J.C.H. is the founder of Global Women Connected, a platform to discuss women's health issues and the Embryology and PGD Academy, who deliver education in clinical embryology. She has been paid to give a lecture by Cryos in 2019. A-B.S. is an employee of Cryos International.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Preconception expanded carrier screening: a focus group study with relatives of mucopolysaccharidosis type III patients and the general population

Preconception expanded carrier screening (ECS) enables prospective parents to assess their risk of having a child with an autosomal recessive disorder. Knowledge on motivations, feelings, and considerations people have towards the offer and use of ECS is limited. To enrich the public and professional discussion on ECS implementation, this study explored the perspectives towards various aspects of ECS in seven focus groups compromising first- and second-degree relatives of MPS III patients (N=9, N=4, N=5, N=5) and members of the general Dutch population (N=6, N=7, N=5). The focus groups were audio recorded and the transcripts were qualitatively analyzed to identify themes. Both relatives of MPS III patients and participants from the general population supported offering ECS, in particular for severe, childhood-onset disorders. Important barriers identified for ECS were a lack of genetic knowledge and a perceived lack of personal relevance and awareness, as well as out-of-pocket costs of testing. The majority of participants would prefer full disclosure of individual test results instead of couple-based test results. Moreover, offering people a choice for the way of reporting was proposed. All participants agreed that more efforts, for example by governmental campaigns, should be made to increase awareness on the availability, potentials, and limitations of ECS. Educating prospective parents about ECS is essential for increasing awareness and informed decision making. This study provides valuable insights that can be used by governments and public health authorities when considering implementation of preconception ECS.

Preconception genome medicine: current state and future perspectives to improve infertility diagnosis and reproductive and health outcomes based on individual genomic data

BACKGROUND

Our genetic code is now readable, writable and hackable. The recent escalation of genome-wide sequencing (GS) applications in population diagnostics will not only enable the assessment of risks of transmitting well-defined monogenic disorders at preconceptional stages (i.e. carrier screening), but also facilitate identification of multifactorial genetic predispositions to sub-lethal pathologies, including those affecting reproductive fitness. Through GS, the acquisition and curation of reproductive-related findings will warrant the expansion of genetic assessment to new areas of genomic prediction of reproductive phenotypes, pharmacogenomics and molecular embryology, further boosting our knowledge and therapeutic tools for treating infertility and improving women's health.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

In this article, we review current knowledge and potential development of preconception genome analysis aimed at detecting reproductive and individual health risks (recessive genetic disease and medically actionable secondary findings) as well as anticipating specific reproductive outcomes, particularly in the context of IVF. The extension of reproductive genetic risk assessment to the general population and IVF couples will lead to the identification of couples who carry recessive mutations, as well as sub-lethal conditions prior to conception. This approach will provide increased reproductive autonomy to couples, particularly in those cases where preimplantation genetic testing is an available option to avoid the transmission of undesirable conditions. In addition, GS on prospective infertility patients will enable genome-wide association studies specific for infertility phenotypes such as predisposition to premature ovarian failure, increased risk of aneuploidies, complete oocyte immaturity or blastocyst development failure, thus empowering the development of true reproductive precision medicine.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches of the literature on PubMed Central included combinations of the following MeSH terms: human, genetics, genomics, variants, male, female, fertility, next generation sequencing, genome exome sequencing, expanded carrier screening, secondary findings, pharmacogenomics, controlled ovarian stimulation, preconception, genetics, genome-wide association studies, GWAS.

OUTCOMES

Through PubMed Central queries, we identified a total of 1409 articles. The full list of articles was assessed for date of publication, limiting the search to studies published within the last 15 years (2004 onwards due to escalating research output of next-generation sequencing studies from that date). The remaining articles' titles were assessed for pertinence to the topic, leaving a total of 644 articles. The use of preconception GS has the potential to identify inheritable genetic conditions concealed in the genome of around 4% of couples looking to conceive. Genomic information during reproductive age will also be useful to anticipate late-onset medically actionable conditions with strong genetic background in around 2-4% of all individuals. Genetic variants correlated with differential response to pharmaceutical treatment in IVF, and clear genotype-phenotype associations are found for aberrant sperm types, oocyte maturation, fertilization or pre- and post-implantation embryonic development. All currently known capabilities of GS at the preconception stage are reviewed along with persisting and forthcoming barriers for the implementation of precise reproductive medicine.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The expansion of sequencing analysis to additional monogenic and polygenic traits may enable the development of cost-effective preconception tests capable of identifying underlying genetic causes of infertility, which have been defined as 'unexplained' until now, thus leading to the development of a true personalized genomic medicine framework in reproductive health.

Equitable Expanded Carrier Screening Needs Indigenous Clinical and Population Genomic Data

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) for recessive monogenic diseases requires prior knowledge of genomic variation, including DNA variants that cause disease. The composition of pathogenic variants differs greatly among human populations, but historically, research about monogenic diseases has focused mainly on people with European ancestry. By comparison, less is known about pathogenic DNA variants in people from other parts of the world. Consequently, inclusion of currently underrepresented Indigenous and other minority population groups in genomic research is essential to enable equitable outcomes in ECS and other areas of genomic medicine. Here, we discuss this issue in relation to the implementation of ECS in Australia, which is currently being evaluated as part of the national Government's Genomics Health Futures Mission. We argue that significant effort is required to build an evidence base and genomic reference data so that ECS can bring significant clinical benefit for many Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Australians. These efforts are essential steps to achieving the Australian Government's objectives and its commitment "to leveraging the benefits of genomics in the health system for all Australians." They require culturally safe, community-led research and community involvement embedded within national health and medical genomics programs to ensure that new knowledge is integrated into medicine and health services in ways that address the specific and articulated cultural and health needs of Indigenous people. Until this occurs, people who do not have European ancestry are at risk of being, in relative terms, further disadvantaged.

Expanded universal carrier screening and its implementation within a publicly funded healthcare service

Carrier screening, a well-established clinical initiative, has been slow to take advantage of the new possibilities offered by high-throughput next generation sequencing technologies. There is evidence of significant benefit in expanding carrier screening to include multiple autosomal recessive conditions and offering a ‘universal’ carrier screen that could be used for a pan-ethnic population. However, the challenges of implementing such a programme and the difficulties of demonstrating efficacy worthy of public health investment are significant barriers. In order for such a programme to be successful, it would need to be applicable and acceptable to the population, which may be ethnically and culturally diverse. There are significant practical and ethical implications associated with determining which variants, genes and conditions to include whilst maintaining adequate sensitivity and accuracy. Although preconception screening would maximise the potential benefits from universal carrier screening, the resource implications of different modes of delivery need to be carefully evaluated and balanced against maximising reproductive autonomy and ensuring equity of access. Currently, although a number of existing initiatives are increasing access to carrier screening, there is insufficient evidence to inform the development of a publicly funded, expanded, universal carrier screening programme that would justify investment over other healthcare interventions.