The clinical application of polygenic risk scores: A points to consider statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

Screening embryos for polygenic disease risk: a review of epidemiological, clinical, and ethical considerations

BACKGROUND

The genetic composition of embryos generated by in vitro fertilization (IVF) can be examined with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). Until recently, PGT was limited to detecting single-gene, high-risk pathogenic variants, large structural variants, and aneuploidy. Recent advances have made genome-wide genotyping of IVF embryos feasible and affordable, raising the possibility of screening embryos for their risk of polygenic diseases such as breast cancer, hypertension, diabetes, or schizophrenia. Despite a heated debate around this new technology, called polygenic embryo screening (PES; also PGT-P), it is already available to IVF patients in some countries. Several articles have studied epidemiological, clinical, and ethical perspectives on PES; however, a comprehensive, principled review of this emerging field is missing.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This review has four main goals. First, given the interdisciplinary nature of PES studies, we aim to provide a self-contained educational background about PES to reproductive specialists interested in the subject. Second, we provide a comprehensive and critical review of arguments for and against the introduction of PES, crystallizing and prioritizing the key issues. We also cover the attitudes of IVF patients, clinicians, and the public towards PES. Third, we distinguish between possible future groups of PES patients, highlighting the benefits and harms pertaining to each group. Finally, our review, which is supported by ESHRE, is intended to aid healthcare professionals and policymakers in decision-making regarding whether to introduce PES in the clinic, and if so, how, and to whom.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for PubMed-indexed articles published between 1/1/2003 and 1/3/2024 using the terms 'polygenic embryo screening', 'polygenic preimplantation', and 'PGT-P'. We limited the review to primary research papers in English whose main focus was PES for medical conditions. We also included papers that did not appear in the search but were deemed relevant.

OUTCOMES

The main theoretical benefit of PES is a reduction in lifetime polygenic disease risk for children born after screening. The magnitude of the risk reduction has been predicted based on statistical modelling, simulations, and sibling pair analyses. Results based on all methods suggest that under the best-case scenario, large relative risk reductions are possible for one or more diseases. However, as these models abstract several practical limitations, the realized benefits may be smaller, particularly due to a limited number of embryos and unclear future accuracy of the risk estimates. PES may negatively impact patients and their future children, as well as society. The main personal harms are an unindicated IVF treatment, a possible reduction in IVF success rates, and patient confusion, incomplete counselling, and choice overload. The main possible societal harms include discarded embryos, an increasing demand for 'designer babies', overemphasis of the genetic determinants of disease, unequal access, and lower utility in people of non-European ancestries. Benefits and harms will vary across the main potential patient groups, comprising patients already requiring IVF, fertile people with a history of a severe polygenic disease, and fertile healthy people. In the United States, the attitudes of IVF patients and the public towards PES seem positive, while healthcare professionals are cautious, sceptical about clinical utility, and concerned about patient counselling.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The theoretical potential of PES to reduce risk across multiple polygenic diseases requires further research into its benefits and harms. Given the large number of practical limitations and possible harms, particularly unnecessary IVF treatments and discarded viable embryos, PES should be offered only within a research context before further clarity is achieved regarding its balance of benefits and harms. The gap in attitudes between healthcare professionals and the public needs to be narrowed by expanding public and patient education and providing resources for informative and unbiased genetic counselling.

Perspectives of preimplantation genetic testing patients in Belgium on the ethics of polygenic embryo screening

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the perspectives of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) patients in Belgium on the ethics of PGT for polygenic risk scoring (PGT-P)?

DESIGN

In-depth interviews (18 in total, 10 couples, 8 women, n = 28) were performed with patients who had undergone treatment with PGT for monogenic/single-gene defects (PGT-M) or chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) between 2017 and 2019 in Belgium. Participants were asked about their own experiences with PGT-M/SR and about their viewpoints on PGT-P, including their own interest and their ideas on its desirability, scope and consequences. Inductive content analysis was used to analyse the interviews.

RESULTS

Participants stated that their experiences with PGT-M/SR had been physically, psychologically and practically difficult. Most participants stated that, partly because of these difficulties, they did not see the added value of knowing the risk scores of embryos via PGT-P. Many participants worried that PGT-P could lead to additional anxieties, responsibilities and complex choices in reproduction and parenthood. They argued that not everything should be controlled and felt that PGT-P, especially non-medical and broad screening, was going too far. With regards to the clinical implementation of PGT-P, participants in general preferred PGT-P to be limited to people with a serious polygenic family history and wanted embryo selection decisions to be made by healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that individuals with experience of PGT-M/SR saw PGT-P as different from PGT-M/SR. They had various ethical concerns with regards to PGT-P, especially regarding broadly offering PGT-P. These stakeholder viewpoints need to be considered regarding potential PGT-P implementation and guidelines.

Pharmacogenomics polygenic risk score: Ready or not for prime time?

Pharmacogenomic Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) have emerged as a tool to address the polygenic nature of pharmacogenetic phenotypes, increasing the potential to predict drug response. Most pharmacogenomic PRS have been extrapolated from disease-associated variants identified by genome wide association studies (GWAS), although some have begun to utilize genetic variants from pharmacogenomic GWAS. As pharmacogenomic PRS hold the promise of enabling precision medicine, including stratified treatment approaches, it is important to assess the opportunities and challenges presented by the current data. This assessment will help determine how pharmacogenomic PRS can be advanced and transitioned into clinical use. In this review, we present a summary of recent evidence, evaluate the current status, and identify several challenges that have impeded the progress of pharmacogenomic PRS. These challenges include the reliance on extrapolations from disease genetics and limitations inherent to pharmacogenomics research such as low sample sizes, phenotyping inconsistencies, among others. We finally propose recommendations to overcome the challenges and facilitate the clinical implementation. These recommendations include standardizing methodologies for phenotyping, enhancing collaborative efforts, developing new statistical methods to capitalize on drug-specific genetic associations for PRS construction. Additional recommendations include enhancing the infrastructure that can integrate genomic data with clinical predictors, along with implementing user-friendly clinical decision tools, and patient education. Ethical and regulatory considerations should address issues related to patient privacy, informed consent and safe use of PRS. Despite these challenges, ongoing research and large-scale collaboration is likely to advance the field and realize the potential of pharmacogenomic PRS.

Polygenic embryo screening: quo vadis?

Recently, the use of polygenic risk scores in embryo screening (PGT-P) has been introduced on the premise of reducing polygenic disease risk through embryo selection. However, it has been met with extensive critique: considered "technology-driven" rather than "evidence-based", concerns exist about its validity, utility, ethics, and societal effects. Its scientific foundations and criticisms thus need to be carefully considered. However, seeing as PGT-P is already offered in some settings, further questions need to be addressed, in order to give due diligence to various aspects of PGT-P. By examining the complexities of clinical introduction of PGT-P, we discuss whether PGT-P could be responsibly implemented in the first place, what elements need to be addressed if PGT-P is clinically implemented, and subsequently how counselling and decision-making of its users could be envisaged. By dissecting these elements, we provide an overview of important practical questions of PGT-P and emphasize elements of PGT-P that we think have yet to be given sufficient attention. These questions and elements are for example related to the potential target group, scope, and decision-making possibilities of PGT-P. The aspects we raise are crucial to consider by the scientific community and policy makers for the development of guidelines and/or an ethical framework for PGT-P.

Validation of a clinical breast cancer risk assessment tool combining a polygenic score for all ancestries with traditional risk factors

PURPOSE

We previously described a combined risk score (CRS) that integrates a multiple-ancestry polygenic risk score (MA-PRS) with the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) model to assess breast cancer (BC) risk. Here, we present a longitudinal validation of CRS in a real-world cohort.

METHODS

This study included 130,058 patients referred for hereditary cancer genetic testing and negative for germline pathogenic variants in BC-associated genes. Data were obtained by linking genetic test results to medical claims (median follow-up 12.1 months). CRS calibration was evaluated by the ratio of observed to expected BCs.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty BCs were observed over 148,349 patient-years. CRS was well-calibrated and demonstrated superior calibration compared with TC in high-risk deciles. MA-PRS alone had greater discriminatory accuracy than TC, and CRS had approximately 2-fold greater discriminatory accuracy than MA-PRS or TC. Among those classified as high risk by TC, 32.6% were low risk by CRS, and of those classified as low risk by TC, 4.3% were high risk by CRS. In cases where CRS and TC classifications disagreed, CRS was more accurate in predicting incident BC.

CONCLUSION

CRS was well-calibrated and significantly improved BC risk stratification. Short-term follow-up suggests that clinical implementation of CRS should improve outcomes for patients of all ancestries through personalized risk-based screening and prevention.

Public Attitudes, Interests, and Concerns Regarding Polygenic Embryo Screening

Importance

Polygenic embryo screening (PES) is a novel technology that estimates the likelihood of developing future conditions (eg, diabetes or depression) and traits (eg, height or cognitive ability) in human embryos, with the goal of selecting which embryos to use. Given its commercial availability and concerns raised by researchers, clinicians, bioethicists, and professional organizations, it is essential to inform key stakeholders and relevant policymakers about the public's perspectives on this technology.

Objective

To survey US adults to examine general attitudes, interests, and concerns regarding PES use.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this survey study, data were collected from 1 stratified sample and 1 nonprobability sample (samples 1 and 2, respectively) between March and July 2023. The surveys measured approval, interest, and concerns regarding various applications of PES. In the second sample, presentation of a list of potential concerns was randomized (presented at survey onset vs survey end). The survey was designed using Qualtrics and distributed to participants through Prolific, an online sampling firm. Sample 1 was nationally representative with respect to gender, age, and race and ethnicity; sample 2 was recruited without specific demographic criteria. Analyses were conducted between March 2023 and February 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Participants reported their approval, interest, and concerns regarding various applications of PES and outcomes screened (eg, traits and conditions). Statistical analysis was conducted using independent samples t tests and repeated-measures analyses of variance.

Results

Of the 1435 respondents in sample 1, demographic data were available for 1427 (mean [SD] age, 45.8 [16.0] years; 724 women [50.7%]). Among these 1427 sample 1 respondents, 1027 (72.0%) expressed approval for PES and 1169 (81.9%) expressed some interest in using PES if already undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Approval among these respondents for using PES for embryo selection was notably high for physical health conditions (1109 [77.7%]) and psychiatric health conditions (1028 [72.0%]). In contrast, there was minority approval for embryo selection based on PES for behavioral traits (514 [36.0%]) and physical traits (432 [30.3%]). Nevertheless, concerns about PES leading to false expectations and promoting eugenic practices were pronounced, with 787 of 1422 (55.3%) and 780 of 1423 (54.8%) respondents finding them very to extremely concerning, respectively. Sample 2 included 192 respondents (mean [SD] age 37.7 [12.2] years; 110 men [57.3%]). These respondents were presented concerns at survey onset (n = 95) vs survey end (n = 97), which was associated with less approval (28-percentage point decrease) and more uncertainty (24 percentage-point increase) but with only slightly higher disapproval (4 percentage-point increase).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that it is critical for health care professionals and medical societies to consider and understand the perspectives of diverse stakeholders (eg, patients undergoing IVF, clinicians, and the general public), given the absence of regulation and the recent commercial availability of PES.

Patient interest in and clinician reservations on polygenic embryo screening: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives

PURPOSE

We explored and compared perspectives of reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists (REIs) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients regarding polygenic embryo screening (PES), a new type of preimplantation screening that estimates the genetic chances of developing polygenic conditions and traits in the future.

METHODS

Qualitative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with US-based REIs and IVF patients.

RESULTS

Clinicians and patients often held favorable views of screening embryos for physical or psychiatric conditions, though clinicians tended to temper their positive attitudes with specific caveats. Clinicians also expressed negative views about screening embryos for traits more frequently than patients, who generally held more positive views. Most clinicians were either unwilling to discuss or offer PES to patients or were willing to do so only under certain circumstances, while many patients expressed interest in PES. Both stakeholder groups envisioned multiple potential benefits or uses of PES and raised multiple potential, interrelated concerns about PES.

CONCLUSION

A gap exists between clinician and patient attitudes toward PES; clinicians generally maintained reservations about such screening and patients indicated interest in it. Clinicians and patients sometimes imagined using PES to prepare for the birth of a predisposed or "affected" individual-a rationale that is often associated with prenatal testing. Many clinicians and patients held different attitudes depending on what is specifically screened, despite the sometimes blurry distinction between conditions and traits. Considerations raised by clinicians and patients may help guide professional societies in developing guidelines to navigate the uncertain terrain of PES.

Return of polygenic risk scores in research: Stakeholders' views on the eMERGE-IV study

Research on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for common, genetically complex chronic diseases aims to improve health-related predictions, tailor risk-reducing interventions, and improve health outcomes. Yet, the study and use of PRSs in clinical settings raise equity, clinical, and regulatory challenges that can be greater for individuals from historically marginalized racial, ethnic, and other minoritized communities. As part of the National Human Genome Research Institute-funded Electronic Medical Records and Genomics IV Network, we conducted online focus groups with patients/community members, clinicians, and members of institutional review boards to explore their views on key issues, including PRS research, return of PRS results, clinical translation, and barriers and facilitators to health behavioral changes in response to PRS results. Across stakeholder groups, our findings indicate support for PRS development and a strong interest in having PRS results returned to research participants. However, we also found multi-level barriers and significant differences in stakeholders' views about what is needed and possible for successful implementation. These include researcher-participant interaction formats, health and genomic literacy, and a range of structural barriers, such as financial instability, insurance coverage, and the absence of health-supporting infrastructure and affordable healthy food options in poorer neighborhoods. Our findings highlight the need to revisit and implement measures in PRS studies (e.g., incentives and resources for follow-up care), as well as system-level policies to promote equity in genomic research and health outcomes.

Recent advances in polygenic scores: translation, equitability, methods and FAIR tools

Polygenic scores (PGS) can be used for risk stratification by quantifying individuals' genetic predisposition to disease, and many potentially clinically useful applications have been proposed. Here, we review the latest potential benefits of PGS in the clinic and challenges to implementation. PGS could augment risk stratification through combined use with traditional risk factors (demographics, disease-specific risk factors, family history, etc.), to support diagnostic pathways, to predict groups with therapeutic benefits, and to increase the efficiency of clinical trials. However, there exist challenges to maximizing the clinical utility of PGS, including FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) use and standardized sharing of the genomic data needed to develop and recalculate PGS, the equitable performance of PGS across populations and ancestries, the generation of robust and reproducible PGS calculations, and the responsible communication and interpretation of results. We outline how these challenges may be overcome analytically and with more diverse data as well as highlight sustained community efforts to achieve equitable, impactful, and responsible use of PGS in healthcare.

DNA methylation risk score for type 2 diabetes is associated with gestational diabetes

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) share many pathophysiological factors including genetics, but whether epigenetic marks are shared is unknown. We aimed to test whether a DNA methylation risk score (MRS) for T2DM was associated with GDM across ancestry and GDM criteria.

METHODS

In two independent pregnancy cohorts, EPIPREG (n = 480) and EPIDG (n = 32), DNA methylation in peripheral blood leukocytes was measured at a gestational age of 28 ± 2. We constructed an MRS in EPIPREG and EPIDG based on CpG hits from a published epigenome-wide association study (EWAS) of T2DM.

RESULTS

With mixed models logistic regression of EPIPREG and EPIDG, MRS for T2DM was associated with GDM: odd ratio (OR)[95% CI]: 1.3 [1.1-1.8], P = 0.002 for the unadjusted model, and 1.4 [1.1-1.7], P = 0.00014 for a model adjusted by age, pre-pregnant BMI, family history of diabetes and smoking status. Also, we found 6 CpGs through a meta-analysis (cg14020176, cg22650271, cg14870271, cg27243685, cg06378491, cg25130381) associated with GDM, and some of their methylation quantitative loci (mQTLs) were related to T2DM and GDM.

CONCLUSION

For the first time, we show that DNA methylation marks for T2DM are also associated with GDM, suggesting shared epigenetic mechanisms between GDM and T2DM.

Calibrating variant curation by clinical context based on factors that influence patients' tolerance of uncertainty

PURPOSE

Shared decision making manages genomic uncertainty by integrating molecular and clinical uncertainties with patient values to craft a person-centered management plan. Laboratories seek genomic report consistency, agnostic to clinical context. Molecular reports often mask laboratory-managed uncertainties from clinical decision making. Better integration of these uncertainty management strategies requires a nuanced understanding of patients' perceptions and reactions to test uncertainties. We explored patients' tolerance to variant uncertainty in 3 parameters: (1) relative causal significance, (2) risk accuracy, and (3) classification validity.

METHOD

Deliberative forums were undertaken with 18 patients with predictive testing experience. Uncertainty deliberations were elicited for each parameter. A thematic framework was first developed, and then mapped to whether they justified tolerance to more or less parameter-specific uncertainty.

RESULTS

Six identified themes mapped to clinical and personal domains. These domains generated opposing forces when calibrating uncertainty. Personal themes justified tolerance of higher uncertainty and clinical themes lower uncertainty. Decision making in uncertainty focused on reducing management regret. Open communication increased tolerance of classification validity and risk accuracy uncertainty. Using these data, we have developed a nascent clinical algorithm integrating molecular uncertainty with clinical context through a targeted communication framework.

CONCLUSION

Maximizing test utility necessitates context-specific recalibration of uncertainty management and communication.

The GenoVA study: Equitable implementation of a pragmatic randomized trial of polygenic-risk scoring in primary care

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) hold promise for disease risk assessment and prevention. The Genomic Medicine at Veterans Affairs (GenoVA) Study is addressing three main challenges to the clinical implementation of PRSs in preventive care: defining and determining their clinical utility, implementing them in time-constrained primary care settings, and countering their potential to exacerbate healthcare disparities. The study processes used to test patients, report their PRS results to them and their primary care providers (PCPs), and promote the use of those results in clinical decision-making are modeled on common practices in primary care. The following diseases were chosen for their prevalence and familiarity to PCPs: coronary artery disease; type 2 diabetes; atrial fibrillation; and breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. A randomized clinical trial (RCT) design and primary outcome of time-to-new-diagnosis of a target disease bring methodological rigor to the question of the clinical utility of PRS implementation. The study's pragmatic RCT design enhances its relevance to how PRS might reasonably be implemented in primary care. Steps the study has taken to promote health equity include the thoughtful handling of genetic ancestry in PRS construction and reporting and enhanced recruitment strategies to address underrepresentation in research participation. To date, enhanced recruitment efforts have been both necessary and successful: participants of underrepresented race and ethnicity groups have been less likely to enroll in the study than expected but ultimately achieved proportional representation through targeted efforts. The GenoVA Study experience to date offers insights for evaluating the clinical utility of equitable PRS implementation in adult primary care.

Divergence Between Clinician and Patient Perspectives on Polygenic Embryo Screening: A Qualitative Study

Objective

To explore and compare the perspectives of clinicians and patients on polygenic embryo screening.

Design

Qualitative.

Subjects

Fifty-three participants: 27 reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists and 26 patients currently undergoing in vitro fertilization or had done so within the last five years.

Main Outcome Measures

Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts.

Results

Both clinicians and patients often held favorable views of screening embryos for physical or psychiatric conditions, though clinicians tended to temper their positive attitudes with specific caveats. Clinicians also expressed negative views about screening embryos for traits more often than patients, who generally held more positive views. Most clinicians were either unwilling to discuss or offer polygenic embryo screening to patients or were willing to do so only under certain circumstances, while many patients expressed interest in polygenic embryo screening. Both sets of stakeholders envisioned multiple potential benefits or uses of polygenic embryo screening; the most common included selection and/or prioritization of embryos, receipt of more information about embryos, and preparation for the birth of a predisposed or "affected" child. Both sets of stakeholders also raised multiple potential, interrelated concerns about polygenic embryo screening. The most common concerns among both sets of stakeholders included the potential for different types of "biases" - most often in relation to selection of embryos with preferred genetic chances of traits -, the probabilistic nature of polygenic embryo screening that can complicate patient counseling and/or lead to excessive cycles of in vitro fertilization, and a lack of data from long-term prospective studies supporting the clinical use of polygenic embryo screening.

Conclusion

Despite patients' interest in polygenic embryo screening, clinicians feel such screening is premature for clinical application. Though now embryos can be screened for their genetic chances of developing polygenic conditions and traits, many clinicians and patients maintain different attitudes depending on what is specifically screened, despite the blurry distinction between conditions and traits. Considerations raised by these stakeholders may help guide professional societies as they consider developing guidelines to navigate the uncertain terrain of polygenic embryo screening, which is already commercially available.

From collective health to "personalized" medicine: bioethical challenges in preimplantation genetic testing from a North-South perspective

This article examines the scope and limitations of the precision medicine paradigm and its relationship with the collective health approach. To that end, it takes preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) as a paradigmatic example of technologies aimed at the "individualization" of health processes. In this regard, we review the characteristics and scientific and regulatory foundations of PGT technologies in Argentina, and discuss the next steps for their bioethical analysis. More specifically, we shed light on some of the conditions for their implementation from a north-south perspective. We propose three themes or problematic aspects as a synthesis of our analysis, related to biases in the production of knowledge, the values and interests underlying its uses, and the underlying epistemological assumptions of these technologies. Throughout the article, we review these dilemmas and suggest some issues that should be taken into account in future research.