A systematic review of the views of healthcare professionals on the scope of preimplantation genetic testing

Ready for polygenic risk scores? An analysis of regulation of preimplantation genetic testing in European countries

STUDY QUESTION

Would the different regulatory approaches for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in Europe permit the implementation of preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores (PGT-P)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

While the regulatory approaches for PGT differ between countries, the space provided for potential implementation of PGT-P seems limited in all three regulatory models.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

PGT is a reproductive genetic technology that allows the testing for hereditary genetic disorders and chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. Throughout its history, PGT has largely been regarded as an ethically sensitive technology. For example, ethical questions have been raised regarding the use of PGT for adult-onset conditions, non-medical sex selection, and human leukocyte antigen typing for the benefit of existing siblings. Countries in which PGT is offered each have their own approach of regulating the clinical application of PGT, and a clear overview of legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe is lacking. An emerging development within the field of PGT, namely PGT-P, is currently bringing new ethical tensions to the forefront. It is unclear whether PGT-P may be applied within the current regulatory frameworks in Europe. Therefore, it is important to investigate current regulatory frameworks in Europe and determine whether PGT-P fits within these frameworks.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the legal and practical regulation of the use of PGT in seven selected European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK) and critically analyse the different approaches with regards to regulatory possibilities for PGT-P. Between July and September 2023, we performed a thorough and extensive search of websites of governments and governmental agencies, websites of scientific and professional organizations, and academic articles in which laws and regulations are described.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We investigated the legal and regulatory aspects of PGT by analysing legal documents, regulatory frameworks, scientific articles, and guidelines from scientific organizations and regulatory bodies to gather relevant information about each included country. The main sources of information were national laws relating to PGT.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We divided the PGT regulation approaches into three models. The regulation of PGT differs per country, with some countries requiring central approval of PGT for each new indication (the medical indication model: the UK, the Netherlands), other countries evaluating each individual PGT request at the local level (the individual requests model: France, Germany), and countries largely leaving decision-making about clinical application of PGT to healthcare professionals (the clinical assessment model: Belgium, Italy, Spain). In the countries surveyed that use the medical indication model and the individual requests model, current legal frameworks and PGT criteria seem to exclude PGT-P. In countries using the clinical assessment model, the fact that healthcare professionals and scientific organizations in Europe are generally negative about implementation of PGT-P due to scientific and socio-ethical concerns, implies that, even if it were legally possible, the chance that PGT-P would be offered in the near future might be low.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The results are based on our interpretation of publicly available written information and documents, therefore not all potential discrepancies between law and practice might have been identified. In addition, our analysis focuses on seven-and not all-European countries. However, since these countries are relevant players within PGT in Europe and since they have distinct PGT regulations, the insights gathered give relevant insights into diverse ways of PGT regulation.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that provides a thorough overview of the legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe. Our analysis of how PGT-P fits within current regulation models provides guidance for healthcare professionals and policymakers in navigating the possible future implementation of PGT-P within Europe.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 813707. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Preimplantation genetic testing: A remarkable history of pioneering, technical challenges, innovations, and ethical considerations

Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) has emerged as a powerful companion to assisted reproduction technologies. The origins and history of PGT are reviewed here, along with descriptions of advances in molecular assays and sampling methods, their capabilities, and their applications in preventing genetic diseases and enhancing pregnancy outcomes. Additionally, the potential for increasing accuracy and genome coverage is considered, as well as some of the emerging ethical and legislative considerations related to the expanding capabilities of PGT.

Limitations, concerns and potential: attitudes of healthcare professionals toward preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores

Preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores (PGT-P) has recently been introduced. However, PGT-P has been met with many ethical concerns. It is therefore important to get insights into the perspectives of stakeholders regarding PGT-P. We performed a qualitative interview study on the views of healthcare professionals toward PGT-P. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 31 healthcare professionals working in the field of preimplantation genetic testing. The interviews explored the attitudes of healthcare professionals toward the technology of PGT-P, e.g., the validity, utility, limitations and potential benefits of PGT-P. We found that most healthcare professionals were concerned about the prematurity of introducing PGT-P into clinical practice. They had various ethical considerations, such as concerns related to validity and utility of PGT-P, limited embryos and options, and difficulties for prospective parents regarding comprehension and informed decision-making. Positive aspects were also identified, e.g., regarding reproductive autonomy and potential health benefits. Overall, most healthcare professionals considered that clinical implementation of PGT-P is premature. More comprehensive, longitudinal and inclusive studies are needed first, though these might not improve PGT-P enough to responsibly implement it. Healthcare professionals were also concerned that PGT-P could cause anxiety and create difficult choices for prospective parents. These perspectives and ethical considerations are crucial to consider for future guidelines and recommendations regarding PGT-P.

Views of healthcare professionals on the inclusion of genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss in reproductive genetic carrier screening

Genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss (NSHL) are frequently included in panels for reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS), despite a lack of consensus on whether NSHL is a condition appropriate for inclusion in RGCS. We conducted a national online survey using a questionnaire to explore the views of clinicians who facilitate RGCS or provide care to deaf individuals in Australia and New Zealand regarding the inclusion of such genes in RGCS. Results were analysed descriptively, and free-text responses were analysed thematically. The questionnaire was completed by 386 respondents including genetic healthcare providers, obstetricians, ear nose and throat specialists, and general practitioners. The majority of respondents agreed that genes associated with NSHL should be included in RGCS, but there were differences between the groups. 74% of clinicians working in a hearing clinic agreed these genes should be included compared to 67% of genetic healthcare providers, 54% of reproductive care healthcare providers, and 44% of general practitioners. A majority of respondents agreed that moderate to profound deafness is a serious disability, although genetic healthcare providers were less likely to agree than other groups. Overall, respondents agreed that including NSHL in RGCS upholds prospective parents' right to information. However, they also identified major challenges, including concern that screening may express a discriminatory attitude towards those living with deafness. They also identified the complexity of defining the severity of deafness.