Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening

The Use of Expanded Carrier Screening in Reproductive Medicine: Scientific Impact Paper No. 74

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) is a genetic screening test carried out by analysing a blood sample. This screen can be used to detect whether the individual unknowingly carries gene variants associated with common genetic conditions, such as cystic fibrosis, that may be passed on to their children. It is typically performed in reproductive medicine for those who are considering having a family either naturally or via fertility treatment. Many donor sperm and egg banks, particularly in the USA and Europe, also perform blanket ECS testing on all their prospective sperm and egg donors. ECS is not currently routine practice in the UK, but a growing number of patients are requesting it before treatment. All of us carry gene variants of some sort that may cause autosomal recessive disease in their children if their partner or donor also carry a variant in the same gene. An autosomal recessive disease means two copies of an abnormal gene must be present in order for the disease or trait (such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease) to develop. One copy of the variant means the person is a carrier but does not have the condition. Two copies, i.e. from the mother and father, means the child has a 25% chance of having the genetic disease. Carrying a gene variant does not mean that the individual would necessarily have any symptoms of the disease or any features of the condition. Genetic tests for specific conditions are currently available either before or during pregnancy for prospective parents who have a family or personal history of a genetic condition, or for those from ethnic backgrounds where certain conditions - such as haemoglobinopathies (blood disorders) - are common, prompting referral to a clinical genetics department. Expanded carrier screens may test for more than 100 genetic conditions. The list of conditions screened for is called a panel. Common panels are 250 or 600 genes. Not all expanded carrier screens that are available analyse the same genes. Some may test for genes that do not cause serious disease, or cause diseases that occur in later life; others test for genes that cause severe conditions in childhood. There is no agreement as to which panel of genes should be tested for in an ECS. Understanding the screening that is being offered, and the meaning of any results, is complicated and requires support from appropriately trained professionals to best inform the prospective parent or parents.

Preconception carrier screening and preimplantation genetic testing in the infertility management

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing serves as a valuable element of reproductive care, applicable at various stages of the reproductive journey: (i) before pregnancy, when a couple's genetic reproductive risk can be evaluated; (ii) before embryo implantation, as part of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, to ascertain several inherited or de novo genetic/chromosomal diseases of the embryo before transfer; (iii) during the prenatal period, to assess the genetic costitution of the fetus. Preconception carrier screening (CS) is a genetic test typically performed on couples planning a pregnancy. The primary purpose of CS is to identify couples at-risk of conceiving a child affected by a severe genetic disorder with autosomal recessive or X-linked inheritance. Detection of high reproductive risk through CS allows prospective parents to be informed of their predisposition and improve reproductive decision-making. These include undergoing IVF with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) or donor gametes, prenatal diagnosis, adoption, remaining childless, taking no actions. Both the presence of the affected gene (PGT-M) and chromosomal status (PGT-A) of the embryo can be comprehensively assessed through modern approaches.

OBJECTIVES

We provide a review of CS and PGT applications to equip healthcare providers with up-to-date information regarding their opportunities and complexities.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The use of CS and PGT is currently considered the most effective intervention for avoiding both an affected pregnancy whilst using autologous gametes in couples with known increased risk, and chromosomal abnormalities. As our understanding in the genetic component in pathological conditions increases, the number of tested disorders will expand, offering a more thorough assessment of one's genetic inheritance. Nevertheless, implementation and development in this field must be accompanied by scientific and ethical considerations to ensure this approach serves the best long-term interests of individuals and society, promoting justice and autonomy and preserving parenthood and the healthcare system.

CONCLUSION

The combination of CS and PGT aligns with principles of personalized medicine by offering reproductive care tailored to the individual's genetic makeup.

Primary care professionals' views on population-based expanded carrier screening: an online focus group study

BACKGROUND

Population-based expanded carrier screening (ECS) involves screening for multiple recessive diseases offered to all couples considering a pregnancy or during pregnancy. Previous research indicates that in some countries primary care professionals are perceived as suitable providers for ECS. However, little is known about their perspectives. We therefore aimed to explore primary care professionals' views on population-based ECS.

METHODS

Four online focus groups with 14 general practitioners (GPs) and 16 community midwives were conducted in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

Our findings highlight various perspectives on the desirability of population-based ECS. Participants agreed that ECS could enhance reproductive autonomy and thereby prevent suffering of the child and/or parents. However, they also raised several ethical, societal, and psychological concerns, including a tendency towards a perfect society, stigmatization, unequal access to screening and negative psychosocial consequences. Participants believed that provision of population-based ECS would be feasible if prerequisites regarding training and reimbursement for providers would be fulfilled. most GPs considered themselves less suitable or capable of providing ECS, in contrast to midwives who did consider themselves suitable. Nevertheless, participants believed that, if implemented, ECS should be offered in primary care or by public health services rather than as hospital-based specialized care, because they believed a primary care ECS offer increases access in terms of time and location.

CONCLUSIONS

While participants believed that an ECS offer would be feasible, they questioned its desirability and priority. Studies on the desirability and feasibility of population-based ECS offered in primary care or public health settings are needed.

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.

Pregnant couples' attitude toward extended pre-conceptional genomic screening

AIM

To determine the attitudes of pregnant couples toward carrier screening genomic tests.

METHODS

A validated 22-item questionnaire was offered in person by medical staff to pregnant women ≥32 weeks' gestation and their partners attending prenatal classes from May to July 2014. The questionnaire inquired about demographic data, interest in various forms of genetic carrier screening tests, and genetic literacy.

RESULTS

Of 497 respondents, 69% expressed strong interest in carrier screening. The interested respondents exhibited substantial support for screening for common (82%) or all known genetic diseases (79%), as well as for treatable (79%) and untreatable diseases (85%). The majority of respondents believed that genetic test results could provide them with a sense of security but also provoke anxiety and fear. They were aware that these results could affect their perspective on life, work, and the atmosphere within their family, and acknowledged the potential effect on their relationship with their partner. However, none of these concerns diminished their desire to learn about their carrier status. Respondents with higher genetic literacy exhibited greater interest in screening tests (P=0.006). More non-religious respondents compared with practicing religious respondents (P=0.002), and more respondents with higher education compared with those with lower education, expressed interest in screening (P=0.003).

CONCLUSION

Most respondents expressed considerable interest in receiving information about their carrier status through genetic tests.

Genomic aspects in reproductive medicine

Infertility is a complex disease characterized by extreme genetic heterogeneity, compounded by various environmental factors. While there are exceptions, individual genetic and genomic variations related to infertility are typically rare, often family-specific, and may serve as susceptibility factors rather than direct causes of the disease. Consequently, identifying the cause of infertility and developing prevention and treatment strategies based on these factors remain challenging tasks, even in the modern genomic era. In this review, we first examine the genetic and genomic variations associated with infertility, and subsequently summarize the concepts and methods of preimplantation genetic testing in light of advances in genome analysis technology.

Should genes for non-syndromic hearing loss be included in reproductive genetic carrier screening: Views of people with a personal or family experience of deafness

Many commercial reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) panels include genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss (NSHL), however little is known about the general acceptability of their inclusion. Although some couples wish to avoid having a deaf child, there are effective interventions and supports available for deafness, and no consensus on whether it is appropriate to reproductively screen NSHL genes. This study explored views of people with personal experience of deafness regarding carrier screening for genes associated with NSHL. We interviewed 27 participants; 14 who identified as deaf and 13 hearing parents of a deaf child. Thematic analysis was undertaken on transcripts of interviews. The findings reveal the complexity of attitudes within these groups. Some vacillated between the wish to support prospective parents' reproductive autonomy and concerns about potential harms, especially the expression of negative messages about deafness and the potential loss of acceptance in society. While some participants felt carrier screening could help prospective parents to prepare for a deaf child, there was little support for reproductive screening and termination of pregnancy. Participants emphasized the need for accurate information about the lived experience of deafness. The majority felt deafness is not as severe as other conditions included in RGCS, and most do not consider deafness as a disability. People with personal experience of deafness have diverse attitudes towards RGCS for deafness informed by their own identify and experience, and many have concerns about how it should be discussed and implemented in a population wide RGCS program.

Beyond severity: utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) allows prospective parents to identify and act upon their chances of having a child with a genetic condition. In deciding which genetic conditions to include in RGCS, severity is often used as a criterion. However, the concept is inherently complex, subjective and multidimensional, and determinations of severity will remain intractably contested. We propose the concept of utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS, and put forward two central arguments for doing so. First, utility is a more appropriate and effective concept as it responds to context and makes an explicit connection between the purpose of RGCS and the value of information obtained for that purpose: namely, to facilitate reproductive decision-making. Utility comprises both clinical and personal utility, and varies according to the availability and accessibility of reproductive options, including pre-implantation genetic testing, prenatal genetic diagnosis, and termination of pregnancy. Second, there are ethical reasons for preferring utility over severity. Utility is a property of the information gleaned from RGCS, while severity is a property of a genetic condition or of an instance of this condition in a person. While consideration of the severity of genetic conditions is not lost when focusing on utility, the need to rely on value judgements regarding the quality of life of people who live with genetic conditions is circumvented. Therefore, utility should replace severity as justification for the inclusion of genetic conditions in RGCS programmes.

Genetic Screening-Emerging Issues

In many countries, some form of genetic screening is offered to all or part of the population, either in the form of well-organized screening programs or in a less formalized way. Screening can be offered at different phases of life, such as preconception, prenatal, neonatal and later in life. Screening should only be offered if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Technical innovations in testing and treatment are driving changes in the field of prenatal and neonatal screening, where many jurisdictions have organized population-based screening programs. As a result, a greater number and wider range of conditions are being added to the programs, which can benefit couples' reproductive autonomy (preconception and prenatal screening) and improve early diagnosis to prevent irreversible health damage in children (neonatal screening) and in adults (cancer and cascade screening). While many developments in screening are technology-driven, citizens may also express a demand for innovation in screening, as was the case with non-invasive prenatal testing. Relatively new emerging issues for genetic screening, especially if testing is performed using DNA sequencing, relate to organization, data storage and interpretation, benefit-harm ratio and distributive justice, information provision and follow-up, all connected to acceptability in current healthcare systems.

Accepting or declining preconception expanded carrier screening: An exploratory study with 407 couples

Rapidly evolving genomic technologies have made genetic expanded carrier screening (ECS) possible for couples considering a pregnancy. The aim of ECS is to identify couples at risk of having a child affected with a severe disorder and to facilitate their reproductive decision-making process. The ECS test we offer at our center, called BeGECS (Belgian Genetic ECS), consists of 1268 autosomal recessive (AR) and X-linked pathogenic genes, including severe childhood-onset disorders. However, thus far data are scarce regarding the actual uptake of preconception ECS in a clinical setting. Therefore, our aim was to describe the characteristics of 407 couples to whom ECS was offered at the Center for Medical Genetics of the University Hospital Ghent (CMGG). In addition, we aimed to identify their reasons for accepting or declining BeGECS. Between October 2019 and January 2023, 407 preconception couples were offered BeGECS and were asked to fill in a questionnaire after their decision. Of the 407 couples participating in the survey, 270 (66%) decided to take the test and 137 (34%) declined. We observed that age, highest education level as well as indication for consultation were statistically different between the group that accepted to take the test and the group that declined (p = 0.037). In particular, age and education level were substantially higher in the group that accepted the test. Major reasons for taking BeGECS include prevention, wishing to obtain all information possible, helping preparing their future reproductive decision and increasing their sense of control by being informed. However, couples that do not chose to take BeGECS stated that too much information would make them anxious, that the result would not change their decision to have children, that they do not want to spend money on something that will not happen and that they do not worry about their family history. These findings show that the majority of preconception couples that were offered ECS, accepted the test.

Educational tools support informed decision-making for genetic carrier screening in a heterogenic Israeli population

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) aims to provide couples with information to make informed decisions. Since 2013, the Israeli Carrier Screening Program has been offered routinely and free of charge to all Israelis of reproductive age, personalized based on religion, ethnicity, and village/tribe where a disorder is frequent. This study evaluated the impact of two educational tools on an informed choice on RGCS uptake and satisfaction with counselling within a heterogeneous population in northern Israel. Participants from diverse sociodemographic population groups were randomly assigned to watch an animated film, read a booklet conveying the same information, or receive no information before counselling for RGCS, and asked to complete pre- and post-counselling questionnaires. A higher informed-decision rate was demonstrated in the film (n=93/141, 66%) and booklet (n=88/131, 67%) groups vs. the non-intervention group (n=62/143, 43%) (P<0.001), assessed by the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that allocation to an intervention group, Jewish ethnicity and higher education level, best predicted informed choice. Most participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the counselling process, regardless of group assignment. While only a minority of participants reported seeking information prior to visiting the clinic, the pre-counselling information interventions were well accepted. Pre-counselling self-learning educational tools should be promoted, easily available, and adjusted linguistically and culturally to targeted populations, to avoid unwanted "automatic" compliance of tested individuals and maximize the potential of informed decision-making. Our study can be applied to other countries where majority and minority ethnic groups access genetic services.

Hereditary deafness carrier screening in 9,993 Chinese individuals

Background: Preconception or prenatal carrier screening plays an important role in reproductive decision-making, but current research on hereditary deafness is limited. This study aimed to investigate the carrier frequencies of common deafness genes in the Chinese population who underwent carrier screening and to follow up on pregnancy outcomes in high-chance couples. Methods: Individual females or couples in preconception or early pregnancy were recruited from two hospitals in China. Carrier screening for common deafness genes in the Chinese population, including the GJB2 and SLC26A4 genes, was performed using next-generation sequencing technology. Genetic counseling was provided to subjects before and after testing. Results: Of the 9,993 subjects screened, the carrier rate was 2.86% for the GJB2 gene and 2.63% for the SLC26A4 gene. The variant with the highest carrier frequency in GJB2 was c.235delC (1.89%), and c.919-2A>G (1.08%) in SLC26A4. Of the six high-chance couples, four made alternative reproductive decisions (three with prenatal diagnosis and one with preimplantation genetic testing), with consequent termination of the birth of two affected fetuses. Conclusion: These findings confirmed the clinical utility of preconception or prenatal carrier screening for hereditary deafness.

Investigation of interest in and timing preference for cancer predisposition testing and expanded carrier screening among women of reproductive age

Objective

To examine cognitive, relational, and social predictors of interest in and timing preference for cancer predisposition testing (CPT) and expanded carrier screening (ECS) offered in routine gynecologic care for women of reproductive age.

Methods

Women between 20 and 35 years old who were currently pregnant or had a prior pregnancy (N = 351) completed an online survey. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were used to identify significant predictors of women's interest in and timing preference for CPT and ECS.

Results

Most respondents reported high interest in CPT and ECS and preferred to have them when planning for a pregnancy. Perceived importance of genetic information and negative attitude towards uncertainty predicted interest in CPT and ECS in multivariable models. Genetic knowledge predicted preference for CPT or ECS when planning for a pregnancy.

Conclusion

Educational and decision support tools should be developed to enhance women's knowledge and awareness of CPT and ECS and to provide them with strategies to manage uncertainty.

Innovation

We examined women's timing preference for CPT and ECS and the impact of partner support and trust with gynecologist. A context-specific attitudes toward uncertainty scale was used to investigate women's particular perceptions of uncertainty in genetic testing.

Using a theory informed approach to design, execute, and evaluate implementation strategies to support offering reproductive genetic carrier screening in Australia

BACKGROUND

Health care professionals play a central role in offering reproductive genetic carrier screening but face challenges when integrating the offer into practice. The aim of this study was to design, execute, and evaluate theory-informed implementation strategies to support health care professionals in offering carrier screening.

METHODS

An exploratory multi-method approach was systematically employed based on the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF). Implementation strategies were designed by aligning TDF barriers reported by health care professionals involved in a large carrier screening study, to behaviour change techniques combined with study genetic counsellors' experiential knowledge. The strategies were trialled with a subset of health care professionals and evaluated against controls, using findings from questionnaires and interviews with healthcare professionals. The primary outcome measure was the number of couples who initiated enrolment.

RESULTS

Health care professionals (n = 151) reported barriers in the TDF Domains of skills, e.g., lack of practice in offering screening, and challenges of environmental context and resources, e.g., lack of time, which informed the design of a skills video and a waiting room poster using the TDF-behaviour change technique linking tool. Following implementation, (Skills video n = 29 vs control n = 31 and Poster n = 46 vs control n = 34) TDF barrier scores decreased across all groups and little change was observed in the primary outcome measure. The skills video, though welcomed by health care professionals, was reportedly too long at seven minutes. The waiting room poster was seen as easily implementable.

CONCLUSIONS

As carrier screening moves towards mainstream healthcare, health care professionals report barriers to offering screening. To meet their needs, developing and testing experiential and theory-informed strategies that acknowledge contextual factors are essential.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Supporting healthcare professionals to offer reproductive genetic carrier screening: a behaviour change theory approach

BACKGROUND

As reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) becomes more widely accessible, ensuring uptake by primary healthcare professionals (HCPs) is essential to equitable service provision. This study aimed to identify and prioritise implementation strategies to reduce barriers and support HCPs to routinely offer RGCS in Australia.

METHODS

HCPs (n =990) involved in a large national research study, offering couples-based RGCS, were surveyed at three time points: prior to offering RGCS through the study (Survey 1: Barriers); 8+weeks after offering to their patients (Survey 2: Possible supports); and towards the end of the study (Survey 3: Prioritised supports). HCPs were from primary care (e.g. general practice, midwifery) and tertiary care (e.g. fertility, genetics) settings. Results were analysed via a novel approach of using behaviour change theory (Capability, Opportunity and Motivation - COM.B) to align theory to practice.

RESULTS

Survey 1 (n =599) identified four barrier themes: time constraints, lack of HCP knowledge and skill, patient receptivity, and HCP's perceived value of RGCS. Survey 2 (n =358) identified 31 supports that could facilitate HCPs offering RGCS. Survey 3 (n =390) was analysed separately by speciality and clinic location. Prioritised supports for primary care HCPs were 'regular continuing professional development activities' and 'a comprehensive website to direct patients for information'. There was general accordance with the perceived importance of the supports, although some difference in relation to funding between professional groups and clinic locations.

CONCLUSION

This study identified a range of supports acceptable to HCPs across specialties and geographic locations that policymakers may use to direct efforts to ensure the roll out of RGCS is equitable across Australia.

An overview of reproductive carrier screening panels for autosomal recessive and/or X-linked conditions: How much do we know?

BACKGROUND & AIM

Reproductive carrier screening seeks to identify couples at a high risk of having offspring affected by autosomal recessive and X-linked (XL) conditions. The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of existing carrier screening panels by examining their gene content and characteristics, identifying the most common genes/conditions included in these panels, and analyzing their listed prices.

METHODS

A comprehensive evaluation of existing carrier screening panels was conducted by searching for web-based content, reviewing information brochures, and establishing direct contact with the providers via email or phone.

RESULTS

Twenty-two panels and their providers were identified with a cumulative total of 2205 unique genes. The number of genes included in these panels varied from 44 to 2054. Only 15 genes (0.7%) were included in all the panels. The carrier frequency of these 15 common genes and their associated conditions varied greatly, but the conditions associated with the genes are "severe". The price of these 22 panels ranged from $349 to $4320 per couple (USD in 2023). The correlation between the listed price and the number of selected genes among these panels was small and not statistically significant (r = 0.1023, p = 0.6959).

CONCLUSION

Considerable discrepancies exist among carrier screening panels. Ongoing research and monitoring are necessary to capture the dynamic nature of the carrier screening landscape, providing up-to-date information for clinical practice and informed decision-making.

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.

Incidence of and indications for sperm donor restriction - analysis of patients continuing treatment: a retrospective single-centre study

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the incidence of and indications for sperm donor restriction due to suspected/confirmed disease risk, and the future treatment choices of patients using these sperm donors?

DESIGN

This single-centre retrospective study involved donors who had restrictions on the use of their imported spermatozoa from January 2010 to December 2019, and current or previous recipients. Indications for sperm restriction and the characteristics of patients undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR) treatment with these specimens at the time of restriction were collected. Differential characteristics of women who decided on whether or not to contintue the procedure were assessed. Characteristics potentially leading to treatment continuation were identified.

RESULTS

Of 1124 sperm donors identified, 200 (17.8%) were restricted, most commonly for multifactorial (27.5%) and autosomal recessive (17.5%) disorders. The spermatozoa had been used for 798 recipients, of whom 172, receiving spermatozoa from 100 donors, were informed about the restriction and constituted the 'decision cohort'. The specimens from the restricted donors were accepted by 71 (approximately 40%) patients, with 45 (approximately 63%) eventually using the restricted donor for their future MAR treatment. The odds of accepting the restricted spermatozoa decreased with increasing age (OR 0.857, 95% CI 0.800-0.918, P < 0.001) and the time between MAR treatment and the restriction date (OR 0.806, 95% CI 0.713-0.911, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Donor restriction due to suspected/confirmed disease risk is relatively frequent. This affected a relevant number of women (around 800), of whom 172 (approximately 20%) had to decide whether or not to use these donors further. Although donor screening is being performed thoroughly, there remain health risks for donor children. Realistic counselling of all stakeholders involved is necessary.

A model for the return and referral of all clinically significant secondary findings of genomic sequencing

Secondary findings (SFs) identified through genomic sequencing (GS) can offer a wide range of health benefits to patients. Resource and capacity constraints pose a challenge to their clinical management; therefore, clinical workflows are needed to optimise the health benefits of SFs. In this paper, we describe a model we created for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs, beyond medically actionable results, from GS. As part of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the outcomes and costs of disclosing all clinically significant SFs from GS, we consulted genetics and primary care experts to determine a feasible workflow to manage SFs. Consensus was sought to determine appropriate clinical recommendations for each category of SF and which clinician specialist would provide follow-up care. We developed a communication and referral plan for each category of SFs. This involved referrals to specialised clinics, such as an Adult Genetics clinic, for highly penetrant medically actionable findings. Common and non-urgent SFs, such as pharmacogenomics and carrier status results for non-family planning participants, were directed back to the family physician (FP). SF results and recommendations were communicated directly to participants to respect autonomy and to their FPs to support follow-up of SFs. We describe a model for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs to facilitate the utility of GS and promote the health benefits of SFs. This may serve as a model for others returning GS results transitioning participants from research to clinical settings.

Defining core outcomes of reproductive genetic carrier screening: A Delphi survey of Australian and New Zealand stakeholders

OBJECTIVE

Understanding the value, benefits and harms of health interventions is needed to inform best practice and ensure responsible implementation of new approaches to patient care. Such value is demonstrated through the assessment of outcomes; however, which outcomes are assessed is often highly varied across studies and can hinder the ability to draw robust conclusions. The Core Outcome Development for Carrier Screening study aims to understand the outcomes that can meaningfully capture the value of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS).

METHOD

The authors report an iterative, two-round online Delphi survey of Australian and New Zealand stakeholders to determine the degree of consensus regarding the core outcomes of RGCS. Panellists ranked 83 outcomes according to their perceived importance on a nine-point Likert scale. Using the distribution of rankings, outcomes were grouped into tiers representative of their perceived level of importance and agreement between groups.

RESULTS

The top tier outcomes represent those agreed to be critically important for all future studies of RGCS to assess and were used to define a preliminary core outcome set encompassing the domains (1) primary laboratory outcomes, (2) pregnancy outcomes, (3) resource use and, (4) perceived utility of RGCS.

CONCLUSION

These findings can guide the selection of meaningful outcomes in studies aiming to demonstrate the value of RGCS. A future international consensus process will expand on these findings and guide the inclusion of diverse perspectives across the range of settings in which RGCS is offered.

Scaling-up and future sustainability of a national reproductive genetic carrier screening program

An understanding of factors influencing implementation is essential to realise the benefits of population-based reproductive genetic carrier screening programs. The aim of this study was to synthesise data collected during the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission) to track how priorities shifted over time and identify important factors during scaling-up and for sustainment. We used a multi-method qualitative approach to integrate longitudinal project data collected from 10 project committees with 16 semi-structured interviews conducted with study team members. Both datasets were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify constructs of interest within early, mid-point, and future implementation phases. Several CFIR constructs were present across implementation. The complexity of implementation presented challenges that were overcome through a quality-designed and packaged product, formal and informal networks and communication, and access to knowledge and information. Addressing the diverse consumer needs through resources and increasing community and non-genetic speciality engagement remained a priority throughout and for future sustainment. Going forward, further addressing program complexities and securing funding were emphasised. By applying an implementation framework, findings from this study may be useful for future effort towards building and/or sustaining reproductive genetic carrier screening programs.

Experiences of nonpregnant couples after receiving reproductive genetic carrier screening results in Belgium

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) allows for the identification of couples who have an increased likelihood of conceiving a child with a particular autosomal recessive or X-linked condition. The aim of this study was to assess the level of satisfaction, anxiety, knowledge retention, psychosocial and counseling-related aspects among couples who chose to have RGCS. Participants were initially informed about their screening results by telephone. After obtaining a written report of test results, participants were asked to complete an individual self-administered questionnaire. All participants (n = 67) felt they had enough information to make an informed choice. None of the participants regretted their choice to have RGCS. Test results were most often shared with parents (61%) or siblings (37%). Our findings demonstrate that the information/counseling and reporting strategy that was used in the context of this study led to high participant satisfaction, an increase in knowledge over time and favorable psychosocial and counseling-related outcomes.

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.

Attitudes of professional stakeholders towards implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening: a systematic review

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) for hundreds of different genetic conditions is technically available for prospective parents, but these tests have not been integrated in a public health policy except for specific sub-groups. We aimed to provide an overview of the perspectives of multiple professional stakeholder groups in order to enhance a responsible implementation of population-based reproductive genetic carrier screening. We conducted a systematic literature search using eight online databases focussing on studies that were published from January 2009 to January 2021. We selected articles dealing with attitudes and opinions from different professional stakeholders, in particular healthcare professionals and policymakers, on how to implement a policy about carrier screening for a reproductive purpose. We identified 18 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Based on our inductive analysis, we identified ten themes categorized in both clinical and program management challenges: ensuring availability of RGCS to all couples who request the test, embedding RGCS as a test offer before pregnancy, providing clear and reliable information, ensuring voluntary participation, developing genetic counselling pre- and post-testing (after positive or negative result), avoiding psychological harm, ensuring equal access, avoiding social pressure, educating and involving a broad spectrum of non-genetic health care professionals, and promoting an independent non-commercial organisational structure. We highlight one major stumbling block on how to responsibly inform couples about hundreds different genetic conditions within constraints regarding time and ability of non-genetic professionals. We promote further research to tackle the issues brought up by this systematic review through pilot studies. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2021 # CRD42021233762; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=233762 .

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Genetic Carrier Testing for Recessive Conditions

This Position Statement provides guidelines to assist all health professionals who receive requests for carrier testing and laboratory staff conducting the tests.In this Statement, the term 'carrier testing' refers to genetic testing in an individual to determine whether they have inherited a pathogenic variant associated with an autosomal or X-linked recessive condition previously identified in a blood relative. Carrier testing recommendations: (1) Carrier testing should only be performed with the individual's knowledge and consent; (2) An individual considering (for themselves, or on behalf of another) whether to have a carrier test should be supported to make an informed decision; (3) The mode of inheritance, the individual's personal experience with the condition, and the healthcare setting in which the test is being performed should be considered when determining whether carrier testing should be offered by a genetic health professional. Regarding children and young people: Unless there is direct medical benefit in the immediate future, the default position should be to postpone carrier testing until the child or young person can be supported to make an informed decision. There may be some specific situations where it is appropriate to facilitate carrier testing in children and young people (see section in this article). In such cases, testing should only be offered with pre- and post-test genetic counseling in which genetic health professionals and parents/guardians should explore the rationale for testing and the interests of the child and the family.

Expanded carrier screening for reproductive risk assessment: An evidence-based practice guideline from the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) intends to broadly screen healthy individuals to determine their reproductive chance for autosomal recessive (AR) and X-linked (XL) conditions with infantile or early-childhood onset, which may impact reproductive management (Committee Opinion 690, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2017, 129, e35). Compared to ethnicity-based screening, which requires accurate knowledge of ancestry for optimal test selection and appropriate risk assessment, ECS panels consist of tens to hundreds of AR and XL conditions that may be individually rare in various ancestries but offer a comprehensive approach to inherited disease screening. As such, the term "equitable carrier screening" may be preferable. This practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for ECS using the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework (Guyatt et al., BMJ, 2008, 336, 995; Guyatt et al., BMJ, 2008, 336, 924). We used evidence from a recent systematic evidence review (Ramdaney et al., Genetics in Medicine, 2022, 20, 374) and compiled data from peer-reviewed literature, scientific meetings, and clinical experience. We defined and prioritized the outcomes of informed consent, change in reproductive plans, yield in identification of at-risk carrier pairs/pregnancies, perceived barriers to ECS, amount of provider time spent, healthcare costs, frequency of severely/profoundly affected offspring, incidental findings, uncertain findings, patient satisfaction, and provider attitudes. Despite the recognized barriers to implementation and change in management strategies, this analysis supported implementation of ECS for these outcomes. Based upon the current level of evidence, we recommend ECS be made available for all individuals considering reproduction and all pregnant reproductive pairs, as ECS presents an ethnicity-based carrier screening alternative which does not rely on race-based medicine. The final decision to pursue carrier screening should be directed by shared decision-making, which takes into account specific features of patients as well as their preferences and values. As a periconceptional reproductive risk assessment tool, ECS is superior compared to ethnicity-based carrier screening in that it both identifies more carriers of AR and XL conditions as well as eliminates a single race-based medical practice. ECS should be offered to all who are currently pregnant, considering pregnancy, or might otherwise biologically contribute to pregnancy. Barriers to the broad implementation of and access to ECS should be identified and addressed so that test performance for carrier screening will not depend on social constructs such as race.

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.

Informed consent for expanded carrier screening: Past, present, and future

History, law, bioethics, and geocultural influences all have impacted the modern application of informed consent. It is a complex, multilayered process to communicate information and obtain voluntary patient permission before a health care intervention. Lack of provider education about genetic disorders, complexities of advanced genomic technologies, limited time during patient encounters, and low health literacy within a population all represent challenges to effective communication. There is no consensus on how informed consent in reproductive genetics is optimally obtained. Expanded carrier screening (ECS) is purposed to simultaneously test for a large list of diseases in a pan-ethnic manner. The increased use of ECS is driven by advances in genomic technologies, decreased cost, an improved understanding of single gene disorders, and in support of reproductive autonomy. Academic organizations recommend pretest counseling when patients consider ECS, yet best practice is not established. Ongoing research is needed to determine how optimally implement informed consent given the increased complexity of ECS.

Expanded carrier screening: What conditions should we screen for?

Carrier screening tests reproductive couples for their risk of having children affected by serious monogenic conditions. Carrier screening has historically been offered for certain conditions in high-risk populations. However, more recent evidence has shown that offering carrier screening to all patients, regardless of their ethnicity, more effectively and equitably identifies at-risk couples. Coupled with technology that enables screening for a nearly unlimited number of conditions, this expanded carrier screening (ECS) approach is now supported by professional society guidelines. Despite recent recommendations by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics to screen all patients who are pregnant or considering pregnancy for 113 conditions, questions remain about what conditions should be included on a core ECS panel. Here, we briefly review the history of carrier screening and guidelines on criteria for panel design. We then suggest which of these criteria are most critical, as well as thresholds to identify which conditions meet these criteria. Based on these interpretations, we recommend a core panel of 64 conditions that would identify the vast majority of at-risk couples. Widespread adoption of a core panel such as this would result in a marked improvement in the number of patients currently receiving comprehensive carrier screening.

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.

Rate of manifesting carriers and other unexpected findings on carrier screening

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain the rate of unexpected findings on carrier screening (CS) and assess whether implications are disclosed to patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational study of subjects who had CS after pre-test counseling from a licensed genetic counselor at a large tertiary care center. We quantified the rate of unexpected finding on CS, defined as manifesting carriers (MCs), genotypes predicting phenotype, and chromosome abnormalities. We determined how often patients were informed of implications. We performed subgroup analyses by type of unexpected finding and calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for carrier testing methodology (genotype) and number of genes tested.

RESULTS

A total of 4685 patients had CS over the selected time frame. Of those patients, 412 patients (8.8%) had one unexpected finding and 29 patients (0.6%) had two or more findings. In total, 466 unexpected findings were identified, including 437 MC conditions, 23 genotypes predicting phenotype, and 6 chromosome abnormalities. Patients were informed of the implications for MCs, genotypes predicting phenotype, and chromosome abnormalities in 27.6%, 91.3%, and 100% of cases, respectively. More unexpected findings were detected with sequencing compared to genotyping (OR 2.21 and 95% CI 1.76-2.76) and with ≥200 gene panels compared to <200 gene panels (OR 1.79 and 95% CI 1.47-2.17).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights that nondisclosure of unexpected findings on CS is common and underscores the need for further research to improve post-test counseling and follow-up.

Challenges for the implementation of next generation sequencing-based expanded carrier screening: Lessons learned from the ciliopathies

Next generation sequencing (NGS) can detect carrier status for rare recessive disorders, informing couples about their reproductive risk. The recent ACMG recommendations support offering NGS-based carrier screening (NGS-CS) in an ethnic and population-neutral manner for all genes that have a carrier frequency >1/200 (based on GnomAD). To evaluate current challenges for NGS-CS, we focused on the ciliopathies, a well-studied group of rare recessive disorders. We analyzed 118 ciliopathy genes by whole exome sequencing in ~400 healthy local individuals and ~1000 individuals from the UK1958-birth cohort. We found 20% of healthy individuals (1% of couples) to be carriers of reportable variants in a ciliopathy gene, while 50% (4% of couples) carry variants of uncertain significance (VUS). This large proportion of VUS is partly explained by the limited utility of the ACMG/AMP variant-interpretation criteria in healthy individuals, where phenotypic match or segregation criteria cannot be used. Most missense variants are thus classified as VUS and not reported, which reduces the negative predictive value of the screening test. We show how gene-specific variation patterns and structural protein information can help prioritize variants most likely to be disease-causing, for (future) functional assays. Even when considering only strictly pathogenic variants, the observed carrier frequency is substantially higher than expected based on estimated disease prevalence, challenging the 1/200 carrier frequency cut-off proposed for choice of genes to screen. Given the challenges linked to variant interpretation in healthy individuals and the uncertainties about true carrier frequencies, genetic counseling must clearly disclose these limitations of NGS-CS.

Experience using singleton exome sequencing of probands as an approach to preconception carrier screening in consanguineous couples

BACKGROUND

Consanguineous couples have an increased risk of severe diseases in offspring due to autosomal recessive disorders. Exome sequencing (ES) offers the possibility of extensive preconception carrier screening (PCS) in consanguineous couples who may be at risk of rare genetic disorders.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed ES data from 65 probands affected with rare genetic disorders born from consanguineous couples. We explored diagnostic yield and carrier status for recessive disorders.

RESULTS

The overall diagnostic yield in a singleton approach was 53.8%, mostly recessive variants. In a hypothetical exome-based PCS, only 11.7% of these causative rare variants would have been missed in the filtering process. Carrier screening for recessive conditions allowed the identification of at least one additional pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in 85.7% of the probands, being the majority with a gene carrier frequency <1 in 200. In addition, considering only clinically actionable conditions, we estimated that 12.3% of our close consanguineous couples may be at risk for an additional recessive disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that ES outperforms panel-based screening in a PCS context in consanguineous couples and could potentially increase their reproductive autonomy and facilitate informed decision-making.

Reproductive carrier screening: responding to the eugenics critique

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RCS), when offered to anyone regardless of their family history or ancestry, has been subject to the critique that it is a form of eugenics. Eugenics describes a range of practices that seek to use the science of heredity to improve the genetic composition of a population group. The term is associated with a range of unethical programmes that were taken up in various countries during the 20th century. Contemporary practice in medical genetics has, understandably, distanced itself from such programmes. However, as RCS becomes more widespread, gains public funding and uses expanded gene panels, there are concerns that such programmes could be perceived as eugenic either in intent or outcome. The typical response to the eugenics critique of RCS is to emphasise the voluntary nature of both participating in screening and making subsequent reproductive choices. While safeguarding individuals' freedom to choose in relation to screening is essential, we consider this response inadequate. By examining the specific ethical wrongs committed by eugenics in the past, we argue that to avoid the perception of RCS being a form of eugenics it is essential to attend to the broader normative context in which reproductive decisions occur. Furthermore, ethical RCS programmes must recognise and respond to their potential to shift societal norms that shape individual reproductive choices.

Incidence of Duchenne muscular dystrophy in the modern era; an Australian study

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), an X-linked recessive condition is maternally inherited in two-thirds of affected boys. It is important to establish carrier status of female relatives to restore reproductive confidence for non-carriers and facilitate reproductive options and cardiac surveillance for carriers. This study investigates disease incidence within an Australian model of cascade screening and evolving genetic diagnostic technologies. A retrospective population-based cohort study of all genetically and/or histopathologically confirmed males with DMD, born in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory was undertaken from 2002-2012. Cases were identified using state-wide molecular laboratory and clinical databases. The annual disease incidence and "theoretically" preventable cases were extrapolated over the study period. Proband genotype/phenotype, pedigree analysis, carrier-risk and extent of cascade screening were also determined. The cumulative incidence of disease was 19.7 per 100,000 male live births and 1 in 5076 live born males were diagnosed with DMD. Differences in disease incidence were not statistically different when compared between 2002-2007 and 2008-2012 (incidence rate ratio = 1.13, 95% CI 0.76-1.69, p = 0.52). The incidence rate ratio of theoretically preventable cases did not significantly change between 2002-2007 and 2008-2012 (incidence rate ratio = 2.07, 95% CI 0.58-9.21, p = 0.23). Current diagnostic and cascade screening models have limitations in their impact on disease incidence, due to a spectrum of logistical, patient and condition related factors. Innovative approaches to reduce DMD incidence may be better achieved by preconception or early pregnancy carrier screening, prenatal exome sequencing and newborn screening.

Views of reproductive genetic carrier screening participants regarding screening for genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss

OBJECTIVE

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) panels often include genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss (NSHL) despite a lack of evidence of acceptability. Although some couples take steps to avoid having a child who is deaf, there are effective interventions for children who are deaf. There is no consensus whether deafness is considered a disabling condition.

METHOD

This study explored views of people who had RGCS, without genes for NSHL, about this topic. Online surveys were sent to 2186 people who had a low chance RGCS result and 655 completed the survey (participation rate 30%).

RESULTS

Sixty-three percent (N = 412) think deafness is a serious health condition. The majority agreed (60%, N = 391) that with support (i.e. hearing aids/cochlear implants) deafness is a minor condition in children. Most (84%, N = 545) agreed genes for NSHL should be included in RGCS. Thirty-five percent (N = 231) indicated they would make different reproductive decisions if they had an increased chance of having a child born deaf; 31% would not change their reproductive plans and 34% were unsure what they would do.

CONCLUSION

While the majority support inclusion of genes associated with NSHL in RGCS, there was uncertainty about the severity of deafness as a health condition and there was no consensus on whether it is a health condition that warrants changing reproductive decisions.

Chloride Channel Mutations Leading to Congenital Myotonia

Congenital myotonia is a non-dystrophic musculoskeletal disease that causes abnormal muscle relaxation. The prevalence of congenital disorders is notably high in Iran, emphasizing the importance of genetic assessment in suspicious cases. In this study, we aim to report cases with the chloride channel gene, CLCN1, mutations leading to significant morbidity. This case report study investigated four patients from four families with clinically defined congenital myotonia. Inclusion criteria were increased creatinine kinase (CK) and muscle stiffness. We collected data regarding family history, age of onset, and current therapeutic plan. All patients underwent skeletal muscle electromyography, cardiological evaluation, spirometry study, and hematochemistry assessment, including but not limited to muscle enzyme levels. Afterward, DNA was extracted from peripheral blood. Subsequently, whole exome sequencing (WES) and Sanger sequencing were done to detect and confirm variants, respectively. Age of onset ranged from 1 to 12 years in these patients, which are years apart from their first visit to the clinic. The warm-up phenomenon was present in all of them. A variant of uncertain clinical significance was found. We recommend that future research projects should study the efficiency of collaboration between clinicians, molecular geneticists, and other healthcare providers in order to find out about unclear variants as quickly as possible.

The more you do it, the easier it gets: using behaviour change theory to support health care professionals offering reproductive genetic carrier screening

Recent advances in genomic sequencing have improved the accessibility of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). As awareness and interest grows, non-genetic health care professionals are increasingly offering RGCS to consumers. We conducted a qualitative interview study informed by behaviour change theory to identify influences on health care professionals considered as 'early adopters' offering RGCS through Mackenzie's Mission, an Australian national research study investigating the implementation of free RGCS to couple's preconception or in early pregnancy. Interviews were deductively analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to examine barriers and enabling factors. In total, we interviewed 31 health care professionals, who were primarily general practitioners (n = 23) offering RGCS through Mackenzie's Mission. Upon analysis, 15 barriers and 44 enablers to implementation were identified and categorised across three health care professional target behaviours 1. Engaging with RGCS, 2. Identifying eligible patients, and 3. Offering RGCS. Whilst all Theoretical Domains Framework domains were present, barriers were predominantly categorised as 'Environmental Context and Resources' e.g., lack of time, followed by 'Knowledge' e.g., lack of understanding about genetics and 'Beliefs about Capabilities' e.g., concern about giving high risk results to patients. Although health care professionals expressed a preference for offering RGCS through a comprehensive and supported model of care, such as Mackenzie's Mission, barriers remain. By understanding what drives current health care professionals' behaviour towards offering RGCS, behaviour change theory provides an avenue to direct future efforts based on evidence and improve service delivery.

Couple screening for recessively inherited disorders

Couple screening aims to identify couples with an increased risk of having a child affected with an autosomal recessive or X-linked disorder, in order to facilitate informed reproductive decision making. Both expectant parents should be screened as a single entity, instead of individual testing. Carrier testing was typically performed for a few relatively common recessive disorders associated with significant morbidity, reduced life expectancy and often because of a considerably higher carrier frequency in a specific population for certain diseases. However, new genetic testing technologies enable the expansion of screening to multiple conditions, genes and sequence variants. There are multiple reproductive options for screening couples at risk, particularly when genetic traits are detected in the preconception period.

Exploring informed choice in preconception reproductive genetic carrier screening by using a modified Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice

OBJECTIVES

To explore informed choice in reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS).

METHODS

Women visiting a gynaecologist practice in Flanders (Belgium) were asked to consider participation in a study where RGCS was offered for free to them and their male partner. A modified Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice was used to determine whether couples who opted for RGCS made an informed choice. In addition, we assessed risk perception, feelings towards RGCS, anxiety and decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Most participants (82 %, n = 63/77) made an informed choice with regard to RGCS according to our modified MMIC. Thirteen participants made an uninformed choice due to insufficient knowledge and one participant because of insufficient knowledge and value-inconsistency. Anxiety scores were elevated for three participants. Two participants presented with decisional conflict.

CONCLUSION

Our results show high rates of informed choice among non-pregnant couples who were offered RGCS in a research study and received up to 30 min of pre-test counseling.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Limited resources outside a research context may impact informed choice. Pre-test counselling initiatives for RGCS should ideally be organized in such a way that information can be provided at multiple time points to avoid information overload and to allow for a reflection period.

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.

Knowledge, attitudes and preferences regarding reproductive genetic carrier screening among reproductive-aged men and women in Flanders (Belgium)

Through carrier screening couples at-risk of conceiving a child with an autosomal recessive or X-linked condition can be identified prior to conception. The aim of this study was to assess knowledge, attitudes and preferences regarding reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) among reproductive-aged men and women in Flanders (Belgium). Women and men of reproductive age visiting their pharmacist were invited to answer a self-administered questionnaire. Prior to filling in the questionnaire, participants were asked to read an information leaflet explaining some key concepts about RGCS. Our sample included 387 individuals of reproductive age, of which 68.5% were female and 31.5% were male. Most of the participants were below 34 years old (72.9%), didn't have children (68.6%) and were currently in a relationship (69.1%). Offering RGCS to couples that want to have children was found acceptable by 86% of participants. However, fewer participants would consider RGCS for themselves in the future (61%). We observed a positive correlation between attitude score/knowledge score and the intention to have RGCS. Half of the participants (50.9%) preferred the disclosure of individual test results. Most of participants indicated that RGCS should be offered through the gynecologist (81.1%), followed by the GP (71.5%) and the Centre for Human Genetics (64.8%). About 68.9% of participants were willing to pay out-of-pocket for an RGCS test. We recommend that RGCS should ideally be implemented through a tailored implementation strategy whereby individual needs and preferences can be taken into account.

The Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission): Design and Implementation

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) provides people with information about their chance of having children with autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic conditions, enabling informed reproductive decision-making. RGCS is recommended to be offered to all couples during preconception or in early pregnancy. However, cost and a lack of awareness may prevent access. To address this, the Australian Government funded Mackenzie’s Mission—the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project. Mackenzie’s Mission aims to assess the acceptability and feasibility of an easily accessible RGCS program, provided free of charge to the participant. In study Phase 1, implementation needs were mapped, and key study elements were developed. In Phase 2, RGCS is being offered by healthcare providers educated by the study team. Reproductive couples who provide consent are screened for over 1200 genes associated with >750 serious, childhood-onset genetic conditions. Those with an increased chance result are provided comprehensive genetic counseling support. Reproductive couples, recruiting healthcare providers, and study team members are also invited to complete surveys and/or interviews. In Phase 3, a mixed-methods analysis will be undertaken to assess the program outcomes, psychosocial implications and implementation considerations alongside an ongoing bioethical analysis and a health economic evaluation. Findings will inform the implementation of an ethically robust RGCS program.

Genetic Counselling Needs for Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: A Scoping Review

Reproductive genetic carrier screening provides individuals and couples with information regarding their risk of having a child affected by an autosomal recessive or X-linked recessive genetic condition. This information allows them the opportunity to make reproductive decisions in line with their own beliefs and values. Traditionally, carrier screening has been accessed by family members of affected individuals. In recent years, improvements to accessibility and updates to recommendations suggest that all women planning or in early pregnancy should be offered reproductive genetic carrier screening. As uptake moves towards the population scale, how can the genetic counselling needs of such large-scale screening be met? A scoping review of the literature was performed to ascertain what the genetic counselling needs of reproductive genetic carrier screening are, and what future research is needed. Four broad themes were identified in the existing literature: (1) The offer-when and in what context to offer screening; (2) Information-the importance of and what to include in education, and pre- and post-test counselling; (3) Who and how-who the genetic counselling is performed by and how; (4) Personalization-how do we find the balance between standardized and individualized approaches? Based on the existing literature, we present a set of recommendations for consideration in implementing population-scale reproductive genetic carrier screening as well as suggested areas for future research.

Carrier screening: An update

Genetic carrier screening (CS) for reproductive decision making was introduced 50 years ago. Technological advances and improvements in knowledge of the human genome makes multi-disease, pan-ethnic CS possible. Such screening will identify most individuals as carriers of at least one autosomal recessive or X-linked recessive disorder. Past experiences and best practices have provided a framework for CS. Although its clinical utilization is increasing, some challenges remain. In this study, several aspects of CS panel implementation have been addressed including how to evaluate the quantitative gene inclusion criteria, how to classify the severity of genetic conditions, how to understand clinical validity at the level of gene-disease association and variant classification, and how to minimize residual risks.